The Robert Baratheon Hate thread

[Jaime L]

Actually, I do think that a Targaryen heir fostered by Jon Arryn (or one of the others) and married to the daughter of one of the rebels would not have gone against them. Aegon could have been married to a daughter of Robert or Stannis. Rhaenys could have been married to Robb and Danaerys to Renly. Viserys could have been married to Sansa or some other daughter. Ensure complete control of the children, marry them off before they reach the age of majority and you can easily control the crown with a minimal level of danger to oneself. Rhaegar and Aerys were the only two that had to die.

Danaerys and Viserys are much more dangerous gathering allies and armies in the Free Cities than they would be living in their father-in-law/foster father's home, surrounded by his soldiers and bannermen.

Maybe. I do agree this would be the most reasonable way to proceed if they felt keeping the Targs on the throne was the best way to proceed.

But I still don't know how you can get around the Targaryen's divine right to rule being compltely subverted by these actions. It still involves these other great houses making the next king because they don't like the current one. If you become kingmakers, you are now in fact and in action more powerful than the king. Regardless of who Viserys or Aegon marry, it's clear they'll be aware of how far the Targs had fallen and considering how prideful of a house they are, I don't think certain slights can be forgotten, especially if it involves the death of their father and older brother.

ETA: It's also clear from Barristan that Targs were half brilliant, half insane, almost like the flip of a coin. It's unclear how common this knowledge or belief was, but if the rebels believed this, it makes it even more insane to put another Targ on the throne.

[Alexia]

But I still don't know how you can get around the Targaryen's divine right to rule being compltely subverted by these actions.

But how is it NOT subverting by massacring all the Targaryen heirs and then proclaiming oneself king on the basis of a marriage two generations ago? That seems even more of a crime against the gods then killing a king and his heir who violated the feudal contract and installing the next heir in line.

It still involves these other great houses making the next king because they don't like the current one.

That would be correct, yes. But Aegon should have become king eventually, anyway, whereas Robert should never have become a king under normal circumstances.

Regardless of who Viserys or Aegon marry, it's clear they'll be aware of how far the Targs had fallen and considering how prideful of a house they are, I don't think certain slights can be forgotten.

They were babies. Treat them well, with dignity and respect and they would have grown to look at their foster fathers as though they were their own fathers and love them as such. For the ETA: some fresh blood would have done that family madness wonders.

Anyway, I don't disagree that the Targaryens had forfeited their right of rule. I do, however, disagree that Robert was the best claimnant (trumped up legal fiction, that) nor do I think he ruled the realm all that much better than Aerys. No planned genocides, to be sure, but aside from that? :dunno:

[Jaime L]

But how is it subverting by massacring all the Targaryen heirs and then proclaiming oneself king on the basis of a marriage two generations ago? That seems even more of a crime against the gods then killing a king and his heir who violated the feudal contract and installing the next heir in line.

My point is the second the rebellion began, that ship had sailed. They had already subverted the Targaryen's divine right to rule. Kinda the point I made earlier, once Pandora's box is open, it's a mistake to think you can close it and assume everything will just go on in the way it always has.

I do, however, disagree that Robert was the best claimnant (trumped up legal fiction, that) nor do I think he ruled the realm all that much better than Aerys. No planned genocides, to be sure, but aside from that?

That's kinda a big point. :P

[Datepalm]

That's my inclination too, however he did have fifteen years to realize that he sucked at the job and might have at least been invested enough in finding the right person to do his dirty work for him. Jon Arryn, I'm not sure how great he was as a hand, but picking Ned over Stannis ... why, Robert, why?

Because he can manipulate Ned, and he wants someone about who's still grateful to him for being the cool kid who agreed to hang out with a loser like him in highschool.

[Lady Blackfish]

Because he can manipulate Ned, and he wants someone about who's still grateful to him for being the cool kid who agreed to hang out with a loser like him in highschool.

I always laughed at how Robert said he liked Ned being around because Ned would tell him the truth instead of flattery, and then he proceeded to be so patently bad at hearing the truth.

Stannis was such an obvious choice. Every bit as conscientious a worker, committed to justice, but unlike Ned, people at court actually feared him. And I would say Stannis' ambition in this case was a positive, he was willing to bend to his elder brother and pretty much only to his elder brother, plus a little bit of acknowledgment from Robert would've kept Stannis from seeking validation through more nefarious means. What might have been.

