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

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

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.

And Tywin had both kids killed before Ned, Jon or even Robert could give the order to do otherwise. So really, asking why the rebels couldn't have installed Aegon just kind of completely ignores the fact that it wasn't their decision to make. The person who had the power to make that choice, Tywin, had the kids killed for his own reasons.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

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.

Once again: Aegon was dead by the time that everyone (except Ty) could gave an order how he should be treated.

And no there is no time. Because after being a King he could easily declare all the rebels traitos and order their deaths.

[the Sword of the Prevening]

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.

Even if he wasn't killed before a choice could be made, what makes you think giving the throne to Aegon was the best option?

[Knight Of Winter]

The main question here is why? Why would Bob&co lead the rebellion and barely manage to win it just to....put another Targaryen on the throne? It's not written in stone that Targs have to be kings, and thus all rebellion can to is to replace one Targ with another.

Rebels just led the war against Aerys Targaryen - is there any reason they should respect Targ rules of primogeniture and install Aegon/Rhaenys/Viserys? No. They instead chose Robert as king and they had complete right to it.

[Ordos]

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...

In the real world it's true that dwelling on what if too long is not constructive. But this is a fictional universe where we are encouraged to let our imaginations fly and we have PLENTY of time to speculate until the next book or the next season of the TV series.

[Timcom]

I have often wondered whether it would have been preferable to keep the Targaryen dynasty on the throne after the rebellion.

Firstly, as far as I understand it, the aim of "Robert's Rebellion" shifted as events unfolded (just like in historical example given in the OP of the English Civil War, Charles would have kept his head and Crown had he not been so stubborn).

Although not the start of the war itself, the big event that set events into motion was Rhaegar's abduction of Lyanna. At this stage there is no real driving force for deposing Aerys, sure there is an potential anti-Targaryen alliance being formed, but the primary aim of this is to keep the Crown's power in check rather than changing the ruling dynasty. Instead, at this stage, Brandon Stark wants to "free" his sister.

Had Brandon been less impulsive and waited a little (as I believe Hoster Tully recommended), perhaps the whole war could have been delayed, if not averted. Unfortunately, as it turned out, neither Brandon or Aerys were patient men.

Then we come at the next major event, right after Brandon and Rickard are killed. What if Aerys doesn't demand Eddard and Robert from Jon Arryn? I am not sure this would have changed too much, since Eddard would have been heavily advised by Jon Arryn, but rebel support may have been less.

After the demand of Eddard and Robert, Jon Arryn starts the rebellion. I cannot recall at what stage the rebels decide to support Robert as the claimant to the throne, however given that it is stated that the rebellion could have been ended at the Battle of the Bells (had Jon Connington been more ruthless), it was presumably before then so must have been reasonably soon after calling the rebellion.

There is an important distinction between a rebellion against the injustice of a monarch (or his "evil counsellors") and an attempt to claim the throne. In my mind, the early intent to back Robert for the throne rather than fight a war for political demands was a big gamble and it was one of the reasons why Aerys actually had supporters in the war. No-one could doubt Aerys was mad or a terrible ruler, but several houses had an interest in keeping House Targaryen on the throne (most prominently House Martell).

However, since Aerys was not someone to concede anything, what about changing the monarch but not the dynasty? After all, what if Jon could rule as Hand through a controllable, weak, Targaryen monarch? Let's look at the choices from House Targaryen:

Rhaegar

+He is the lawful heir.

+Recognises that Aerys is unfit to be king, able to negotiate.

+Popular with the masses.

-Robert would never forgive him, Eddard's views on Rhaegar are really unknown before he visits the Tower of Joy (and not well known afterwards either).

-His ability/age would make him hard to control, would not be a weak monarch,

Most importantly though:

-Hard to get in contact with. It's unclear where he is and communication with Dorne would take a long time.

Aegon

+Keeps House Martell in the fold since he is Elia's child.

