How Come Robert Didn't cut Himself on the Iron Throne?

[Adam Targaryen]

On 7/6/2023 at 6:28 AM, Corvo the Crow said:

Robert really isn’t the person to keep a temper though he would also move as a result of  all sorts of things from losing temper to bursting into a laughing fit.

I really don't think so. I think the matters would be so tedious and he would mostly be so tired and drunk after the first four or five petitions that he'd just sit there still and wait for the minutes to tick on by... He mostly only becomes like young old roaring Robert when he goes to the North to see his old friend Ned again, I would say. Especially, he'd not be feeling angry or cheerful in the Throne Room, almost only melancholic or bored perhaps.  

[sifth]

Because Robert was a worthy king. The Iron Throne said as much, lol

[Roswell]

Some people are clumsy and don't pay attention to their surroundings.  Robert was an athletic guy.  He knew how to avoid the sharp edges.  Character had nothing to do with it. 

[Daeron the Daring]

On 10/12/2023 at 3:32 AM, sifth said:

Because Robert was a worthy king. The Iron Throne said as much, lol

By that logic, Aenys I, Aegon II, Aemond, Aegon IV or Maekar I were all worthy to sit on it, according to the IT.

[Alester Florent]

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

By that logic, Aenys I, Aegon II, Aemond, Aegon IV or Maekar I were all worthy to sit on it, according to the IT.

What was wrong with Maekar?

I think the fanbase is too harsh on Robert in many respects. He wasn't a great king by any means, especially by the end, but I'd say he was nearer the middle of the pack than the bottom, and his early reign (at least up to and including the Greyjoy rebellion) seems to have been fine.

[Lee-Sensei]

2 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

By that logic, Aenys I, Aegon II, Aemond, Aegon IV or Maekar I were all worthy to sit on it, according to the IT.

Maekar was definitely worthy as far as I'm concerned.

[sifth]

3 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

By that logic, Aenys I, Aegon II, Aemond, Aegon IV or Maekar I were all worthy to sit on it, according to the IT.

Maekar seemed like an alright king. 

[Daeron the Daring]

1 hour ago, sifth said:

Maekar seemed like an alright king. 

I honestly like the character of Maekar, but you could certainly make the argument that he bears responsibility for his older brother not becoming king, hence why he might not deserve to sit on it in return.

If we're willing to accept the concept of the Iron Throne having a parameter by which it judges people that sit on it, it's definitely not any harder to swallow the concept that all kinslayers are doomed (and deserve to pay for it), even those who do it unintentionally, since it's the greatest sin known to the society of Westeros. 

3 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

I think the fanbase is too harsh on Robert in many respects. He wasn't a great king by any means, especially by the end, but I'd say he was nearer the middle of the pack than the bottom, and his early reign (at least up to and including the Greyjoy rebellion) seems to have been fine.

A deeply flawed man, one you would call a grey character and a terrible king. It's easy to see why: He bankrupted the crown, failed to groom a worthy heir of any talent, and threw away any opportunity (his whole kingship was one) to mend the internal brewing conflicts of the realm. His reign was literally a feast for crows. The bare minimum you should expect from a king is to find able men to run their kingdom without self interest. He failed to do that too, and the presence of Jon Arryn was pure luck for him to begin with, because if the old man suddenly decided to exploit as much for himself as he wanted, he would've gotten away with it, as long as he'd continue providing Robert enough wine, food and whores for the day to not hear him complain.

[Alester Florent]

3 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

A deeply flawed man, one you would call a grey character and a terrible king. It's easy to see why: He bankrupted the crown, failed to groom a worthy heir of any talent, and threw away any opportunity (his whole kingship was one) to mend the internal brewing conflicts of the realm. His reign was literally a feast for crows. The bare minimum you should expect from a king is to find able men to run their kingdom without self interest.

Well, that is indeed the standard fan-take on Robert, the one I think may be too harsh. Another way of looking at it is that he was magnificently successful in mending post-civil-war conflicts, to the point where Targaryen loyalism, something which could have destroyed the kingdom, was a complete non-factor for his whole reign. Financially, he was profligate but didn't bankrupt the kingdom, because thanks to shrewd financial management by his master of coin, the crown was able to continue managing its debt successfully. For the majority of people in the kingdom, his reign was completely peaceful and generally prosperous until the very end. And as for a "bare minimum", I think that's an extraordinarily high bar. The competent man without self-interest is as rare as hen's teeth. Even Saint Ned, when appointed Hand, has self-interest and his own agenda, pursuing which precipitates the civil war at the end of Robert's reign.

