The Incestuous Nature of the Targaryens is What Doomed Them

[Maegor_the_Cool]

The incestuous nature of the Targaryens is what caused the downfall of their house. And it was always going to. The interpersonal relationships of the family members became conflicted with each other. Someone’s siblings could never just be their sibling, there is always that hint of sexuality in every single one of their relationships. Leading to estrangement’s, blow ups, fights, trust issues, and violence. Even without the Dance, the patriarchal society, the Targaryens would’ve turned on each other at some point and completely self destructed. 

[kissdbyfire]

Not to mention how utterly gross it is.

[Landis]

I would argue it was the patriarchy that did it, actually.
 

The first major internal conflict is Visenya being pissed that the line of succession was traced through Aegon and not her, as the eldest of the siblings.

Then you have Rhaena being cast aside in favour of Jaehaerys causing further tensions for that generation. Alongside this are the First and Second Quarrels of Alysanne and Jaehaerys, reportedly over Alysanne being furious at the demand that their daughter Daella be married off so early and forced to produce children, and then the sexism with which their daughter Saera was treated for being promiscuous in the same ways Targaryen men were allowed.

Then you have Rhaenys and her line passed over initially in favour of Viserys. They try to resolve this by marrying Rhaenyra to Rhaenys’ second born child Laenor (technically Laena is Rhaenys’ heir if women are allowed equal status), but then Rhaenyra has her children with Harwin instead anyway, further cutting the female line out. When the Dance ends, it is her children via Daemon who are allowed to inherit, which could variously be looked at as allowing the line to pass doubly through the male line (via Viserys and Daemon) as it additionally cuts Daemon’s daughters with Laena out of the equation. 
 

Baelor — locks his sisters in prison so they can never sin, leading Daena to rebel by birthing a whole competing dynasty that will mark the remainder of the Targaryen reign.
 

And on and on it goes, until you have Aerys just raping his sister on the regular to get their children, and Viserys treating his sister like a chattel sex slave. 
 

There is precious little evidence that incest was a cause of interpersonal strife between the Targaryens, but consistent evidence that the patriarchal norms of Westerosi culture, as adopted and exaggerated by Targaryen men, was a fundamental driver of almost every known internal conflict the family had. The Targaryen women were treated as lesser, despite being possessed of the same godly dragon riding powers as their male counterparts, and the same royal blood in the years after the dragons perished. 
 

There is also the theory about the Valyrian blood magic that allowed them access to the dragons in the first place, which, if genetically-based, would mean that the insistence on having inheritance pass through the male line effectively snuffed that magic out of the ruling Targaryen family with the death of Daeron II, leaving it to survive only through the various daughters the Targaryens had sold off as wives to lesser houses when they stopped pursuing incest as the preferred use of their female members.

This is all also in line with one of the overarching themes of ASOIAF, which is essentially: ignore women at your own peril. Patriarchy has similarly been one of the deepest festering wounds in the Lannister family, being a core motivating factor for Cersei’s fury. If we are to believe R+L=J, Robert’s Rebellion resulted from Robert’s belief that he was entitled to Lyanna, refusing to acknowledge that Lyanna had a will of her own and love for another man, a belief that Ned may, conceivably have shared, until he found Lyanna dying in childbirth. It is seemingly this that forces Ned to take a different approach with his own children, allowing Arya the leeway she needs to live free from certain patriarchal expectations — a direct contrast to what is forced on Cersei, who hints at various points that she would have liked to pursue such a warrior’s path, as we see fully fledged in Brienne of Tarth. 
 

No, I don’t think it was the incest specifically, it was that the use of incest was predicated on this belief that both genders were equally significant in the continuation of the line, when in practice, only one gender was — the second they decided that the important thing was the passing of the king’s seed, and that the womb contributed nothing of consequence, they signed away their perceived divinity, and tolled the hounds.

[Craving Peaches]

I don't think incest is supposed to be portrayed as positive so yes, incest is probably part of the issue.

