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

[frenin]

3 minutes ago, illrede said:

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

Jaeharys?

[illrede]

5 minutes ago, frenin said:

Jaeharys?

Off the top of my head I have some recollection of a scandal involving one of his kids' friends, and that's just on a personal level.

[frenin]

2 minutes ago, illrede said:

Off the top of my head I have some recollection of a scandal involving one of his kids' friends, and that's just on a personal level.

His kid's friends were adults, the one he killed at least. Not infants and toddlers.

So you gotta dig better.

[illrede]

15 minutes ago, illrede said:

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.

And I mean, look at. Robert's rotting corpse survived the best Viserys could do after getting everything handed to him. What's going to finish his Dynasty in power is going to be the Targaryen name becoming a jump ball and the Free Cities condotierri making a traditional bid once that becomes an option.

[EggBlue]

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 don't think Jon Arryn's problem was killing children . it's giving him too much credit if we think he was like Ned ! after all , he's the man who also raised Robert Baratheon . the way I read the character of Jon Arryn , he's the guy who worries himself about the perception of honor more than actually being honorable . I think a good way to get to the core values in characters in this story , is to look at their family mottos. Jon Arryn's is "as high as honor" , he may not be Tywin Lannister , the proud lion , but he too is extremely proud and being known as honorable (the highest thing in Arryn vocabulary) is just an aspect of his pride .  when he sees half Dornish princes are dead , he was probably more than happy that he doesn't have to deal with that headache . but when it came to ordering the death of two orphan princes with almost zero support , I believe the desire to be seen as honorable outweighed the necessity for murdering a child and a newborn baby . 

[illrede]

8 minutes ago, frenin said:

His kid's friends were adults, the one he killed at least. Not infants and toddlers.

So you gotta dig better.

Not really. He'd be a freak if he didn't allow for children dying as a process crime to something that needed to be done. "Took a chill" covers most of it. Westeros has monastic equivalents that allow disposing of infants and toddlers with some amicability if don't need to certain. Having to obliterate a family line doesn't come up often, though.

 

EDIT: And Viserys was always old enough to be a relevant actor besides.

[frenin]

19 minutes ago, illrede said:

And I mean, look at. Robert's rotting corpse survived the best Viserys could do after getting everything handed to him. What's going to finish his Dynasty in power is going to be the Targaryen name becoming a jump ball and the Free Cities condotierri making a traditional bid once that becomes an option.

The situation is not the same, the decisions taken by the involved parties are not the same so your fixation to bringing this references are just weird.

What's going to end his dynasty is Cersei having bastards and starting a brutal civil war that practically consumes to ashes the coalition that put him in the throne. Viserys and Faegon are happy accident.

 

14 minutes ago, illrede said:

Not really. He'd be a freak if he didn't allow for children dying as a process crime to something that needed to be done.

But he did not do that and we never have any hint that he would have done so...

 

Quote

EDIT: And Viserys was always old enough to be a relevant actor besides.

He was what 8yo when he was exiled? He wasn't.

He was an infant.

16 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

I don't think Jon Arryn's problem was killing children . it's giving him too much credit if we think he was like Ned ! after all , he's the man who also raised Robert Baratheon .

I don't think Robert's vices had anything to do with Jon Arryn. especially having in mind that he also raised Ned who was nothing like his own siblings and with that honor nonsense.

 

 

[SeanF]

6 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

I don't think Jon Arryn's problem was killing children . it's giving him too much credit if we think he was like Ned ! after all , he's the man who also raised Robert Baratheon . the way I read the character of Jon Arryn , he's the guy who worries himself about the perception of honor more than actually being honorable . I think a good way to get to the core values in characters in this story , is to look at their family mottos. Jon Arryn's is "as high as honor" , he may not be Tywin Lannister , the proud lion , but he too is extremely proud and being known as honorable (the highest thing in Arryn vocabulary) is just an aspect of his pride .  when he sees half Dornish princes are dead , he was probably more than happy that he doesn't have to deal with that headache . but when it came to ordering the death of two orphan princes with almost zero support , I believe the desire to be seen as honorable outweighed the necessity for murdering a child and a newborn baby . 

