What if after the Rebellion, the Targaryens were allowed to keep the throne?

[Ordos]

Looking at the time of Robert's rebellion, the rebellion seemed clearly justified. Ayers Targaryen was insane and was capable of the worst things as a King (like what happened to Ned Stark's father and brother). He had to be removed from power. Rhaegar was on the wrong side of history. Though many of us seem to love him and he fought well, ultimately he lost and there is no reason for any outrage at how he died.

HOWEVER the murder of Elia Martell and her children really de-legitimized the rebellion and gives very good reason for Targaryen supporters to be outraged and call for a return of the Targaryens.

Now what if the rebellion did this the right way: The next living Targaryen in line to the throne will be king but must accept the terms of the rebels. Not a democracy or anything like that but with reduced powers. And of course the Targaryens would not be purged regardless of guilt or innocence of any crimes. What if after Jamie killed Ayers, the rebels called all the surviving Targaryens over to hammer out the surrender and terms.

This is not unknown in history by the way. King John of England had really bad relations with regional lords and this resulted in the writing of the Magna Carta (I don't know the details of this bit of history). After the English Civil War, the Monarchy was abolished by Oliver Cromwell but nobody had a clue what would replace it so the monarchy was eventually restored but then became only a ceremonial role without real power and starting parliamentary democracy. After the Japanese surrender in World War II, the monarchy was not abolished and the Emperor was allowed to stay Emperor while accepting the terms of the victors.

Now I'm sure some of you will say that Robert Baratheon could not let this idea happen as his all his banner men would not approve of it. But if everyone thought long and hard and put their ambitions of power aside, then they would have come to this conclusion.

I would wish for this thread to be free of discussion of R + L = J and Fake Aegon.

[Mladen]

That would make complete Rebellion redundant...

I mean, if the point was dethroning Aerys, than they could just have called Rhaegar and put in motion the possible plan Rhaegar had in Harrenhal. But, the rebellion was of dethroning entire dynasty, and as such no Targaryen could have risen to the throne after it... It would be stupid... Furthermore, the Crown doesn't have ultimate rule, and therefore comparison to Magna Carta is flawed. Rebels didn't question their freedoms, they questioned the King and royal family... They didn't change how 7 Kingdoms are governed, they just changed the King.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

The problem with the Targs is that they are Targs. They already shown their true colors and at the end no one really oposed the Rebellion. Only the Tyrells.

HOWEVER the murder of Elia Martell and her children really de-legitimized the rebellion and gives very good reason for Targaryen supporters to be outraged and call for a return of the Targaryens.

Still the only one who cared were the Martells. That shows to me that there are not Targ supporters.

[the Sword of the Prevening]

Looking at the time of Robert's rebellion, the rebellion seemed clearly justified. Ayers Targaryen was insane and was capable of the worst things as a King (like what happened to Ned Stark's father and brother). He had to be removed from power. Rhaegar was on the wrong side of history. Though many of us seem to love him and he fought well, ultimately he lost and there is no reason for any outrage at how he died.

HOWEVER the murder of Elia Martell and her children really de-legitimized the rebellion and gives very good reason for Targaryen supporters to be outraged and call for a return of the Targaryens.

Now what if the rebellion did this the right way: The next living Targaryen in line to the throne will be king but must accept the terms of the rebels. Not a democracy or anything like that but with reduced powers. And of course the Targaryens would not be purged regardless of guilt or innocence of any crimes. What if after Jamie killed Ayers, the rebels called all the surviving Targaryens over to hammer out the surrender and terms.

This is not unknown in history by the way. King John of England had really bad relations with regional lords and this resulted in the writing of the Magna Carta (I don't know the details of this bit of history). After the English Civil War, the Monarchy was abolished by Oliver Cromwell but nobody had a clue what would replace it so the monarchy was eventually restored but then became only a ceremonial role without real power and starting parliamentary democracy. After the Japanese surrender in World War II, the monarchy was not abolished and the Emperor was allowed to stay Emperor while accepting the terms of the victors.

Now I'm sure some of you will say that Robert Baratheon could not let this idea happen as his all his banner men would not approve of it. But if everyone thought long and hard and put their ambitions of power aside, then they would have come to this conclusion.

I would wish for this thread to be free of discussion of R + L = J and Fake Aegon.