[Lee-Sensei]

That might be part of it. Aegon V had the right idea by bounding the great houses to House Targaryen. Perhaps the incest could be sort of justified when they still had dragons, but the moment that they'd lost their last one, they should have been marrying into major Westerosi families.

[Lord Varys]

On 8/31/2023 at 11:50 PM, Darrow of Lykos said:

The incestuous nature of the Targaryens is what caused the downfall of their house. And it was always going to. The interpersonal relationships of the family members became conflicted with each other. Someone’s siblings could never just be their sibling, there is always that hint of sexuality in every single one of their relationships. Leading to estrangement’s, blow ups, fights, trust issues, and violence. Even without the Dance, the patriarchal society, the Targaryens would’ve turned on each other at some point and completely self destructed. 

LOL, that is not in the text. The incest couples are not always happy ... but they stick together nonetheless. It is when there are no incestuous matches - like with Rhaenyra and Aegon II and their siblings and children or Daemon Blackfyre not marrying his half-sister Daenerys - that things are getting touchy. But usually the Targaryens got along surprisingly well.

On 9/4/2023 at 1:48 AM, Lee-Sensei said:

That might be part of it. Aegon V had the right idea by bounding the great houses to House Targaryen. Perhaps the incest could be sort of justified when they still had dragons, but the moment that they'd lost their last one, they should have been marrying into major Westerosi families.

Those were very bad plans dynastically. Those matches may have helped Egg to push through his reforms - or not - but from a dynastic point of view they were a bad idea.

The reason the Targaryens remained in power after they lost the dragons was in no small part because they married their own, and did not spread out their blood to the great houses (again and again). If we imagine Luthor Tyrell giving his son Mace Targaryen blood through his wife Shaera then we have obviously a very easy crisis at our hands. Give the most powerful house with ambition the royal blood they need to seize your throne and they will do it, no questions asked.

Also, giving your sons brides from powerful and possibly ambitious houses can also be a problem as, for instance, Cersei later shows. Would Celia Tully or Olenna Redwyne be happy with Duncan becoming king? Perhaps, but that is not a given.

Funnily enough we see that Rhaelle Targaryen marrying outside the family (Ormund Baratheon) is what gives the rebels the pretext to make Robert king. If she had married a brother Robert may have never become a pretender for the throne.

On 9/3/2023 at 8:29 PM, Craving Peaches said:

I don't think incest is supposed to be portrayed as positive so yes, incest is probably part of the issue.

Incest is not portrayed as either good nor bad, obviously. Just as obviously the incest isn't presented as a reason why the Targaryens lost against Robert. It would have been very easy to presented the Targaryens as inbred, degenerate freaks ... but George didn't. Not physically, and not mentally.

Ditto with Jaime and Cersei's kids or Craster's children, especially Gilly and her son.

This book series is more celebrating incest than condemning it since it actually fails to portray incest and the offspring of (repeated) incestuous unions in a realistic manner.

[Lee-Sensei]

40 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, that is not in the text. The incest couples are not always happy ... but they stick together nonetheless. It is when there are no incestuous matches - like with Rhaenyra and Aegon II and their siblings and children or Daemon Blackfyre not marrying his half-sister Daenerys - that things are getting touchy. But usually the Targaryens got along surprisingly well.

Those were very bad plans dynastically. Those matches may have helped Egg to push through his reforms - or not - but from a dynastic point of view they were a bad idea.

The reason the Targaryens remained in power after they lost the dragons was in no small part because they married their own, and did not spread out their blood to the great houses (again and again). If we imagine Luthor Tyrell giving his son Mace Targaryen blood through his wife Shaera then we have obviously a very easy crisis at our hands. Give the most powerful house with ambition the royal blood they need to seize your throne and they will do it, no questions asked.

Also, giving your sons brides from powerful and possibly ambitious houses can also be a problem as, for instance, Cersei later shows. Would Celia Tully or Olenna Redwyne be happy with Duncan becoming king? Perhaps, but that is not a given.