If you’ve ever watched Casino, the bosses are all worried about the arrest of Andy Stone, the head of the Teamsters’ Union.

Everyone is saying Andy’s a stand up guy, he won’t talk, guy’s a fucking marine.

Till, they get to Remo.  He shrugs, then remarks “Look, why take the chance?”.

That’s how I view the attitude towards killing royal children in this world.

[frenin]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

That’s how I view the attitude towards killing royal children in this world.

It seems that Arryn, Davos and Ned disagree.

Killing children seems also abnormaly cruel in a world where penal colonies exist or taking the robes are options. Seems cruelty for the sake of it.

[EggBlue]

28 minutes ago, frenin said:

I don't think Robert's vices had anything to do with Jon Arryn. especially having in mind that he also raised Ned who was nothing like his own siblings and with that honor nonsense.

no , I'm not saying Jon Arryn is fully responsible for how Robert turned out . but he raised both Robert and Ned . Ned seemed to inherit a combination of beliefs and standards from Arryns and Starks (he also puts Jon Arryn on a pedestal which is why he is so surprised to see the treasury is such a mess despite Jon A's authority). this should be the same for Robert , especially that when he really started screwing up, Jon Arryn was right by his side . so , I personally think we shouldn't take it as grounded that Jon A has the same standards as Ned , considering Ned quarreled with Robert over injustice , while Jon A is the guy who decided to reward Tywin after the murders by not only the Cersei marriage , but also by bringing so many Lannister supporters to the court and handing over the power to Lannisters over the years . 

[frenin]

16 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

no , I'm not saying Jon Arryn is fully responsible for how Robert turned out . but he raised both Robert and Ned . Ned seemed to inherit a combination of beliefs and standards from Arryns and Starks (he also puts Jon Arryn on a pedestal which is why he is so surprised to see the treasury is such a mess despite Jon A's authority). this should be the same for Robert , especially that when he really started screwing up, Jon Arryn was right by his side . so , I personally think we shouldn't take it as grounded that Jon A has the same standards as Ned , considering Ned quarreled with Robert over injustice , while Jon A is the guy who decided to reward Tywin after the murders by not only the Cersei marriage.

Jon Arryn seemed more pragmatic than Ned and considered that if they were to survive that some concesions needed ot be made, the Martells not only wanted the Lannisters heads but also Robert's... so completely bringing them to the Baratheon camp was impossible, which left the Lannisters as the go to option.

18 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

but also by bringing so many Lannister supporters to the court and handing over the power to Lannisters over the years  

 

1. That's entirely Robert's issue and the fact that he'd rather say yes to whatever Cersei had to say to shut her up than Jon Arryn.
2. The "court is filled with Lannisters" is an overused trope, it's not only not true but the most capital Lannister ally is Pycelle and he was pardoned by Robert. Most of the courtiers are either men Robert's friends or vassals, his brothers or Jon Arryn's friends or vassals,  Petyr did an oopsie, the Lannisters in no way or shape dominated Robert's court, Ned simply seemed to think that because for him three Lannisters near him was three many Lannisters in the world. 
3. The power the Lannister have is again entirely depends on Robert listening to his wife.

 

24 minutes ago, EggBlue said:

this should be the same for Robert , especially that when he really started screwing up, Jon Arryn was right by his side . so , I personally think we shouldn't take it as grounded that Jon A has the same standards as Ned ,

Eh.

As show Robert says "I thought that being king was doing everything one wants". 

[SeanF]

9 hours ago, frenin said:

It seems that Arryn, Davos and Ned disagree.

Killing children seems also abnormaly cruel in a world where penal colonies exist or taking the robes are options. Seems cruelty for the sake of it.

I do accept, there are viable alternatives to killing them, in real medieval societies, as well.  Most Eastern emperors contented themselves with sending the children of defeated rivals (and sometimes even those defeated rivals) into the church, or betrothing them to their supporters.