[Jaime L]

Stannis was such an obvious choice. Every bit as conscientious a worker, committed to justice, but unlike Ned, people at court actually feared him. And I would say Stannis' ambition in this case was a positive, he was willing to bend to his elder brother and pretty much only to his elder brother, plus a little bit of acknowledgment from Robert would've kept Stannis from seeking validation through more nefarious means. What might have been.

Where's the Stannis vanity thread, LB? I feel like that's inevitable now. :P

[Alexia]

I don't think Stannis would have been a great choice either. He's cruel, inflexible, and weak and easily swayed. That character imposes morals for everyone around him but himself.

Should I go start a Stannis Baratheon Hate Thread? :ack:

[Dreadwolf]

The gods gave their verdict on the legitimacy of his claim anyway, by decreeing he would never have a legitimate child to assure his dynasty. :smoking:

A part of me wants to caustically ask you since when the lionesses have become gods?

On my second thought I saw you are right - there is a lot of symbolic there.

Let us say that Incest is abomination. The Targs started their rein by power of conquest. Their marriages and traditions in order that the blood should have been saved pure are wrongful and sinful The people of 7 kingdoms just undergo it b/c they were not in position to make any change. Not until Robert, Ned, Jon Arryn, Hoster Tuly. Once the madness took greater dimensions beyond any tolerance and the political situation had ripened they were deposited. So it was the objective necessity that started the Robellion and placed Rebel the 1st on the throne. Alas abomination went on. The <gods> punished King Bob and all the rest for their too many sins. By killing Rhaeghar (by his own hands) Robert committed the biggest crime in the eyes of gods (Old and New): Kinslaying. Then he was doomed and with him his dearest supporters and the whole his kingdom. Same as Robb Stark executing Karstarks. Yada yada . . .

[Jaime L]

Should I go start a Stannis Baratheon Hate Thread? :ack:

The race is on.

[Lady Blackfish]

Heheh, it's here actually, I just feel like making Robert feel bad about it.

Alexia - he's easily swayed when he needs reassurance, and cruel in his pursuit of validation. Being named Hand goes a ways in alleviating that, though really what I'm getting at is that Robert owed his brother a bit better treatment throughout the years, not just in that one moment. In any case, I wouldn't want him as king, but Hand, I could handle that.

[Alexia]

A part of me wants to caustically ask you since when the lionesses have become gods?

Have you forgotten so soon? Lord Tywin's funeral procession went through the Gate of the Gods. :smoking:

:lol:

Alexia - he's easily swayed when he needs reassurance, and cruel in his pursuit of validation. Being named Hand goes a ways in alleviating that, though really what I'm getting at is that Robert owed his brother a bit better treatment throughout the years, not just in that one moment. In any case, I would't want him as king, but Hand, I could handle that.

Well, I agree that Robert should have treated him far better (Delena Florent, for one) but OTOH, Stannis is the one who seems to have inherited the Targaryen madness, along with their penchant for burning people alive... ;)

[Lady Blackfish]

Well, I agree that Robert should have treated him far better (Delena Florent, for one) but OTOH, Stannis is the one who seems to have inherited the Targaryen madness, along with their penchant for burning people alive... ;)

Don't think that has to do with madness, the method of those deaths is up to Melisandre. What it shows is he's willing to have people die in order to gain power, because his essential internal conflict is about craving validation and respect, in lieu of love. If Melisandre did it through other means, or if Melisandre was asking for chocolate bars instead of human sacrifices, Stannis would give it, because he seems willing to do anything to get that crown. He himself has no particular inner desire to burn people.

[Alexia]

Don't think that has to do with madness, the method of those deaths is up to Melisandre. What it shows is he's willing to have people die in order to gain power, because his essential internal conflict is about craving validation and respect, in lieu of love. If Melisandre did it through other means, or if Melisandre was asking for chocolate bars instead of human sacrifices, Stannis would give it, because he seems willing to do anything to get that crown. He himself has no particular inner desire to burn people.

Well, the problem with blaming Melisandre is that Stanni....

Wait. This is a Robert hate thread. Why on Earth am I critiquing Stannis here, especially given that Robert did treat him really bad? :stunned:

[Chris G]

But how is it NOT subverting by massacring all the Targaryen heirs and then proclaiming oneself king on the basis of a marriage two generations ago? That seems even more of a crime against the gods then killing a king and his heir who violated the feudal contract and installing the next heir in line.