Funnily enough we see that Rhaelle Targaryen marrying outside the family (Ormund Baratheon) is what gives the rebels the pretext to make Robert king. If she had married a brother Robert may have never become a pretender for the throne.

Incest is not portrayed as either good nor bad, obviously. Just as obviously the incest isn't presented as a reason why the Targaryens lost against Robert. It would have been very easy to presented the Targaryens as inbred, degenerate freaks ... but George didn't. Not physically, and not mentally.

Ditto with Jaime and Cersei's kids or Craster's children, especially Gilly and her son.

This book series is more celebrating incest than condemning it since it actually fails to portray incest and the offspring of (repeated) incestuous unions in a realistic manner.

The Tyrells aren't seizing anything. They're upjumped stewards. No. Marrying into the Great Houses were great ideas dynastically. If the Great Houses are all related, launching wars becomes more difficult. Aegon V was right. That's also why the STAB alliance was a good idea.

[SaffronLady]

30 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

If the Great Houses are all related, launching wars becomes more difficult.

The wars of Louis XIV seem to contradict that.

 

31 minutes ago, Lee-Sensei said:

The Tyrells aren't seizing anything. They're upjumped stewards.

Specifically about the Tyrells, I agree with you. But I really don't think, say, a Baratheon or Lannister who married a Targ wouldn't try their hand at claiming the IT if they saw an opening. The Tyrells and the Tullys, otoh, don't have the ability to seize that opening because they don't have dominant power over their vassals.

[Lee-Sensei]

2 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

The wars of Louis XIV seem to contradict that.

Specifically about the Tyrells, I agree with you. But I really don't think, say, a Baratheon or Lannister who married a Targ wouldn't try their hand at claiming the IT if they saw an opening. The Tyrells and the Tullys, otoh, don't have the ability to seize that opening because they don't have dominant power over their vassals.

I said more difficult. Not impossible. It's difficult to explain, but this would always be offset by other houses. The Tyrells have probably played the game the smartest of any house in asoiaf and they married into their two strongest bannermen houses. Olenna was born a Redwyne and Mace's wife is a Hightower. By uniting their own House with the Great Houses of the Reach, they make their position almost unassailable. That's why Tyrion calls Robert's plan to marry Joffrey to Sansa a smart idea (barring the fact that he's a pure Lannister bastard). Because then you'd have united 5 of the 8 major houses in Westeros by blood.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Lee-Sensei

[Lord Varys]

22 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

The Tyrells aren't seizing anything. They're upjumped stewards. No. Marrying into the Great Houses were great ideas dynastically. If the Great Houses are all related, launching wars becomes more difficult. Aegon V was right. That's also why the STAB alliance was a good idea.

There was no 'STAB alliance', that is nonsense.

Especially Tyrell and Lannister ambition are real - Mace is gunning for the throne right now without having any royal blood to justify a power grab. If the Tyrells or the Lannisters had ever gotten Targaryen blood they would have seized the throne eventually if and when a weakness of the king or another opening would have given them pretext and opportunity.

You can look at real royal dynasties and succession wars - they go down to some powerful people acquiring royal blood or there being too many princes with spouses from powerful families.

The royal incest in Westeros prevented that to a large degree. And in that way it was a good thing. If all of Egg's children had married outside the family and had had issue of their own there would have been way too many people with claims to the throne by the time Egg's grandchildren were grown up. As we see, Robert having Targaryen blood was enough. If it had been Robert and Mace and whoever Rhaelle would have married plus the children of Duncan, Jaehaerys and Daeron it would have been a huge mess.

22 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Specifically about the Tyrells, I agree with you. But I really don't think, say, a Baratheon or Lannister who married a Targ wouldn't try their hand at claiming the IT if they saw an opening. The Tyrells and the Tullys, otoh, don't have the ability to seize that opening because they don't have dominant power over their vassals.

