Baratheon and Stark are families to avoid

[Northern Sword]

16 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

The carcasses of the direwolf and the stag was a warning to the Starks. It basically says the stag and the wolf kill each other.

I agree, that was a warning to the Starks. That was some serious foreshadowing. But not actually of them killing one another, more of a sign of danger to both. 

16 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

They also bring disaster to Westeros because of bad decisions and uncontrolled emotions.

While Robert was drunk and his decisions and actions were not what you'd want or expect from a king. Other then his spending habits, he was no architect of disaster. Nor was Ned Stark. Quite a few around them are right in this wheelhouse though. Cersei, the literal queen, of uncontrolled emotional bad decisions. Disaster was certainly being orchestrated, but by the Spider and Littlefinger. 

16 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

They are unfit to rule.

I agree with this. Robert was not a good ruler, other than being able to turn enemies into loyal friends, but the day to day running of a Kingdom was not in him. Ned ruled well in WF. But he was in no way equipped to handle Kings Landing. KL chewed him up and spit him out.

 

16 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Here’s hoping Arya and Gendry are headed towards the precipice. 

Have these two not been galloping towards the precipice since the beginning. There have been people hunting them both almost right off the bat.  They are survivors. 

16 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

It is possible the death of the Baratheons was an assassination

Well Cersei and Lancel certainly set up Roberts death, cant really call it an assassination, but there was intent. Then Renly was flat out killed by a shadow baby assassin, via Mel and Stannis. My main man Stan is still kicking though. Cant see him surviving all that much longer. He already had been set up for betrayal by the Karstark's. The Bolton's & Lannister's would not bat an eye killing him in an dishonorable way.

Edited May 2 by Northern Sword

[Alester Florent]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

Robert was a bad king.  He plunged the Realm in debt, ignored rampant corruption, favoured the Lannisters, the worst of the major Houses,  failed to give justice for Elia and her children, or for Mycah, and was oblivious to the impending signs of civil war.

I think Robert was an adequate king. The problems of the realm's debt are I think overstated, at least during Robert's rule. Medieval rulers racked up huge debts all the time, and half the time they just defaulted and left their creditors to pick up the tab. As they say, if you owe the bank $100, it's your problem, if you owe it $100 million, it's the bank's problem. Robert's massive debt to Tywin is a problem for Tywin as much as it is for Robert. 

And so long as they can afford to make the repayments - which with LF in post, they can - it's not an issue. Even Tyrion is able to keep the crown's head above water financially. It's only when Cersei takes over and starts promoting idiots in place of competent administrators and then suspending repayments out of spite that it becomes a problem anyway.

A certain level of corruption is to be expected in an administration of this kind. In fact, many of Robert's core court members appear to be both competent and honest (Stannis, Ned/Jon, Barristan, Renly, Aron Santagar). I've also been persuaded that nor does Robert really favour the Lannisters. He hates the Lannisters. He tolerates them, and manages to keep them out of the corridors of actual power over the kingdom as a whole so far as he can. There are no Lannisters or Lannister placemen on the Council (Pycelle's true allegiances being unknown at this stage), or in high office in King's Landing. In fact, he favours Stormlanders and Valemen - and actively spurns the opportunity to appoint a Lannisteer to the vacant Handship, instead appointing Ned. Cersei has no authority. He can't do anything about Tywin's position in the Westerlands, but refuses to grant him or his family the positions they actually want in KL. The Lannisters manage to supply two squires for him: trivial stuff, in principle anyway. 

(Besides which, the worst of the great houses? Have we forgotten the Greyjoys?! )

Justice for Elia and her children is a failure of character, but not a failing of kingship. Mycah ditto: he's a nobody and nobody cared about him except Arya, whose opinion doesn't matter at this point. 

