Why Robert Didn't Offer a Lordship for Viserys and Daenerys?

[Corvo the Crow]

19 hours ago, The Gizzard of Oz said:

Jon Arryn was the voice of reason, and the brains, of Robert's government.  Deep in his heart, I think Jon Arryn must have known it would be immoral to do so.  Jon and Eddard know the truth.  Lyanna Stark ran away on her own to avoid Robert.  A Stark started the war.  Prince Viserys, Queen Rhaella, and Princess Daenerys were innocent victims.  The rebels were the bad guys in that war. 

Yeah, it's not like frying people, highborn especially, is a bad thing or anything. In fact they should've done it annualy, each year they should've picked one Lord Paramount a dozen of the higher lords and a hundred lesser ones and landed knights to burn to celebrate the glorious reign of Targaryens.

[Corvo the Crow]

On 12/9/2022 at 2:43 AM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Daenerys, Viserys, and Willem were under the protection of the Sealord of Braavos.  He would have sent a Faceless Man to assassinate Robert if he had done such a terrible thing.  Daenerys came from the family who were the Empresses and Emperors of the Great Empire of the Dawn.  The crime will be unforgivable because Robert will be guilty of attacking the Gods.

If anything, Sealord of Braavos bearing witness to Viserys betrothal is poor writing, considering all the info world building, however poor, gives us. It is no coincidence that such a thing is only written in AFFC as many stuff written in it has a very odd feeling, not connecting well with the already established lore and plot.

[Craving Peaches]

The Sealord being a witness doesn't mean he supports the Targaryens, it just means that Oberyn and Darry saw him as a neutral party and he agreed to be a witness. But it still seems odd that he would agree and potentially put people at risk for the descendants of proto-fascist incest-eugenics-slaving-practicing tyrants whom the Faceless Men likely wiped out last time. Wouldn't they want to finish the job?

[StarkTullies]

On 12/8/2022 at 6:43 PM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Daenerys came from the family who were the Empresses and Emperors of the Great Empire of the Dawn.

The "history" of this world is written vaguely by maesters and others who don't know what "really happened", and the farther back we go, the less we know about its true history.  We know next to nothing about the Great Empire of the Dawn other than legends and myth.  In George Martin's mind, it likely did not exist.

We don't know much about the first Valyrians either, but what "legends" say is that they began as shepherds in the volcano chain.  I heard no claim that Valyrians are surviving remnants from a previous empire.  There is no reason to believe that the Valyrians were descended from this most-likely imaginary (in a fictional context) empire.  The Targaryens were the least of the Valyrian dragonlords anyway.

If the empire did exist, then probably most of the population of Essos (and perhaps half of Westeros as well) descended from them one way or another.  That's how family trees are: they grow exponentially (unless they are incestuous racists who only procreate with their siblings to "keep their blood pure").

On 12/8/2022 at 6:43 PM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

The crime will be unforgivable because Robert will be guilty of attacking the Gods.

How about the crime will be unforgiveable because Viserys and Daenerys were children, or because they were Robert's (distant) kin?  Another crime that is unforgiveable in the sight of gods and men is inviting men into your home as presumed guests and then massacring them... something "the Lord of the Crossing" is guilty of 3500 times over and his unforgiveable sin will certainly be reckoned with.

The Targaryens are not gods.  It is their belief that they are closer to gods than men, racially superior to all others so they must fornicate with their siblings to keep their "superior" blood pure.  It is not fact.  I hardly think that George Martin is writing Nazi propaganda that a family which believes they are racially superior, silver-haired purple-eyed gods entitled to rule over lesser men actually are racially superior, silver-haired purple-eyed gods entitled to rule over lesser men.

On 12/9/2022 at 1:13 PM, The Gizzard of Oz said:

Lyanna Stark ran away on her own to avoid Robert.  A Stark started the war.  Prince Viserys, Queen Rhaella, and Princess Daenerys were innocent victims.  The rebels were the bad guys in that war. 

If Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna, he is 100% responsible for Lyanna's disappearance.  If Lyanna went with him willingly (which is what I think), Rhaegar is at least 50% responsible for Lyanna's disappearance.  If Lyanna "started a war" by not wanting to marry a womanizer (an absurd notion), Rhaegar- a Targaryen- is equally responsible for "starting the war".