The Tyrells do control their bannermen for the most part, unlike the Tullys. We see how they do it in the book series. Right now, in fact.

But each house would get a tremendous boost in prestige if they secured a royal match. Remember that Celia Tully would be queen at Jaehaerys II's side if Duncan still runs away with Jenny. Even if not her family would have strong ties to the throne through her. And a Targaryen princess as Lady of Highgarden would greatly increase the prestige of the Tyrells. Any son of Luthor's and Shaera is a potential king. A Renly in the making.

Edited September 9, 2023 by Lord Varys

[SaffronLady]

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The Tyrells do control their bannermen for the most part, unlike the Tullys. We see how they do it in the book series. Right now, in fact.

I doubt how much of that control they could maintain if many of their family were off to KL in a struggle for the IT.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

I doubt how much of that control they could maintain if many of their family were off to KL in a struggle for the IT.

Renly could pull the same thing, so why the hell not a Targaryen-Tyrell who happens to be Lord of Highgarden? And Mace has tens of thousands of men right now, running the show in KL. He controls the king and his government. All that without the benefit of having royal blood himself.

[SaffronLady]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Renly could pull the same thing, so why the hell not a Targaryen-Tyrell who happens to be Lord of Highgarden? And Mace has tens of thousands of men right now, running the show in KL. He controls the king and his government. All that without the benefit of having royal blood himself.

Because supporting a claimant works differently from trying to put yourself on the throne. Besides, the Tyrells might still be able to rein in their vassals if they had prepared a couple decades in advance (beat them up really hard a la Rains of Castamere) when they are off in KL. It just won't be as easy as Renly's attempt.

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, SaffronLady said:

Because supporting a claimant works differently from trying to put yourself on the throne. Besides, the Tyrells might still be able to rein in their vassals if they had prepared a couple decades in advance (beat them up really hard a la Rains of Castamere) when they are off in KL. It just won't be as easy as Renly's attempt.

LOL, what? Renly would be exactly what Mace would be in a Targaryen-Tyrell scenario - with the added benefit that he was also the Lord of Highgarden, i.e. the most powerful lord paramount in the Realm. Renly's campaign was dependent on him winning the Tyrells and their bannermen to his cause - to a Mace Targaryen-Tyrell the Lords of the Reach would be beholden to as their bannermen. That would give him a huge advantage.

And just as Renly's royal prestige allowed him to win the Reach to his cause, a Lord Mace Targaryen-Tyrell (who might even add his mother's royal dragon red on black to the Tyrell banner) could his own prestige to win other great houses of the Realm to his cause. Like Renly did.

This is a real danger in this context as the dragonless Targaryens actually lack the military strength to really counter a challenge coming from one of the more powerful great lords of the Realm (unless other great lords support them, of course) - and a blood claim to the throne would give them pretext and justification enough for a usurpation. We see it with Robert. Robert was a pretty weak great lord, so he needed a lot of allies. Mace Targaryen-Tyrell or Tywin Targaryen-Lannister could have pulled a Robert with a smaller alliance because their own power is so great.

Spreading out royal blood - and thus also royal prestige - to the great houses would have eroded the power of the king, giving justification and incitement to would-be usurpers and pretenders.

Instead, it was a smart thing that the Targaryens married their own ... and if not then they intermarried with minor houses who were more or less dependent on them for power and prestige even after they become secondary royalty themselves. Just think of the Velaryons. They could have never tried to oust the Targaryens by themselves with the help of their weak bannermen (of course, when Corlys Velaryon had a dragonrider wife and two dragonrider children power dynamics were much different).

We also see that when Targaryens marry Plumms and Penroses. It was smart that they didn't intermarry that often with Arryns and Hightowers. And the Martell matches were part of a big political union.

[SaffronLady]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, what?

Nevermind, I've already had this sort of conversation with that maester. If you want to be bellicose, then I don't really care whether you're being reasonable or not.

