You have to wonder… what would the coalition have done if the Baratheons had not had an oh-so-convenient connection to Aegon V just a couple generations back?
There seems to be something of a broad consensus among the Westerosi nobility that if a king is cruel and unjust, you can make a moral, if not legal, case to rise against them and that this can be deemed acceptable. (It seems to hinge on whether or not the king can be successfully painted as abrogating their reciprocal oaths of justice and protection.)
But even people who take that tack often work to uphold the feudal order in other ways. Cregan Stark might have risen for the blacks, but he refused to countenance the poisoning of Aegon II even though that probably saved a lot of lives, because establishing the precedent that you can totally murder a king by stealth as opposed to honorable combat on the field of battle is not something you want to do.
But the Robert’s Rebellion coalition was founded with an explicit and ongoing case of Targaryen exterminationism in its platform by the guy it was named after, who just so happened to be able to put a fig-leaf cover over this by (rather hypocritically) being able to claim descent from another Targaryen only three generations back.
Would Robert have simply had to pull a Renly, and make an explicit claim of “I have the most swords so now I get to be king?” I mean, he already sort of is doing that; Viserys is the rightful heir to the throne and there can be no case made he ever committed any crimes against anyone in Westeros, but the Baratheon regime has declared him an exile and his life forfeit purely on the basis of “because I said so.”
Or would they have placed someone else on the throne to make a clean break from the Targaryens without even pretending to maintain continuity?
Or would the coalition have fractured once Aerys was dead?
“
But the Robert’s Rebellion coalition was founded with an explicit and ongoing case of Targaryen exterminationism in its platform”Ned Stark begs to differ.
And Robert, for whom the rebellion is named and who got to wear the crown, would differ right back at him. 🙂
More seriously, that’s a damn good point, Steven, but… well, I mean, Ned got “lucky” to an extent, didn’t he? Tywin presented him and Robert with a fait accompli in a way that allowed a later reconciliation and for Ned to offload his blame onto a third party.
Ned was never put in the entirely possible position of having Elia and Rhaegar’s children under his power when Robert rode up and demanded they be handed over, or of asking after their fates and having Robert say “don’t worry about it” and Ned looks into his best friends eyes and knows that Robert had a couple infants killed.
I am of the opinion that Robert was going to have those kids killed no matter what; even fifteen years later he is willing to murder women and children, and that’s after his rage has had time to cool. Targaryen exterminationsm is an ongoing and non-negotiable plank of his bid for the throne and also governing policy once he assumes it. He will not bend on this plank even at the behest of his best friend; it takes Robert being gored to death to back down on it. Ned Stark is opposed to this policy… but through fortuitous turns of events Ned never needs to be be opposed enough to this policy to actually break the coalition over it.
I mean… the entire basis of Ned needing to hide Jon is Ned knowing that Robert is not going to compromise when it comes to putting every Targaryen he can find to death, yes? No?
Well, it got the Baratheons enough prestige to be acclaimed Kings of Westeros by the Tullys, Arryns, Starks, and Lannisters…
“Targaryen exterminationsm is an ongoing and non-negotiable plank of his bid for the throne and also governing policy once he assumes it.”
I’m sorry, but this is just not accurate – hence Jon Arryn successfully vetoing assassination attempts against Viserys and Daenerys for his entire tenure as Hand.
RFTIT Tumblr Backup 