But that didn't start the war.  The war started because Mad King Aerys demanded the execution of Jon Arryn's wards, and Jon Arryn rightfully didn't comply.

Rhaella died in childbirth, not in war.  Viserys and Daenerys were innocent victims for being chased into exile, but they survived the war.  Rickard Stark was an innocent victim who did not survive the war, murdered by a lunatic king. 

Very few wars have "good guys", but the royalists were definitely on the wrong side of that war.

[James West]

The Targaryens are the royal family of Westeros.  Viserys was the King of Westeros.  Only scums as filthy as Jaime Lannister would accept a bargain like that.  Anyway the Targaryens surely had a Guardian Angel following them around.  Varys was the Angel in King's Landing looking out for them.  I am sure he was not alone.  

[Alden Rothack]

5 hours ago, James West said:

The Targaryens are the royal family of Westeros.  Viserys was the King of Westeros.  Only scums as filthy as Jaime Lannister would accept a bargain like that.  Anyway the Targaryens surely had a Guardian Angel following them around.  Varys was the Angel in King's Landing looking out for them.  I am sure he was not alone.  

Viserys was never king, he was at best a pretender and never a serious one

varys was looking out for them for his own reasons that is true

[Corvo the Crow]

9 hours ago, James West said:

The Targaryens are the royal family of Westeros.  Viserys was the King of Westeros.  Only scums as filthy as Jaime Lannister would accept a bargain like that.  Anyway the Targaryens surely had a Guardian Angel following them around.  Varys was the Angel in King's Landing looking out for them.  I am sure he was not alone.  

Beggar King who is nothing more than a pawn in Varys and Illyrio’s Blackfyre Installation plot.

[StarkTullies]

12 hours ago, James West said:

The Targaryens are the royal family of Westeros.

No, they were the royal family of Westeros.  They aren't anymore.  The Targaryens gained their reign by conquest, and they lost their reign by conquest.

12 hours ago, James West said:

Viserys was the King of Westeros.

Why were three kingsguards guarding Lyanna and her infant, and zero kingsguards guarding Viserys?  It seems that the kingsguards disagree with you.

Regardless, the "rightful Targaryen heir", whoever that is, lost their claim to the throne when the Targaryens were overthrown.

12 hours ago, James West said:

Only scums as filthy as Jaime Lannister would accept a bargain like that.

I agree with you that someone who bargains to murder children is scummy.  Jaime Lannister is not the most virtuous of characters, but I assume you specifically called him out because Jaime saved thousands of lives in Kings Landing by killing the Mad King?  That was certainly a good deed.

12 hours ago, James West said:

Anyway the Targaryens surely had a Guardian Angel following them around.  Varys was the Angel in King's Landing looking out for them.  I am sure he was not alone.  

All of the Targaryens were being watched by angels?  They sure did a bad job.  Rhaegar died in battle, his two children were brutally murdered, Aerys was killed by his own guard, Rhaella died in childbirth, and Viserys was eventally killed by his own sister's "sun and stars".  That leaves Jon and Daenerys.  Jon had a great "guardian angel" in Ned Stark, but Dany's angel (Willem Darry) didn't last very long.

Varys looks out for himself... and he never looked out for Daenerys.  We don't know what his true motives are, but it seems that he supports Young Griff/Aegon.  He only supported Daenerys as the future wife of Aegon, but since Tyrion's interference wrecked those plans, he has no reason to support Daenerys at all anymore.  I feel somewhat confident in assuming that you believe that Aegon is fake... in which case Varys is not supporting any Targaryen.

Regardless, there is nothing "angelic" about Varys.  Trying to destroy the realm so it will be easy for Aegon to swoop in and claim the throne is despicable.  You don't make things worse as a means to "make things better" and get called an angel.  For whatever reason Varys supports Aegon, it isn't "for the good of the realm".

[illrede]

On 12/10/2022 at 2:32 AM, frenin said:

Again, this sounds like wishful thinking, most would be pretenders were under the care of wealthy patrons. Bravoosi washed their hands with that affair.