[Lee-Sensei]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There was no 'STAB alliance', that is nonsense.

Especially Tyrell and Lannister ambition are real - Mace is gunning for the throne right now without having any royal blood to justify a power grab. If the Tyrells or the Lannisters had ever gotten Targaryen blood they would have seized the throne eventually if and when a weakness of the king or another opening would have given them pretext and opportunity.

You can look at real royal dynasties and succession wars - they go down to some powerful people acquiring royal blood or there being too many princes with spouses from powerful families.

The royal incest in Westeros prevented that to a large degree. And in that way it was a good thing. If all of Egg's children had married outside the family and had had issue of their own there would have been way too many people with claims to the throne by the time Egg's grandchildren were grown up. As we see, Robert having Targaryen blood was enough. If it had been Robert and Mace and whoever Rhaelle would have married plus the children of Duncan, Jaehaerys and Daeron it would have been a huge mess.

1) It's not nonsense at all. I'm not talking about the theory that they were trying to remove Aerys. I'm talking about the basic fact that Hoster Tully and Rickard Stark were marrying off their kids to Great Houses and Jon Arryn was fostering a Stark and the heir to Steffon Baratheon. All of these houses were getting tied up together through close knit relationships. That's not nonsense. It's an observable fact and was at the core of the alliance that ended up removing the Targaryens during Roberts Rebellion.

2) That's highly speculative. The Tyrells aren't gunning for the throne. There's no effort on their part to put Wilas there. They want the prestige of having a Tyrell queen. No matter how powerful the family is, they wouldn't be able to replace the Targaryens/Baratheons hand have that legitimacy be recognized by the rest of Westeros.

3) Wars happen for a ton of reasons. If we were to add them up, I'm very sure that those would be in the minority.

4) No. The Royal incest was a terrible idea after they lost their dragons. The Rebellion wasn't caused by Robert having Targaryen ancestors. It was caused by a Mad King violating the feudal contract and burning people alive. Aegon V was right.

[Sandy Clegg]

Putting aside the moral implications, there is one other major problem with Targ incest, and that's with regard to its goal of 'keeping the blood pure'.

It only really works if the original bloodline was pure to begin with.

Supposing that Aegon the Conqueror and Rhaenys's son, Aenys, was a bastard (Fire & Blood does hint at this, with talk of Rhaenys 'keeping the company of singers', etc) then no amount of inbreeding would have been able to rectify this error. And they did actually end up marrying outside the Targ tree often, as with Alicent Hightower and Viserys I. Which compounds the initial mistake.

So quite apart from needing to inter-marry, the reverse would be true. They would have needed to seek Valyrian blood from outside the family tree. The assumption was always that Aenys was pure-born from Aegon, however, so the matter was presumably never given any thought. 

I think this may be one of the revelations coming up as we learn more about 'how the maesters were the one to kill the dragons' and why the Targaryens grew less and less able to breed large dragons as the centuries went on. 

[Lord Varys]

6 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

1) It's not nonsense at all. I'm not talking about the theory that they were trying to remove Aerys. I'm talking about the basic fact that Hoster Tully and Rickard Stark were marrying off their kids to Great Houses and Jon Arryn was fostering a Stark and the heir to Steffon Baratheon. All of these houses were getting tied up together through close knit relationships. That's not nonsense. It's an observable fact and was at the core of the alliance that ended up removing the Targaryens during Roberts Rebellion.

If you talk 'STAB alliance' you reference the silly theory. The idea that Rickard and Hoster were doing something exceptional is nonsense. Noble children are fostered all the time and great houses always also marry each other. That is no big deal and usually doesn't lead to lasting affection nor lasting political alliances. Just look how well it went for Robb that Aunt Lysa became Lady Arryn...