Rhaegar "kidnaps" Robert's betrothed. Then the King murders Rickard and Brandon Stark among others, and calls for Ned and Robert's head. Add to that the history of madness in the Targaryen line (Aerys, Maegor, Aerion, etc.) why would the rebels even for a second consider allowing the Targaryens to continue to rule? What would then stop the next Targ from declaring the rebels traitors down the line and calling for their heads? Then you have another all out war.

[The BlackBear]

So Viserys would become King and just magically lose his massive grudge?

The murder of Elia and the kids isn't actually that much of a problem to the average guy in Westeros, they knew they had to go for the rebellion to be successful, even exiled they'd be dangerous. If it was a huge deal they could have killed Gregor and Lorch and sent their heads to Dorne.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I might be cynical but I can't see a scenario where "We'll let you become king as long as you forget about the whole rebellion thing" actually works.

[Mladen]

So Viserys would become King and just magically lose his massive grudge?

The murder of Elia and the kids isn't actually that much of a problem to the average guy in Westeros, they knew they had to go for the rebellion to be successful, even exiled they'd be dangerous. If it was a huge deal they could have killed Gregor and Lorch and sent their heads to Dorne.

It was a huge deal for anyone else, but Tywin and Robert. And their word trumped everyone else's... The average people in KL when famine due to war started were saying that it was all punishment for killing baby Aegon... People cared, but who asked them?

[the Sword of the Prevening]

Do you expect Stannis and the North to accept Tommen as king because Joffrey is now dead?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Do you expect Stannis and the North to accept Tommen as king because Joffrey is now dead?

Good point.

[otherbeef]

why not let baby Aegon become king? Robert wouldn't have to rule, Jon Arryn could be king in all but name, and Aegon would grow up under the influence of and become close with the new court. its a lot easier to smooth over Targ/Rebel relations with a blank slate so to speak.

[Bael's Bastard]

What might help stop a future Targ from doing that is being surrounded by the lands that forced new terms on them, and not having dragons like earlier generations, and possibly having diminished allies. I wonder if Tywin feared Jon, Robert and Ned making Aegon the next king with someone else as regent until then.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The thing is, when you overthrow a dynasty, you overthrow it. Taking out one or even two members and then installing a different one doesn't really change much and historically isn't how such dynastic changes have worked.

Henry IV moves against Richard II. Imprisons him in Pontefract, has him killed.

Edward IV overthrows Henry VI. Does he declare Edward of Westminster, Henry's son, as king? Hell no, he declares himself king.

Henry VII defeats Richard III at Bosworth. Does he declare Elizabeth of York queen? Hell no, he declares himself king by right of conquest.

All three of those, especially the middle one because Robert is the Edward IV parallel here, are more pertinent than the Magna Carta if you really want a historical perspective on how people behaved in this same situation. No one thought, "Well we won at Towton, better make Henry's kid the new king."

[the Sword of the Prevening]

why not let baby Aegon become king? Robert wouldn't have to rule, Jon Arryn could be king in all but name, and Aegon would grow up under the influence of and become close with the new court. its a lot easier to smooth over Targ/Rebel relations with a blank slate so to speak.

Because Tywin did not want it. With Robert as King and Lyanna dead it gave Tywin the opportunity to marry his family to the crown.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

why not let baby Aegon become king? Robert wouldn't have to rule, Jon Arryn could be king in all but name, and Aegon would grow up under the influence of and become close with the new court. its a lot easier to smooth over Targ/Rebel relations with a blank slate so to speak.

Putting the son of the man who caused all the trouble to the throne? Is this serious? If yes then the Rebbelion would be without a purpose. Also no one would accept that.

[otherbeef]

Putting the son of the man who caused all the trouble to the throne? Is this serious? If yes then the Rebbelion would be without a purpose. Also no one would accept that.

Grandson but I digress. Why? The purpose of the rebellion wasn't to grab power, it was out of self defense and vengeance on Roberts part. The only one who wouldnt accept it is robert. we know Ned cares strictly about the laws of succession, Jon Arryn would see that putting the rightful heir on the throne goes a long way in unifying the realm, and it obviously pleases half the realm that fought for the targs

[Bael's Bastard]

The thing is, when you overthrow a dynasty, you overthrow it. Taking out one or even two members and then installing a different one doesn't really change much and historically isn't how such dynastic changes have worked.