There's nothing that hints they were keeping tabs on him, nothing to say they still cared. Except the faith that they did, they can run their own debts while still be cared for, they were left on their own.

 

But again, let's say Robert does go through it and kills the children on Bravoosi soil. 

Do you really believe Braavos would cut its nose to spite its face? Sounds insane to me.

 

 

Minor Necromancy!

 

What they are doing with Stannis now, is what they stood to be able to do with Viserys then, and that situation was his use to them, which is a conventional situation. If it sounds inexplicable to you, you aren't throwing your mind around the right corner. Think like state actors have. We don't have to imagine them being potentially interested, we have a Sea Lord standing witness to an official document vouching for Viserys' relevance for this sort of thing. (Perkin Walbeck made do with much less, just the spite of a Duchess of Flanders). If Rob had pulled a Cersei before Viserys passed beyond mortal reach, Viserys potentially finds himself with Iron Bank patronage. I'd hazard it gets more likely if they can put a minder on him.

[EggBlue]

On 12/7/2022 at 8:04 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

As the title says. Lordships can be granted at a whim, even Varys is a lord and Lands and titles are aplenty, especially after wars. Why Robert(or rather, his council) didn't offer a lordship for Dany and Viserys, dead or alive? Why he didn't use diplomatic channels with Braavosi etc. are also different matters that begs questioning. You aid and abed the number one pretender to my realm? Ok, no trade with you. Plain and simple. It's not like any of these free cities can break the embargo through force at arms either. Sure Braavosi are the most powerful naval power but they barely forced Pentos into the antislavery treaty, if Braavos attacks the Iron Throne, not only is it bad for the trade but also weakens them against the slaving free cities and the rest of the cities stand even less of a chance against IT than Braavos does. 

why would he ? they were two orphans in the care of an old master-at-arms who wasn't particularly known as his political intelligence . they were absolutely no threat to Robert , so much so that he'd be forced to play nice instead of letting them slowly dive into poverty.

[EggBlue]

On 12/10/2022 at 5:50 PM, Craving Peaches said:

The Sealord being a witness doesn't mean he supports the Targaryens, it just means that Oberyn and Darry saw him as a neutral party and he agreed to be a witness. But it still seems odd that he would agree and potentially put people at risk for the descendants of proto-fascist incest-eugenics-slaving-practicing tyrants whom the Faceless Men likely wiped out last time. Wouldn't they want to finish the job?

 aaaaand ... here Aenar Targaryen's part in the doom of Valyria comes to mind . great man , Aenar . except his polygamy issue , that's disgusting . 

[frenin]

48 minutes ago, illrede said:

What they are doing with Stannis now, is what they stood to be able to do with Viserys then, and that situation was his use to them, which is a conventional situation

Except they let Viserys to rot, they did not fund his campaign nor ever hinted a desire to do so.

 

50 minutes ago, illrede said:

If Rob had pulled a Cersei before Viserys passed beyond mortal reach, Viserys potentially finds himself with Iron Bank patronage. I'd hazard it gets more likely if they can put a minder on him.

If Robert were ever to pull a Cersei, he'd likely kill the only claimants to the throne. 

Which is exactly my point, if Robert were ever to kill the Targlings, the Sealord may protest but he's certainly not about to lose one of his biggest customers.

[SeanF]

On 12/10/2022 at 3:20 PM, Craving Peaches said:

The Sealord being a witness doesn't mean he supports the Targaryens, it just means that Oberyn and Darry saw him as a neutral party and he agreed to be a witness. But it still seems odd that he would agree and potentially put people at risk for the descendants of proto-fascist incest-eugenics-slaving-practicing tyrants whom the Faceless Men likely wiped out last time. Wouldn't they want to finish the job?

He's keeping his government's options open.  Had the Targaryens been enemies to Braavos, no doubt he would have finished Dany and Viserys off on his own initiative.

But, when your government has enjoyed 300 years of mostly cordial relations with a particular ruling family, why would you care about what their ancestors did in the very distant past.  It would be like the UK bearing a grudge against Italy because of the Roman conquest.

[SeanF]

The puzzle for me is *why* Jon Arryn objected to killing Viserys and Dany on moral grounds.