I don't know that he was oblivious to the impending signs of civil war, rather he believed that with Ned by his side he could fix things (or perhaps rather, that Ned could), probably with a healthy side of assuming that nobody would dare actually start a war so long as he was in charge. And he's right. Tywin does some clandestine raiding in the Riverlands while Bob is alive but is careful to keep it deniable. He knows that if he openly attacks, Robert will come down on him like a ton of bricks like he did Balon, unless he has a major negotiating chip (his hope being to capture Ned and use him for this purpose). He doesn't show his hand openly until Robert is safely dead.

Had Robert not died when he did, I think the realm would have pulled through and averted the crisis. Of course, he still has to deal with the potential threat from Aegon in due course, but without the WotFK preparing the ground or backup from Dany or the Dothraki (both of which fail to materialise for reasons unrelated to Robert's actions), there's no particular reason to think Aegon would do substantially better than the Blackfyres did. 

Edited May 2 by Alester Florent

[astarkchoice]

18 hours ago, SeanF said:

Robert was a bad king.  He plunged the Realm in debt, ignored rampant corruption, favoured the Lannisters, the worst of the major Houses,  failed to give justice for Elia and her children, or for Mycah, and was oblivious to the impending signs of civil war.

The less said about his personal behaviour, the better.

But, that does not make Aerys a good king, a man who was a capricious sadist, who planned to murder thousands of his subjects, people who should be able to count upon him for protection.

He wasnt a bad king per say at all , a short  rebellion  put down efficently and he was merciful  in victory but the rest of his reign was stability and peace....thats no minor thing. He was lazy  but has an active small council to fill his role

The debt was bad yes  but its manageable and we know LF has been investing the crowns money smartly all over westeros and essos to help  cover the debts (knock on effect is this will boost trade)  , we dont know 100% whats caused il the debt as it cant be  all drink and tourneys alone   ....robert may have been overly generous with say tax breaks to lords as he has a pathalogical need to be liked , the cost of the ironborn rebellion and ship rebuilding, 

And as for corruption its always been bad in KL as the centre of power, roberts.only problem there is letting too many of thr corrupt types be one the side of his in laws.

The real rot is the spymaster he inherited (whom he has no reason to suspect) and the  seemingly very efficent master of  coin(with his own agenda) whos actualy boosted income but just not enough to cover outgoings at present

Overall peaceful non tyrannical.rule with the puritan stannis, savvy jon arryn  and empathatic renly  to balance the corruption of the lannsiters, kl varys and lf in general getting out of hand. Huge spender on who knows what but a debt his in laws dismiss as easily payable  outright and one he can manage even without them.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

On 5/1/2024 at 11:06 AM, Bowen 747 said:

I made a recent comment on the first chapter of Game Of Thrones when the Starks found the direwolves.  The event is an omen predicting bad things for Westeros when the Starks and the Baratheons join forces.  It leads to suffering, death, and wars for Westeros.  Everytime Ned and Robert get together bad things happen to Westeros.  Starks and Baratheons are just a bad mix.  The phenomenon applies to the other families too.  The Targaryens and Martells should avoid each other.  Just look how Rhaegar and Ellia ended.  

The drowning of Steffon Baratheon just before his boat reached Storm's End is an omen.  The Baratheons were sent to find a woman for Rhaegar.  I do question whether Steffon was loyal to Aerys.  I am suspicious of the Baratheons. Was the ship sunk on purpose to protect King Aerys and his family from the Baratheons?

The Targaryens were the ones who gave the Baratheons their lands.  The stags should have remained loyal vassals to the Targaryens.  The Baratheon + Stark marriage alliance was going to lead to war.  Even Robert and the Starks would have known that and they still agreed to the deal brokered by Jon Arryn.  The bonds the marriages would create were a threat to the Targaryens.  A loyal family would not do anything to threaten the ruling monarch.  The Baratheons deserve the downfall.  I would not be sad to see House Baratheon become extinct.  

