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

[UVA]

That was an extra factor to his claim, but if the Rebels didn't have anyone with Targ blood, they'd still have put another king in place and no one would complain anymore than they did with Robert.

Yes. Robert won the throne through a war of conquest but his claim to the throne was legitimized by his Targaryen ancestry. That said, the Targ link is ancillary and should be seen as a public relations move to placate royalist lords, and perhaps a significant portion of the people at large who desire some dynastic continuity.

[Erkan12]

Not any house can sit on the iron throne. Robert's paternal grandmother was Rhaelle Targaryen. He has a significant Targaryen blood. If you disregard Viserys and Dany (which the 7K did) Robert is the true heir to the throne. This way the bloodline continues but the name of the ruling house changes.

As Renly said, it was just a 'excuse' for maesters. Robert won the crown with his warhammer and his loyal bannermen such as Jon Arryn and Ned.

[Bael's Bastard]

I am not sure how successful the propaganda about Robert having Targaryen blood was ultimately, it may have failed in the post-rebellion, especially with commoners, but it certainly was important to the rebel lords and the picture they wanted to portray prior to/during their rebellion.

[The BlackBear]

I am not sure how successful the propaganda about Robert having Targaryen blood was ultimately, it may have failed in the post-rebellion, especially with commoners, but it certainly was important to the rebel lords and the picture they wanted to portray prior to/during their rebellion.

They were probably more concerned with not getting dead.

[Bael's Bastard]

They were probably more concerned with not getting dead.

When Jon and them chose to rebel, perhaps, but when it came to putting a king on the throne they were clearly concerned with at least the appearance of continuity with the Targaryens. What might have developed after Robert was on the throne is another matter. He got there over the other rebel lords based on his connection to the Targaryens thru Aegon's daughter, the closest Targaryen connection we know of after Aerys and his descendents.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I can't recall a textual reference that explicitly states that Robert Baratheon's claim to the throne when Jon Arryn called his banners (I'll have to check for this in my next read through, it is interesting point that has came up), however it is the option that makes the most sense with respect to everything else.

I don't think that there is any evidence that Robert ever claimed the throne. Instead we have evidence that the other Lords gave him the throne

Robert sat down again. “Damn you, Ned Stark. You and Jon Arryn, I love you both. What have you done to me? You were the one should have been king, you or Jon”

notice: You have done to me.

For instance, why else would Robert be made leader of the rebellion early on if not for his claim to the throne? Bear in mind that this is a young Robert, so far untested in command, battle and politics. He could have made the decision to lead early on independently, but remember that he started off at the Vale and later went to Storm's End, so I doubt he spontaneously became leader of the rebellion, but that this was agreed when the rebellion started.

Maybe because he won all the battles? Maybe because he barely lost one battle?

Let’s see the battles:

Battle of Summerhall-Commander:Robert: Robert wins three battles in one day. Rebel victory.

Battle of Ashford-Commander:Robert: Robert's army hadn't suffered heavy casualties (inconclusive result). Royal victory.

Battle of the Bells-commanders: Robert,Eddard,Hoster-Jon Connington (first battle and failure) was exilied after the battle.Rebel victory.

Battle of the Trident-Commanders: Robert, Eddard, Hoster, Jon: Robert kills Rhaegar, scattering of the Royal army. Rebel victory.

Then there's Jon Connington's claim that he could have ended it all at the Battle of the Bells, which makes much more sense if Robert is actively put a claim forward to the throne.

Because the Battle of the Bells was the only battle JonCon fought. If he had won the battle he would have finished the Rebellion. I think it makes much more sence that way.

[The Wolves]

I think the Targaryens staying in power was what should have been. I don't think we would have the hell that is TWot5Ks. Aegon should have been crowed King and Elia as his Regent. Robert Baratheon should have NEVER been King better yet nobody during Robert's reign should have held the power that they did.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I think the Targaryens staying in power was what should have been. I don't think we would have the hell that is TWot5Ks. Aegon should have been crowed King and Elia as his Regent. Robert Baratheon should have NEVER been King better yet nobody during Robert's reign should have held the power that they did.

How could this happen since Aegon died?

[The BlackBear]

How could this happen since Aegon died?

Because this is an alternate dimension where rebels win then hand over their victory at the last minute, and all the characters are completely different.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Because this is an alternate dimension where rebels win then hand over their victory at the last minute, and all the characters are completely different.