+Second in line, if Rhaegar and Aerys are deemed unfit to rule through their actions, he can be put forward as the rightful candidate.

+Young and can be put forward as a figurehead with Jon Arryn/Hoster Tully as Regent. Also can be married to a rebel relative (a future Sansa Stark maybe?) for future stability.

-Might take revenge when he grows up.

-Other Targaryen claimants (Viserys) could be a problem.

-The political power of the "Rebel Alliance" would eventually recede.

Visery

+Young

+/- Not Rhaegar's child.

+/- Is like Aerys, but such a personality may have not formed yet and even if it had it's unlikely the rebels would know.

-Not in the main line of succession.

-Other Targaryen claimants (Aegon).

The Dance of Dragons dealt quite a blow for a female Targaryen's claim to the throne while there are other male claimants, so I won't consider Rhaenys.

I think Aegon is the most viable candidate and Jon Arryn could have launched a general rebellion to depose Aerys on the claim that he was evidently unfit to rule without supporting Robert to the throne. I think had the rebels taken this choice, Aerys would have got far less support.

As we all know, the history of Westeros is largely based on the Kingdom of England (which itself was once "Seven Kingdoms" and had several migrations of invading peoples to the country) and there were several rebellions against the King from 1066-1485. Most notably:

Henry II's heir, supported and encouraged by others, rebelled against him. Had this rebellion been successful, there would have been a change in monarch but no change in dynasty. For whatever reasons, Rhaegar decided not to go against his father, even though he could see that changes needed to be made. Had he been more politcally aware of the large alliance against House Targaryen, it's possible he could have seized this opportunity rather than being obsessed with a prophetic third head of a dragon.

The first Barons' Revolt was against King John to get him to accept Magna Carta. However, John died during this war and the Barons didn't want the French Prince Louis to be King of England, so they decided to support John's son Henry to the throne in the hope that he could be taught from a young age to accept Magna Carta. Unfortunately for the Barons, when Henry III grew up he resented the Barons who warred against his father and restricted his own power. This led to a second failed Barons' Revolt. This illustrates the potential danger of the rebels putting Aegon on the throne and the fear of eventual revenge may explain why Jon Arryn decided to support Robert's claim.

Henry IV essentially usurped the throne from Richard II, but his reign was full of instability and rebellions (and fake pretenders were also brought forward, which is again appropriate to ASOIAF). Edward IV took the throne from the mad Henry VI, but also faced several rebellions for the first half of his reign. Furthermore, the House of York did not spend a long time on the throne once Edward died (which would seem to be likely also for House Baratheon).

An usurper's rule is usually marked with great instability and if they don't fall often their successors will.

Henry VII's rise to power was exceptional, but it is important to point out that he married Elizabeth of York, uniting the warring houses of York and Lancaster as an act of reconciliation (although this was still not perfect and he did have to deal with rebellions). By contrast, Robert Baratheon marries the daughter of the treacherous slaughterer Tywin Lannister, which rubs salt into the wound of Targaryen loyalists. There is no suitable Targaryen bride for Robert (before the sack Rhaenys is a little to young, Daenerys not born) and his hatred for the Targaryens would prevent this even if it were possible. Still, I think the marriage to Cersei may have been a mistake considering the infamy that House Lannister had recently earned.

One final remark, the killing of Aegon, Rhaenys and Elia was horrific even by medieval standards. And I'm not sure it's a wise move either (especially coming from the otherwise politcally astute Tywin). Keeping them prisoner (at least at first) seems far more sensible, especially given that in hindsight, Viserys and Rhaella escape. To contrast, after the utter failure of the Second Blackfyre Rebellion, Bloodraven keeps Daemon II prisoner rather than execute him.