He seems to have had no issue with the killing of Elia and her children.  He went to Dorne to lie to the Martells that no one knew who was responsible.  And, he thought it prudent to reward Tywin for doing the deed.

So, what exactly was his objection to tying up this loose end?  It’s not as if he’d have to clear it with Ned, in advance.

[astarkchoice]

46 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The puzzle for me is *why* Jon Arryn objected to killing Viserys and Dany on moral grounds.

He seems to have had no issue with the killing of Elia and her children.  He went to Dorne to lie to the Martells that no one knew who was responsible.  And, he thought it prudent to reward Tywin for doing the deed.

So, what exactly was his objection to tying up this loose end?

Theres a big difference in actualy having kids killed and arriving after they are dead and sucking it up making the best of a bad situation no matter how distasteful

[SeanF]

7 minutes ago, astarkchoice said:

Theres a big difference in actualy having kids killed and arriving after they are dead and sucking it up making the best of a bad situation no matter how distasteful

He doesn’t have to do it himself.  Just give the nod to a subordinate who can arrange it.

[astarkchoice]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

He doesn’t have to do it himself.  Just give the nod to a subordinate who can arrange it.

Its still signing off on it for a man of honour its the same

By contrast working with someone who has killed kids (big daddy lannister)  to stabilize the regime is something to be stomached

[frenin]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

The puzzle for me is *why* Jon Arryn objected to killing Viserys and Dany on moral grounds.

Because he doesn't like killing children?

 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

He seems to have had no issue with the killing of Elia and her children.  He went to Dorne to lie to the Martells that no one knew who was responsible.

There's absolutely no indication that he was fine with it or that it would have been the course of action he would have take, once it was a done deal however he made the best of what he had.

 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

And, he thought it prudent to reward Tywin for doing the deed.

Disagree, Cersei was marrying Robert in any scenario in which Lyanna wasn't  found alive. She's the biggest prize by far and is essential, or at least in theory, to solidify the new dynasty.

There was no way to reconcile the Martells and the Baratheons, he could make it work with the Lannisters.

 

 

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

So, what exactly was his objection to tying up this loose end?  It’s not as if he’d have to clear it with Ned, in advance.

He never killed children.

 

21 minutes ago, SeanF said:

He doesn’t have to do it himself.  Just give the nod to a subordinate who can arrange it.

It is still killing children tho, which is obviously a no for him.

Maybe and only maybe the rebels were not as devilish as you want them to be and they had no intention of actually killing children till they found themselves with dead children bodies...

 

 

Quote

why would you care about what their ancestors did in the very distant past.

 

Quote

"The Lysene pirate? Some say he has returned to his old haunts, this is so. And Lord Redwyne's war fleet creeps through the Broken Arm as well. On its way home, no doubt. But these men and their ships are well-known to us. No, these other sails … from farther east, perhaps … one hears queer talk of dragons."
"Would that we had one here. A dragon might warm things up a bit."
"My lord jests. You will forgive me if I do not laugh. We Braavosi are descended from those who fled Valyria and the wroth of its dragonlords. We do not jape of dragons."

 

[illrede]

10 hours ago, SeanF said:

The puzzle for me is *why* Jon Arryn objected to killing Viserys and Dany on moral grounds.

He seems to have had no issue with the killing of Elia and her children.  He went to Dorne to lie to the Martells that no one knew who was responsible.  And, he thought it prudent to reward Tywin for doing the deed.

So, what exactly was his objection to tying up this loose end?  It’s not as if he’d have to clear it with Ned, in advance.

I recall there was a point that House Tudor put a pause on their Plantagenet Extermination campaign because the guy after the next guy up was a daunting prospect (off being war hero in Hungary with some powerful friends). Part of the negotiations for the Spanish Marriage meant pulling the trigger anyway, though (...that Ferdinand. He made faithless dealing a vocation). Could be a vote of no-confidence in Viserys vs. Aryn's conception of the sort of thing that is right now the Young Griff plotline.

[illrede]

9 hours ago, frenin said:

Because he doesn't like killing children?

 

People that don't kill children for reasons of state don't die old men with a generation of power over a continent.