Agree. But they (Robert,Ned,Hoster and Jon) should also been able to see the future and know what Tywin had planned.

[Mithras]

The true leader of the rebellion was Jon Arryn. Most of the planning was done by him. He was both a good diplomat and a great commander. All the things Ned and Robert know comes from him. After the KL is taken, Jon, Ned and Robert were the three strongest men in the realms. No house has the courage to challenge them anymore.

[Timcom]

I don't think that there is any evidence that Robert ever claimed the throne. Instead we have evidence that the other Lords gave him the throne

notice: You have done to me.

Maybe because he won all the battles? Maybe because he barely lost one battle?

Let’s see the battles:

Battle of Summerhall-Commander:Robert: Robert wins three battles in one day. Rebel victory.

Battle of Ashford-Commander:Robert: Robert's army hadn't suffered heavy casualties (inconclusive result). Royal victory.

Battle of the Bells-commanders: Robert,Eddard,Hoster-Jon Connington (first battle and failure) was exilied after the battle.Rebel victory.

Battle of the Trident-Commanders: Robert, Eddard, Hoster, Jon: Robert kills Rhaegar, scattering of the Royal army. Rebel victory.

Because the Battle of the Bells was the only battle JonCon fought. If he had won the battle he would have finished the Rebellion. I think it makes much more sence that way.

I'm not saying Robert claimed the throne himself, merely that his claim was put forward by the rebels soon after the rebellion started.

You miss my point about Robert being appointed overall leader. All those victories occurred after he was put forward as leader. In military terms in hindsight, it was an excellent choice, but beforehand it seems like a risk. Jon Arryn trusted that he had taught Robert well enough to command, but the only reason to put him forward to lead the whole rebellion is Targaryen ancestry which can be used to claim the throne.

Because this is an alternate dimension where rebels win then hand over their victory at the last minute, and all the characters are completely different.

A more plausible scenario is that the rebels don't put forward Robert's claim at the start of the rebellion but instead fight to depose Aerys and their victory is installing a young Aegon on the throne with a small council, regent and Hand of their choosing.

[aceluby]

There is exactly ONE character that even mentions Robert's Targ blood as part of his 'claim', and that ONE person is Ned, who would use any excuse at his disposal to not sit the throne himself. Robert isn't a continuation of the Targ throne, he's a new beginning of the Baratheon dynasty. His claim was through conquest, not blood.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I'm not saying Robert claimed the throne himself, merely that his claim was put forward by the rebels soon after the rebellion started.

You miss my point about Robert being appointed overall leader. All those victories occurred after he was put forward as leader. In military terms in hindsight, it was an excellent choice, but beforehand it seems like a risk. Jon Arryn trusted that he had taught Robert well enough to command, but the only reason to put him forward to lead the whole rebellion is Targaryen ancestry which can be used to claim the throne.

Quote, give me a quote were it is mentioned that the rebellion was named Robert's Rebellion from the beginning and another one that proves that they give him the commant because of his grandmother.

A more plausible scenario is that the rebels don't put forward Robert's claim at the start of the rebellion but instead fight to depose Aerys and their victory is installing a young Aegon on the throne with a small council, regent and Hand of their choosing.

Again: Give me the quote were it is stated that Robert's claim was putted forward from the start.

There is exactly ONE character that even mentions Robert's Targ blood as part of his 'claim', and that ONE person is Ned, who would use any excuse at his disposal to not sit the throne himself. Robert isn't a continuation of the Targ throne, he's a new beginning of the Baratheon dynasty. His claim was through conquest, not blood.

Exactly. We have quotes about Robert winning the throne and we have one dubious quote from Ned.

[Knight Of Winter]

1) I'm not saying Robert claimed the throne himself, merely that his claim was put forward by the rebels soon after the rebellion started.

You miss my point about Robert being appointed overall leader. All those victories occurred after he was put forward as leader. In military terms in hindsight, it was an excellent choice, but beforehand it seems like a risk. Jon Arryn trusted that he had taught Robert well enough to command, but the only reason to put him forward to lead the whole rebellion is Targaryen ancestry which can be used to claim the throne.

2) A more plausible scenario is that the rebels don't put forward Robert's claim at the start of the rebellion but instead fight to depose Aerys and their victory is installing a young Aegon on the throne with a small council, regent and Hand of their choosing.