[KingAerys_II]

4 hours ago, Aline de Gavrillac said:

The Targaryens were the ones who gave the Baratheons their lands.  The stags should have remained loyal vassals to the Targaryens.  The Baratheon + Stark marriage alliance was going to lead to war.  Even Robert and the Starks would have known that and they still agreed to the deal brokered by Jon Arryn.  The bonds the marriages would create were a threat to the Targaryens.  A loyal family would not do anything to threaten the ruling monarch.  The Baratheons deserve the downfall.  I would not be sad to see House Baratheon become extinct.  

Baratheons tried to overthrow Aegon V , they were defeated, the king arranged the marriage between Lord Baratheon and Rhaelle Targaryen.

The Starks destroyed House Greystark because they rebelled against them, Tywin destroyed House Reyne and Terbeck for the same reason, Taegaryens as rulers were far better than the other lords, but Targ haters try to rehabilitate the Others, it's useless to talk to them

[Terrorthatflapsinthenight9]

I love the ludicrous mental gymnastics Stark haters do to try to justify and spread their hatred of the Starks, to no avail.

[KingAerys_II]

Targ and Stark haters are very cute, they try to rehabilitate Boltons, the Others and Walder Frey.

It's clear that the Others and the Boltons are pure evil 

[KingAerys_II]

The prophecy thing was something that was almost evident even before the tv series, Maester Aemon, Rhaegar and Jaeherys II did actions related to the prophecy

[LongRider]

2 hours ago, Terrorthatflapsinthenight9 said:

I love the ludicrous mental gymnastics Stark haters do to try to justify and spread their hatred of the Starks, to no avail.

What about their lack of understanding nuance, looking deeper into the text, understanding backstories and current story events don't you like?  They wrap it all up in declarative sentences and bad fan fiction, and never, never, miss a chance to invade threads that might have a mention of the Starks or Jon Snow.  When not doing that, they have moved on to creating hate threads, like this one. This is a fan site, but fans of the Starks are now blocked by trolls from being able to discuss and enjoy the forum when discussing the Starks.   

Pathetic. 

   

[The Commentator]

It’s like two troublemakers getting in trouble at school. They don’t get into as much trouble on their own. Together they cause chaos. That’s the Starks and the Baratheons. I will happily criticize Robert if it’s later shown that he was planning to oppose the Targaryens and he was a willing part of the southron conspiracy. Till then he’s just an ineffective king who was not a good choice for the job.  
 

The direwolf was a warning telling the Starks to stay in the north. They didn’t listen and look what happened. Worse is the trouble they caused for the people in the south. 
 

 

[Alester Florent]

8 hours ago, KingAerys_II said:

The prophecy thing was something that was almost evident even before the tv series, Maester Aemon, Rhaegar and Jaeherys II did actions related to the prophecy

It is evident that a prophecy was around and that a number of characters in relatively recent history thought it was important, but also filtered through potential misunderstandings and the like, coupled with a question over when the prophecy was made, that lent it a lot of ambiguity.

Now, I suspect that the "reveal" in HotD was something that was intended all along, and honestly, like you, I don't think it should even come as that much of a surprise that something like this was floating around - because that prophecy obviously did exist, and the prophecy is the goddamn title drop for the book series. After all, the whole reason that the Targs came to Westeros in the first place was because of a prophecy. Is it really that much of a stretch that the "Song of Ice and Fire" is of similar antiquity and related somehow to the Targ conquest of Westeros?

But I do also suspect though that the version of it we'll eventually get in the books will be a bit more nuanced than what we've got in the show, and will hopefully come with a fair ol' chunk of exposition that means that, unlike the show's version, it won't raise more questions than it answers. Maybe trying to cover that off while now also being tied to what's in Fire and Blood is one of the reasons that the later books are progressing at such a snail's pace. So anyway, what we've got at the moment is kind of a half-baked edition of the truth, which like the main GoT series ending, has ended up annoying a lot of people.