The important thing there is that there was real affection there going beyond what it is normal. Jon loving his wards as if he was their real father. Robert having such a great talent at making friends. How irrelevant actual promises and marriages you see with the ambitious and calculating asshole Hoster Tully - he only joins the rebels after both his daughters get great matches, even the soiled one. He wasn't part of the Rebellion until Jon and Ned met his price - and such an alliance could have been made without any earlier commitments (which it was in the Jon-Lysa match in any case). This is no different from the Freys joining Robb in AGoT.

Also, of course, Rhaegar-Lyanna could have easily enough turned the Starks into Rhaegar's guys. It is only a very unfortunate chain of accidental events that result in the Starks going against Rhaegar and his father. If cooler and saner heads had been involved in the affair then Rickard could have become Aerys' new Hand and Lyanna the (or one) future queen of the Seven Kingdoms.

6 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

2) That's highly speculative. The Tyrells aren't gunning for the throne. There's no effort on their part to put Wilas there. They want the prestige of having a Tyrell queen. No matter how powerful the family is, they wouldn't be able to replace the Targaryens/Baratheons hand have that legitimacy be recognized by the rest of Westeros.

The Tyrells are obviously gunning for the throne just as the Lannisters did before. Of course, in the books they can't do it openly as they lack royal blood and thus cannot seize the throne themselves. But they can and do control the king and his government now, just as Tywin's and his children did before.

Obviously, both houses would have seized the throne themselves if they had royal blood.

But to be sure - what they can and cannot do if push came to shove we don't yet know. Both could have tried to seize the throne openly and might do so in the future. In the end, swords decide who is king, not blood. So we have to wait and see.

6 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

3) Wars happen for a ton of reasons. If we were to add them up, I'm very sure that those would be in the minority.

We don't talk wars in general, but succession and dynastic wars. And they only happen because some stupid king married his daughter to the wrong lord or foreign king. If, for instance, Philip the Fair had never married his daughter Isabella to Edward II there would have been no deposition of Edward II nor, more importantly, no Hundred Years War between England and France - because Edward III and his descendants wouldn't have had a claim to the French throne.

6 hours ago, Lee-Sensei said:

4) No. The Royal incest was a terrible idea after they lost their dragons. The Rebellion wasn't caused by Robert having Targaryen ancestors. It was caused by a Mad King violating the feudal contract and burning people alive. Aegon V was right.

We never talked what caused the bloody Rebellion. Aerys may have been nuts, but he wasn't the first king to burn people alive or 'breaking some feudal contract'. He lost his throne because he lost a lot of battles and was betrayed by opportunists and then murdered, not because of any crimes he committed.

I pointed out that bloody Robert only did become king because his great-grandfather was Aegon V. That was his claim, and if he hadn't had it his rebels buddies wouldn't have crowned him. They would have found somebody else, perhaps even little Viserys III.

If there were more people like Robert then there is more than enough reason to believe that some such would jump on their chance to be king - like bloody Renly did. Or Stannis. Or fucking Daemon Blackfyre earlier. Mad Aerys may have lasted not as long as he did if cousin Mace Targaryen-Tyrell was gunning for the throne. Nor if bloody Tywin would have been Tywin Targaryen-Lannister through a daughter of Aegon V. Do you think a Tywin with an actual claim to the Iron Throne would have taken the shit he got from Aerys, continued to smile and serve the prick? Not bloody likely.

The reason people keep up with shitty royals is if there are no viable alternatives because the family is small. If it is large, if there are many brothers and sisters and cousins then a king is rather easily replaced. Aerys prevailed as long as he did because he had just one grown-up son, no brothers, no first cousins but Steffon who died before his madness became overly bad. Even without Tywin Aerys would have been hard to get rid of because there was just nobody with a claim to try to push him aside. 

Robert is still pretty young when the war starts - which is why nobody actually considered him a possible pretender or alternative to Aerys until he turned out to be super successful rebel general and figurehead.

[Lee-Sensei]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you talk 'STAB alliance' you reference the silly theory. The idea that Rickard and Hoster were doing something exceptional is nonsense. Noble children are fostered all the time and great houses always also marry each other. That is no big deal and usually doesn't lead to lasting affection nor lasting political alliances. Just look how well it went for Robb that Aunt Lysa became Lady Arryn...