Henry IV moves against Richard II. Imprisons him in Pontefract, has him killed.

Edward IV overthrows Henry VI. Does he declare Edward of Westminster, Henry's son, as king? Hell no, he declares himself king.

Henry VII defeats Richard III at Bosworth. Does he declare Elizabeth of York queen? Hell no, he declares himself king by right of conquest.

All three of those, especially the middle one because Robert is the Edward IV parallel here, are more pertinent than the Magna Carta if you really want a historical perspective on how people behaved in this same situation. No one thought, "Well we won at Towton, better make Henry's kid the new king."

I am not arguing that Jon, Robert, and Ned ever considered this, I just wonder whether Tywin might have considered this a possibility, and it contributed to the children being killed. He might have thought it could threaten his plans to get Cersei married to the king. If he thought it was at all possible, Cersei might not have been as good a candidate to marry Aegon as she was to marry Robert.

Even while rebelling, the leadership of the rebellion apparently still determined who would be their king based to some extent or another on his degree of relatedness to the Targaryen rulers. Tywin's forces were new additions to the rebellion, and may not have had knowledge on a good deal of Jon, Robert and Ned's plans.

The possibility of another Targaryen briefly crossed Jaime's mind, I don't think it far fetched that Tywin might have considered it a possibility that the leaders of the rebellion might consider it. Even if he thought it far fetched, he might have felt it best to have the children killed rather than sent away somewhere.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I am not arguing that Jon, Robert, and Ned ever considered this, I just wonder whether Tywin might have considered this a possibility, and it contributed to the children being killed. He might have thought it could threaten his plans to get Cersei married to the king. If he thought it was at all possible, Cersei might not have been as good a candidate to marry Aegon as she was to marry Robert.

Even while rebelling, the leadership of the rebellion apparently still determined who would be their king based to some extent or another on his degree of relatedness to the Targaryen rulers. Tywin's forces were new additions to the rebellion, and may not have had knowledge on a good deal of Jon, Robert and Ned's plans.

The possibility of another Targaryen briefly crossed Jaime's mind, I don't think it far fetched that Tywin might have considered it a possibility that the leaders of the rebellion might consider it. Even if he thought it far fetched, he might have felt it best to have the children killed rather than sent away somewhere.

I think that's entirely possible, sure. And since Tywin had the kids killed -- before Ned or Jon or Robert could give any actual direction -- we'll probably never know what would have happened. They didn't make the decision so much as Tywin made it for them, and Tywin had his reasons, namely, wanting Cersei to be a queen and probably still nursing a grudge against Aerys and his family.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Grandson but I digress. Why? The purpose of the rebellion wasn't to grab power, it was out of self defense and vengeance on Roberts part. The only one who wouldnt accept it is robert. we know Ned cares strictly about the laws of succession, Jon Arryn would see that putting the rightful heir on the throne goes a long way in unifying the realm, and it obviously pleases half the realm that fought for the targs

Son. Rhaegar created the chain of reactions that caused the Rebellion.

When there is a Rebellion over a tyrant means that his dynasty is overthrown. Look what happened during the French Revolution, when the House of Bourbon (Louis XVI) were overthrown, Louis-Charles (or Marie Thérèse) wasn't named the new monarch. They were overthrowned, all of them.

After all, Aegon and Rhaenys died before anyone was able to give an order of how they should be treated.

[otherbeef]

Son. Rhaegar created the chain of reactions that caused the Rebellion.

When there is a Rebellion over a tyrant means that his dynasty is overthrown. Look what happened during the French Revolution, when the House of Bourbon (Louis XVI) were overthrown, Louis-Charles (or Marie Thérèse) wasn't named the new monarch. They were overthrowned, all of them.

After all, Aegon and Rhaenys died before anyone was able to give an order of how they should be treated.

Just because historically that isn't how it worked doesn't mean that it wouldn't be the best option for this situation. Aegon was an innocent who could best unify the realm, while still giving the rebels literally all the power for 16 years, more than enough time to shape aegon as they see fit.

[Austrailian_Idiot]

I might be cynical but I can't see a scenario where "We'll let you become king as long as you forget about the whole rebellion thing" actually works.

I agree totally, and furthermore it does no good to ask the "what if?" questions, we should focus more on the, "what Is" and facts, to get to the Pith of the story...