1) IIRC, we don't know when was it decided that Robert should be the king post-rebellion. Have you any textual proof that it happened in the early stages of the war?

2) But why would rebels do that? Having won the war, they had the right to crown whoever they pleased - and it made sense they chose one of their own (Robert), rather than scion of dynasty they just warred against (Aegon).

[Ashara's daughter]

Well after Aerys was killed, who HAD to die by everyone's opinion then Rhaegar after him, who had to die by Robert's opinion, the next Targ in the line of succession would've been baby Aegon (if he hadn't been killed) who was still a newborn which would mean there would've been a need for a regent, who would've took up this post?! Letting the Targs keep the throne would've been a tiny bit more plausible if they had a male heir of age, but then it still would've been extremely unlikely especially considering Robert's hatred for all Targs...

[TheCrannogDweller]

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?

Because he was going to be a pawn for the better part of the next 15 years? He was just a baby. They could've shaped him into the leader they wanted him to be.

The moment KL opened its gates to Tywin and his army, the high and mighty Lord Lannister made the biggest mistake in his life. All he had to do was close the gates, discreetly get rid of Aerys and take control of Aegon. He could've persuaded Elia to support him and name himself Hand of the King. From there on it was just a matter of sending a raven to Mace Tyrell and getting him to send reinforcements, while the secondary army of the Westerlands invade the Riverlands and pillage them on their way to the capital. The rebellion would've been lost in a month.

[Bael's Bastard]

There is exactly ONE character that even mentions Robert's Targ blood as part of his 'claim', and that ONE person is Ned, who would use any excuse at his disposal to not sit the throne himself. Robert isn't a continuation of the Targ throne, he's a new beginning of the Baratheon dynasty. His claim was through conquest, not blood.

IIRC Selmy (who was on the other side until after the Battle of the Trident) mentions it, and I seem to recall some other possible mentions. I don't think Ned's reference to Robert having the better claim can be discounted as Ned just using any excuse to not sit the throne. Ned didn't choose who would be king, and Robert would have used any excuse, plus all the dishonorable, dishonest, immoral stuff Ned would never dream to use to avoid sitting the throne. Of course he never would have sat the throne without conquest, but he need not have sat the throne even with conquest. One of the main reasons he was chosen as the face of the new regime is because he was the most recent Targaryen ancestor outside of Aerys and his family, being the grandson of Egg's daughter. Robert may have distances himself from the claim at some point during his reign, but that doesn't change that he was put there in part because of it.

[complexphoenix]

Because he was going to be a pawn for the better part of the next 15 years? He was just a baby. They could've shaped him into the leader they wanted him to be.

The moment KL opened its gates to Tywin and his army, the high and mighty Lord Lannister made the biggest mistake in his life. All he had to do was close the gates, discreetly get rid of Aerys and take control of Aegon. He could've persuaded Elia to support him and name himself Hand of the King. From there on it was just a matter of sending a raven to Mace Tyrell and getting him to send reinforcements, while the secondary army of the Westerlands invade the Riverlands and pillage them on their way to the capital. The rebellion would've been lost in a month.

I doubt Tywin had the numbers to pull this off. Pillaging the Riverlands would have inflamed the situation and the whole point of swooping in to take KL by treachery was to make a quick end to the war while also guaranteeing that Tywin would have a seat at the table going forward. If Tywin was going to fight the rebels, the time to start was at the *beginning* of the war. Tywin's strategy was waiting to join the war until after it was clear who would win, to prevent any risk of being on the losing side.

[TheCrannogDweller]

I doubt Tywin had the numbers to pull this off. Pillaging the Riverlands would have inflamed the situation and the whole point of swooping in to take KL by treachery was to make a quick end to the war while also guaranteeing that Tywin would have a seat at the table going forward. If Tywin was going to fight the rebels, the time to start was at the *beginning* of the war. Tywin's strategy was waiting to join the war until after it was clear who would win, to prevent any risk of being on the losing side.

He only had 12 000 men with him when he sacked KL. That's probably a quarter of the total force of the Rock. Then there were the Freys. Lord Walder has always been opportunistic and he does have family connections to the Lannisters - so I have no doubt that he would've backed Tywin.

Add to that the Tyrells and the grateful Martells and you get a very clear picture. With the Stormlands all but spent and the Riverlands pillaged, the North and the Vale would've probably kept the war going for a little while longer and then retreated behind the Moat and the Bloody gate, respectively.