This turned out to be longer than intended, but in conclusion I think that putting Aegon on the throne was the most viable alternative and would have led to an easier war. It has its own potential downsides in the long term of course, but probably would have led to a far more stable monarchy.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

This turned out to be longer than intended, but in conclusion I think that putting Aegon on the throne was the most viable alternative and would have led to an easier war. It has its own potential downsides in the long term of course, but probably would have led to a far more stable monarchy.

But again, as has already been said, the choice to put Aegon on the throne was taken from the rebels the moment Tywin got to the city first. I'm not exactly going to fault Ned, Jon or even Robert for that. This question would really be substantially more pertinent if, say, all of the rebels had arrived at the same time and the kids were still alive and rather than put them on the throne, the rebels had decided to execute them. But that's not what happened, so I'm not sure how to approach a question that's framed in such a way.

[Timcom]

But again, as has already been said, the choice to put Aegon on the throne was taken from the rebels the moment Tywin got to the city first. I'm not exactly going to fault Ned, Jon or even Robert for that. This question would really be substantially more pertinent if, say, all of the rebels had arrived at the same time and the kids were still alive and rather than put them on the throne, the rebels had decided to execute them. But that's not what happened, so I'm not sure how to approach a question that's framed in such a way.

It was, but before the sack even happens I think Jon Arryn decides to back Robert for the throne. At the time of the rebellion, the rebels had no idea which way Tywin would turn and could have backed Aegon for the throne instead of Robert. I guess the question is really about "after the rebellion" and I seem to have went for the more general (and interesting) option of putting a Targaryen on the throne from the rebellion, but had the rebels had the intent of not deposing the entire Targaryen dynasty, Tywin would not have been so foolish as to kill the Targaryen children off.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

First, I hope this thread doesn't become one more of those threads "Tywin was in the right to butcher the Targaryen children and in the rape and murder of Elia Martell", because that's simply despicable. I could never bring myself to like Robert because of it. And mind you, while he didn't made the choice, he approved it. There's no utilitarian reason to justify the fifty stabs little Rhaenys suffered, or the rape of Elia Martell with Prince Aegon's blood still on the Mountain's hands. It was certainly a big deal to everyone, just not Tywin and Robert, and Ned himself fought with Robert because of it. The main reason why Ned went to Cersei was because of it, he was just naive to hope she'd be one tenth the person the Princess of Dorne was.

That said, there was hardly any option for the Royal Family than exile, like the one that Dany and Viserys endured. Even if the rebels arrived at the same time, hardly Robert would want to put Aegon on the throne. There must be a reason why Jon remained in hiding all these years. There just wasn't a way for the Targaryens to continue their rule, Robert was set on killing the entire line of Rhaegar on the grounds that he kidnapped Lyanna and Aerys demanded his head. They'd have to put someone else on the throne.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

First, I hope this thread doesn't become one more of those threads "Tywin was in the right to butcher the Targaryen children and in the rape and murder of Elia Martell", because that's simply despicable.

I don't see anyone arguing that. What I do see is the case that it's kind of pointless to ask why guys like Ned and Jon didn't just install Aegon VI when his death was out of their hands.

[Mithras]

The sacking of KL and murder of Elia and her children are all on Tywin. He finally retaliated for all the things Aerys did to him. Overthrowing Targaryen dynasty was not the original purpose of the rebellion. If Tywin didnot act like this SoaB, the rebel lords would

1) Announce Aegon as the king, Robert as the king regent and Jon Arryn as the hand,

2) All the Targaryen children are sent to far north (Winterfell) into Ned's fostering to prevent early plots,

3) A trusted castellan is appointed to Dragonstone,

This way, although the Targaryens are the ruling dynasty, they lose all their power. And ıf any of the Targaryen heirs show insanity, they will be removed from their rights on the throne. This can be constitutionalized in an act.

[Balaurderaa]

IIRC Mace Tyrell dipped his banners before the sack but after the Trident (Apologies if this is incorrect) so it seems pretty clear that everyone had given up the Targaryens after Rhaegar died so why would Tywin place Aegon/Vizerys on the throne when the Targaryens aura of invincibility and 'divine right to rule' was already gone?