Failure to groom a worthy heir is perhaps his biggest failing but this isn't always something kings can control. Great kings sometimes get a dud for an heir despite their efforts and even if they realise this, short of direct action to eliminate their own son there's not necessarily a lot they can do. Edward I/Edward II, Philip IV/Louis X, James II/James III, all of them were good, strong, even great, kings, who ended up with hopeless successors in some cases despite their best efforts. It does seem that Cersei made an effort to prevent Robert from getting involved in Joffrey's upbringing: there is an open question over whether there was more Robert could or should have realistically done, and if so whether it would have made a difference. But I'm inclined to believe that while Joffrey's worst tendencies were enabled by Cersei and his upbringing more generally, much of his character is driven by nature and there's a limit to how much Robert could have mitigated this even had he been the perfect father and king. More generally, to what extent is fair to blame any parent for the moral failings of their children, especially as those children enter adolescence? I don't think it's an open and shut case.

And Robert did deteriorate over his reign. By the time of the Greyjoy rebellion he was still lean and energetic (and very possibly more engaged with the affairs of the kingdom on some level at least, if still not as much as he might have been). The despondent Fat Bob we meet in the novels only developed later. Even if he was a total disaster as king, not necessarily something I agree with, I don't think he was consistently a disaster from the outset.

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

6 minutes ago, Alester Florent said:

Well, that is indeed the standard fan-take on Robert, the one I think may be too harsh.

I find it strange that Robert is considered a bad king, while at the same time Jon Arryn is considered a good Hand. Even though they ruled together, and Jon Arryn seems to be the one doing most of the ruling.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Takiedevushkikakzvezdy

[Lee-Sensei]

5 hours ago, Daeron the Daring said:

I honestly like the character of Maekar, but you could certainly make the argument that he bears responsibility for his older brother not becoming king, hence why he might not deserve to sit on it in return.

If we're willing to accept the concept of the Iron Throne having a parameter by which it judges people that sit on it, it's definitely not any harder to swallow the concept that all kinslayers are doomed (and deserve to pay for it), even those who do it unintentionally, since it's the greatest sin known to the society of Westeros. 

A deeply flawed man, one you would call a grey character and a terrible king. It's easy to see why: He bankrupted the crown, failed to groom a worthy heir of any talent, and threw away any opportunity (his whole kingship was one) to mend the internal brewing conflicts of the realm. His reign was literally a feast for crows. The bare minimum you should expect from a king is to find able men to run their kingdom without self interest. He failed to do that too, and the presence of Jon Arryn was pure luck for him to begin with, because if the old man suddenly decided to exploit as much for himself as he wanted, he would've gotten away with it, as long as he'd continue providing Robert enough wine, food and whores for the day to not hear him complain.

1) He did bankrupt the crown, but their incomes increased tenfold and they were paying off the debt regularly. That's why people were still happy to lend to him. The smallfolk prospered under him, which is pointed out to Tyrion.

2) Robert didn't have a worthy heir, because Cersei denied him an heir and fucked her brother to produce a monster born of incest. This wouldn't have even been a problem if he'd married anyone else. Hell, even his early death was because of Cersei.

3) He made sure that Ned had all of his power before he died and worked towards keeping the peace. In 15 years, he never started a war. Two were stared against him and he crushed both of them.

4) No. Robert definitely chose competent men to handle the day to day affairs of the realm. If Robert really didn't care he could have got on a boat and left for Essos to be a sellsword.

[Alester Florent]

4 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) He did bankrupt the crown, but their incomes increased tenfold and they were paying off the debt regularly. That's why people were still happy to lend to him. The smallfolk prospered under him, which is pointed out to Tyrion.

So long as the crown's servicing its debts, it's not bankrupt. He put the crown in debt, but he didn't bankrupt it.

N.B. Pretty much every country in the world right now is in debt, even those that are net creditors - and this is not a new phenomenon. Running up a large debt is not in itself a problem.

[sifth]

6 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I find it strange that Robert is considered a bad king, while at the same time Jon Arryn is considered a good Hand. Even though they ruled together, and Jon Arryn seems to be the one doing most of the ruling.

Let's be real, Robert is better than any of the other living kings in the series. I just hope Dany doesn't go insane and start murdering everyone, like on the show, because she honestly has the best chance of being a better monarch than him. I'll also admit that Renly could have been a better king as well, but died very shortly after being crowned, so we know next to nothing about how he would have governed.

[SaffronLady]

53 minutes ago, sifth said:

Let's be real, Robert is better than any of the other living kings in the series.

Yeah, Robert is better than Euron "Monster of the Apocalypse" Greyjoy. I wonder how he plans to take Oldtown, maybe the Mad Maid would be the tiger woman to his Azor Ahai - Bloodstone Emperor.