Unfortunately what that also means is that some readers have ended up pretty much rejecting the whole prophecy thing out of hand as "ridiculous", which I don't think it is, and I think those readers are going to be very disappointed if/when the last two books emerge.

And ok, here's the biggest issue, I think, if we assume that the two TV series occupy the same continuity (which they surely do). Which is also why I think, surely, the version we'll get in the book will be better and make more sense. (Show spoilers):

Spoiler

THE PROPHECY IS WRONG AND DOESN'T MATTER. The prophecy, so far as we can make out from the combination of what we see in the books and what Viserys and Rhaenyra mention in the show, is (a) the Targaryens will play a critical role in the fight against the Others and need to be in charge of the defensive efforts; (b) the dragon must have three heads; (c) a blend of Stark and Targ blood is somehow important.

If we look at the show's ending, though, which is apparently the same continuity, none of this actually happens.

The dragon never has three heads. Dany has three dragons, but only two of them are ever ridden (by humans/Targs) at a time, and the only time all three dragons actually fight the Others together is a skirmish only significant because one of them dies.

The Targaryens didn't play a critical role in the fight against the Others. Their dragons failed to stop them and indeed one of them was turned against the mortal realms and used to destroy the Wall and breach the defences of Winterfell.

And while Targs did lead the defence of Westeros against the Others, they didn't do so from the Iron Throne, nor was their leadership actually the decisive factor: it was Arya and to a lesser extent Bran (acting as bait) who were the key elements in defeating the Others. They are not Targs. Dany and Jon spent the battle for the future of humanity locked out of the bit where the important plot happened.

And the Targs don't even go on to lead Westeros into a new era of prosperity either, because by the end of the series they're back to being dead, exiled and/or in hiding with a secret identity.

The ending was rubbish on its own terms but it's even worse if it's meant to be the fulfilment of the prophecy.

 

[KingAerys_II]

The ones that believe in the prophecy are the Targaryens and the red priests.

There is a difference between Melisandre and Rhaegar knowledge about it : Rhaegar believed the prince would be a Targaryen or someone with Targ blood, Melisandre believes the prince is Stannis .

However Stannis has Targ blood too , but the fact ,that Targaryens believed the prince is someone of their family , is something that the followers of the Red God don't know

[Moiraine Sedai]

On 5/1/2024 at 4:46 PM, Ser Arthurs Dawn said:

• Robert: killed by a boar (his heavily drunken state was orchestrated by Cersei and Lancel)
• Renly: murdered by Stannis
• Ned: imprisoned by Cersei, executed by Joffrey
• Catelyn: murdered by Freys/Lannisters
• Robb: murdered by Freys/Lannisters

 

Another way to put it, when they get together their decisions as well as their actions create tragedy for them as well as the people of Westeros. 

[sifth]

3 hours ago, Moiraine Sedai said:

Another way to put it, when they get together their decisions as well as their actions create tragedy for them as well as the people of Westeros. 

Them getting together during the Greyjoy Rebellion, seemed to solve a lot of problems, for both themselves and the people of the realm. Silly me, using logic and facts though.

[Here's Looking At You, Kid]

The Starks keep to themselves.  At least until the Baratheons got them involved in southern adventures.  It's not just Robert dragging Ned to the south.  Stannis brought trouble for Jon at the wall.  Gendry will bring trouble for Arya like Joffrey "Baratheon" brought nothing but problems for Sansa. 

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

On 5/1/2024 at 12:06 AM, Bowen 747 said:

The drowning of Steffon Baratheon just before his boat reached Storm's End is an omen.  The Baratheons were sent to find a woman for Rhaegar.  I do question whether Steffon was loyal to Aerys.  I am suspicious of the Baratheons. Was the ship sunk on purpose to protect King Aerys and his family from the Baratheons?

Patchface is a suspect for the sabotage.  It is possible the ship was carrying a plague.  The boy was planted on Steffon by Targaryen loyalists and he did his job to protect the Targaryens and their Westeros from harm.