[Timcom]

The sacking of KL and murder of Elia and her children are all on Tywin. He finally retaliated for all the things Aerys did to him. Overthrowing Targaryen dynasty was not the original purpose of the rebellion. If Tywin didnot act like this SoaB, the rebel lords would

1) Announce Aegon as the king, Robert as the king regent and Jon Arryn as the hand,

2) All the Targaryen children are sent to far north (Winterfell) into Ned's fostering to prevent early plots,

3) A trusted castellan is appointed to Dragonstone,

This way, although the Targaryens are the ruling dynasty, they lose all their power. And ıf any of the Targaryen heirs show insanity, they will be removed from their rights on the throne. This can be constitutionalized in an act.

Again, I'm fairly sure that the rebels did support deposing the entire Targaryen dynasty before the sack, which is why Tywin orders the Targaryen children to be killed. But you are right in that Tywin's motivation was at least as much revenge as showing loyalty.

[Knight Of Winter]

I don't see anyone arguing that. What I do see is the case that it's kind of pointless to ask why guys like Ned and Jon didn't just install Aegon VI when his death was out of their hands.

Even if Aegon VI was alive, I don't see any reason why would Robert&co want to put another scion of House Targaryen on the throne. Having just fought the war, they didn't care about Targayrens and their rights to the throne. Having won the war, they had good opportunity to take the throne - as it was their right.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

IIRC Mace Tyrell dipped his banners before the sack but after the Trident (Apologies if this is incorrect) so it seems pretty clear that everyone had given up the Targaryens after Rhaegar died so why would Tywin place Aegon/Vizerys on the throne when the Targaryens aura of invincibility and 'divine right to rule' was already gone?

No, Ned went to take the Reach lords' surrender after the Sack.

Even if Aegon VI was alive, I don't see any reason why would Robert&co want to put another scion of House Targaryen on the throne. Having just fought the war, they didn't care about Targayrens and their rights to the throne. Having won the war, they had good opportunity to take the throne - as it was their right.

Oh I don't either. It's impractical candyland thinking, to be brutally honest. But that doesn't change the fact that it's bizarre to hold Ned and Jon in particular accountable for a decision that Tywin made without them.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Even if Aegon VI was alive, I don't see any reason why would Robert&co want to put another scion of House Targaryen on the throne. Having just fought the war, they didn't care about Targayrens and their rights to the throne. Having won the war, they had good opportunity to take the throne - as it was their right.

:agree: I really can't understand why people think that the Rebels should just give back to the Targs the power after their victory.

[Alayne's Shadow.]

I don't see anyone arguing that. What I do see is the case that it's kind of pointless to ask why guys like Ned and Jon didn't just install Aegon VI when his death was out of their hands.

I'm not saying there is in this thread, this is why "It doesn't become one more", but I've seen thrown around somewhere. Other than that, you're right, that's what I see as well.

[otherbeef]

And Tywin had both kids killed before Ned, Jon or even Robert could give the order to do otherwise. So really, asking why the rebels couldn't have installed Aegon just kind of completely ignores the fact that it wasn't their decision to make. The person who had the power to make that choice, Tywin, had the kids killed for his own reasons.

By the time the children were killed Robert had already been declared king, so the decision to remove them from power had already been decided

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Again, I'm fairly sure that the rebels did support deposing the entire Targaryen dynasty before the sack, which is why Tywin orders the Targaryen children to be killed. But you are right in that Tywin's motivation was at least as much revenge as showing loyalty.

I agree, that was just Tywin taking revenge on the fact that Cersei was rejected in favor of Elia. And to ally himself with the new power.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

By the time the children were killed Robert had already been declared king, so the decision to remove them from power had already been decided

I don't think so.

The kids were dead during the Sack, if you remember after the Sack Ned found Jaime siting at the IT wondering who he should name as the king.