[Daeron the Daring]

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Another way of looking at it is that he was magnificently successful in mending post-civil-war conflicts, to the point where Targaryen loyalism, something which could have destroyed the kingdom, was a complete non-factor for his whole reign.

Which is, in part, because of his early death and the competence of his potential Targaryen pretender. Let's nor make Viserys a high bar to jump.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Financially, he was profligate but didn't bankrupt the kingdom, because thanks to shrewd financial management by his master of coin, the crown was able to continue managing its debt successfully.

I think sugarcoating the insane amounts of debt Robert made for the Crown is a bit dishonest. We are explicitly told that the money he spent was insanely much more than what anyone spent before, and also that the Lannisters indebted the crown for generations. This is not 18th-19th century aristocracy to have it be common for the upper strata to live indebted from generation to generation, taking blind loans on the basis of their ownership of land (which resulted in a class-wide financial struggle for them (poor folks)). He had been given insanely more to work with than any other king before him, we are told. An unimaginable and unorecedented potential. I think it's fair to look at what he accomplished in contrast to that. Which is nothing.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

For the majority of people in the kingdom, his reign was completely peaceful and generally prosperous until the very end.

Well, yes, that's true, I just fail to see how he contributed to this prosperity. You can make the very same argument for Aerys II or Aegon IV.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

And as for a "bare minimum", I think that's an extraordinarily high bar. The competent man without self-interest is as rare as hen's teeth. Even Saint Ned, when appointed Hand, has self-interest and his own agenda, pursuing which precipitates the civil war at the end of Robert's reign.

Well, now you're just running unnecesarry circles around the issue. 

But okay, let's not make it bare minimum. Did he at least try? Or was he just lucky to have his tutor and best friend be decent enough? (Not as if this authority of him appointing the beurocrats of his state should only extend to the Hand of the King)

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

Failure to groom a worthy heir is perhaps his biggest failing but this isn't always something kings can control. Great kings sometimes get a dud for an heir despite their efforts and even if they realise this, short of direct action to eliminate their own son there's not necessarily a lot they can do. Edward I/Edward II, Philip IV/Louis X, James II/James III, all of them were good, strong, even great, kings, who ended up with hopeless successors in some cases despite their best efforts.

Name me the efforts Robert made.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

It does seem that Cersei made an effort to prevent Robert from getting involved in Joffrey's upbringing:

Well, at least she made an effort, unlike Robert. Don't get me wrong, Cersei is the worst candidate for motherhood, but she did do something. I mean, there was that one time Robert did too, but yea, that's not one of his finer moments.

10 hours ago, Alester Florent said:

More generally, to what extent is fair to blame any parent for the moral failings of their children, especially as those children enter adolescence? I don't think it's an open and shut case.

Well, in case of a 12 year old boy, and a completely absent father, that extent is...very extensive.

10 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

I find it strange that Robert is considered a bad king, while at the same time Jon Arryn is considered a good Hand. Even though they ruled together, and Jon Arryn seems to be the one doing most of the ruling.

I mean, Ned himself is shocked by the fact that Jon Arryn allowed so much in his presence. Perhaps he changed, perhaps he tought he has no right to deny his king what's his. Either way, Ned clearly had a moral highground compared to him, that's shown on the very first days of his handshil.

I tend to make my opinion about him based on that, but if Robert was a better than average king, Jon Arryn was a great Hand. 

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

10 hours ago, sifth said:

Let's be real, Robert is better than any of the other living kings in the series.

Technically, the only living king in the series is Tommen. 

[sifth]

10 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Technically, the only living king in the series is Tommen. 

I meant every other king we've seen. I also forgot about Aegon in my last post. He also has the potential to be a good king.

[Lee-Sensei]

11 hours ago, sifth said:

Let's be real, Robert is better than any of the other living kings in the series. I just hope Dany doesn't go insane and start murdering everyone, like on the show, because she honestly has the best chance of being a better monarch than him. I'll also admit that Renly could have been a better king as well, but died very shortly after being crowned, so we know next to nothing about how he would have governed.

I do think Renly would have been a better king tbh. It helps that he was surrounded by the Tyrells instead of the Lannisters. The Tyrells are just so much better.

[Darth Sidious]

The throne is not a conscious intelligence who judges the as$ sitting on it. Robert was not an evil person but his policies and his governing ruined what was once a prosperous Targaryen kingdom. A living throne, possessing of conscience, would have bled Robert to spare the people from the mass suffering he created. 

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

52 minutes ago, Darth Sidious said:

The throne is not a conscious intelligence who judges the as$ sitting on it. Robert was not an evil person but his policies and his governing ruined what was once a prosperous Targaryen kingdom. A living throne, possessing of conscience, would have bled Robert to spare the people from the mass suffering he created. 

Maybe Robert simply got too fat to sit on the throne in his later years?