That would be correct, yes. But Aegon should have become king eventually, anyway, whereas Robert should never have become a king under normal circumstances.

They were babies. Treat them well, with dignity and respect and they would have grown to look at their foster fathers as though they were their own fathers and love them as such. For the ETA: some fresh blood would have done that family madness wonders.

Anyway, I don't disagree that the Targaryens had forfeited their right of rule. I do, however, disagree that Robert was the best claimnant (trumped up legal fiction, that) nor do I think he ruled the realm all that much better than Aerys. No planned genocides, to be sure, but aside from that? :dunno:

I don't have my books, but there is a scene in AGOT where Ned lays out why Robert has the best claim. As Jamie L pointed out, putting one of the kids on the throne, after having overthrown their father, is just not wise politically. Therefore Robert, by virtue of having some Targ blood in his ancestry, ends up having the best claim among the rebels. Is it tenuous? Yes, but if the rebels want to maintain the illusion of order, than Robert's Targ ancestry gives him the throne. Was he qualified? Not in any way, but because of Westeros' obsession with heredity, he gets to be king.

[mormont]

The evidence is the conversation Ned and Robert had years after where Robert said a ) Ned would've made the better king and B ) He never wanted the throne, only Lyanna. Are we somehow to suspect this wasn't the case at the time of rebellion?

a ) is interesting, because it kind of makes my point. If Ned felt able to decline the job, why do we suppose that Robert had no choice?

As for B ), well, it might be convenient for my point but it is nonetheless true that Robert is prone to present rather self-serving versions of events. Not inaccurate, necessarily, just... self-serving. I don't doubt he went to war to get Lyanna back rather than to claim the throne. But I do doubt that he had to be dragged kicking and screaming onto that throne.

Consider the parallel of Stannis, who also tells everyone that he doesn't want the throne: it's just that duty demands that he take it. I don't give that story a lot of credit either. I believe Stannis' actions show he does want the throne, if only as a sort of personal validation. Robert, I think, took it to deny it to the Targaryens, as a form of revenge. Neither of them seem to have deliberately sought the throne from lust for power, to be fair: but neither seem to have particularly looked for a way out of taking it either. And if you're going to claim that Robert should be excused his poor performance as King on the grounds that he was forced into the job and didn't want to do it, I think you really have to have some evidence that he actively tried to avoid being put on the throne.

[Alexia]

Therefore Robert, by virtue of having some Targ blood in his ancestry, ends up having the best claim among the rebels. Is it tenuous? Yes, but if the rebels want to maintain the illusion of order, than Robert's Targ ancestry gives him the throne.

This is the part that's so hilariously hypocritical. I remember the passage you refer to. I also remember another passage: Ned asks Robert, "for what did we rebel, if not to put an end to the murder of children?," and Robert responds, "to put an end to Targaryens!" And then he's ballsy enough to claim the throne based on his Targaryen blood. So much for putting an end to Targaryens.

:lmao:

[Nemrut]

How is that hypocritical? It would be hypocritical if he named himself Targaryen and continued their traditions and beliefs but he did not do such a thing. Just because his great-grandfather/mother was a Targaryen doesn't make him one.

[snake]

I don't think any of the rebels thought about claiming the throne initially. IMO, it would have been sometime before the Battle of the Trident that Robert claimed the throne. I think once it began to look like they would win the discussion turned to what to do once Aerys was deposed. Robert would have obviously been against any Targaryen on the throne and I would think Jon and Ned would have felt the same. They nor their houses would have ever been safe. So the question was, who do you replace Aerys with? No doubt it took a bit of persuasion but I think the other leaders convinced Robert that because of his link to the Targaryens and his ability to rally men to their cause that he was the man to make the claim.

I'd also like to point out the only Targaryens actually killed by the rebels was Rhaegar. Aerys and Rhaegar's kids were butchered by the Lannisters. Viserys was "crowned" by Khal Drogo and Dany is alive and kicking.

[Spastic Plastic]

Why didn't Jon Arryn take the crown? We know that the rebellion started when Aerys demanded Ned's and Robert's deaths, and Jon called his banners in revolt instead. So obviously, he was the leader.

[YoDaddy]

Why didn't Jon Arryn take the crown? We know that the rebellion started when Aerys demanded Ned's and Robert's deaths, and Jon called his banners in revolt instead. So obviously, he was the leader.

EXCELLENT question.....anyone? Is there an answer as to how and why Robert took the throne and not Jon?