The important thing there is that there was real affection there going beyond what it is normal. Jon loving his wards as if he was their real father. Robert having such a great talent at making friends. How irrelevant actual promises and marriages you see with the ambitious and calculating asshole Hoster Tully - he only joins the rebels after both his daughters get great matches, even the soiled one. He wasn't part of the Rebellion until Jon and Ned met his price - and such an alliance could have been made without any earlier commitments (which it was in the Jon-Lysa match in any case). This is no different from the Freys joining Robb in AGoT.

Also, of course, Rhaegar-Lyanna could have easily enough turned the Starks into Rhaegar's guys. It is only a very unfortunate chain of accidental events that result in the Starks going against Rhaegar and his father. If cooler and saner heads had been involved in the affair then Rickard could have become Aerys' new Hand and Lyanna the (or one) future queen of the Seven Kingdoms.

The Tyrells are obviously gunning for the throne just as the Lannisters did before. Of course, in the books they can't do it openly as they lack royal blood and thus cannot seize the throne themselves. But they can and do control the king and his government now, just as Tywin's and his children did before.

Obviously, both houses would have seized the throne themselves if they had royal blood.

But to be sure - what they can and cannot do if push came to shove we don't yet know. Both could have tried to seize the throne openly and might do so in the future. In the end, swords decide who is king, not blood. So we have to wait and see.

We don't talk wars in general, but succession and dynastic wars. And they only happen because some stupid king married his daughter to the wrong lord or foreign king. If, for instance, Philip the Fair had never married his daughter Isabella to Edward II there would have been no deposition of Edward II nor, more importantly, no Hundred Years War between England and France - because Edward III and his descendants wouldn't have had a claim to the French throne.

We never talked what caused the bloody Rebellion. Aerys may have been nuts, but he wasn't the first king to burn people alive or 'breaking some feudal contract'. He lost his throne because he lost a lot of battles and was betrayed by opportunists and then murdered, not because of any crimes he committed.

I pointed out that bloody Robert only did become king because his great-grandfather was Aegon V. That was his claim, and if he hadn't had it his rebels buddies wouldn't have crowned him. They would have found somebody else, perhaps even little Viserys III.

If there were more people like Robert then there is more than enough reason to believe that some such would jump on their chance to be king - like bloody Renly did. Or Stannis. Or fucking Daemon Blackfyre earlier. Mad Aerys may have lasted not as long as he did if cousin Mace Targaryen-Tyrell was gunning for the throne. Nor if bloody Tywin would have been Tywin Targaryen-Lannister through a daughter of Aegon V. Do you think a Tywin with an actual claim to the Iron Throne would have taken the shit he got from Aerys, continued to smile and serve the prick? Not bloody likely.

The reason people keep up with shitty royals is if there are no viable alternatives because the family is small. If it is large, if there are many brothers and sisters and cousins then a king is rather easily replaced. Aerys prevailed as long as he did because he had just one grown-up son, no brothers, no first cousins but Steffon who died before his madness became overly bad. Even without Tywin Aerys would have been hard to get rid of because there was just nobody with a claim to try to push him aside. 

Robert is still pretty young when the war starts - which is why nobody actually considered him a possible pretender or alternative to Aerys until he turned out to be super successful rebel general and figurehead.

No. When I mention STAB alliance, I'm talking about the Stark, Tully, Arryn and Baratheon alliance that was the core of the rebel forces during Roberts Rebellion and bound together primarily through marriage pacts. Why do you think the Tyrells married the Hightowers, Redwynes and their other bannermen?

[SeanF]

On 8/31/2023 at 11:31 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Not to mention how utterly gross it is.

I’ve sometimes thought there should have been a Cersei/Joffrey love scene in the books.

”My sweet boy, come home to mummy.”

Edited September 10, 2023 by SeanF