It could be a problem, but it might also be rather useful, in terms of giving the Riverlands a measure of self-government that keeps them happy and loyal rather than resentful and rebellious. After all, the whole point of the Lords Paramount system was to give the Seven Kingdoms an incentive to peacefully assimilate into the new monarchy. 

Now, it helps a lot that Houses Tully and Stark are joined by blood – in the short term, it’s going to be a lot easier for Riverlords to maintain their allegiance to a King who’s also Hoster Tully’s grandson, and the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands is less likely to rebel against his nephew than he would with say, King Torrhen Stark. However, as time goes on, it’s probably a good idea for House Stark to marry into House Tully every so often – it keeps them close kin, which makes them more likely to stay loyal, it enhances House Tully’s shaky hold on the Riverlands by giving them an infusion of the royal blood they have never had, and it creates the impression of equality between the two houses. 

In the long-term, one of the major factors is going to be how the Lord Paramountcy interacts with the new position of Warden of the Southern Marches. The creation of this post is a strong indication of Robb’s intention to hold onto the Riverlands by right of conquest and acclamation, in part through the projection of royal authority. A Warden of the Southern Marches, after all, would answer directly to the King in the North and have the military authority to act against any threats to his rule, external or internal. In the short-term, choosing Brynden Tully is ideal – Brynden is an excellent military leader who Robb can trust to hold down his southern flank, he’s personally loyal to Robb and will maintain his authority, but he’s also a Tully and thus not an open provocation to either House Tully or Riverlander nationalism. 

In the future, however, the Starks would have to be careful about appointments – choosing a Northman could be politically difficult unless that Northman was married into the Riverlands, but choosing a Riverlander could also raise issues of domestic rivalries and that Riverlander’s allegiance to the Starks. Likewise, in terms of how the two offices work, there needs to be a balance between upholding the King’s authority in his southern dominions (giving the office to Edmure’s heirs, for example, would not be a good idea for keeping the North in control of the Riverlands) and not offending the Lord Paramount of the Riverlands. Hence, it might be a good idea have the Wardenship be given to a younger son of House Tully who shows promise in arms and who has been fostered in Winterfell and/or married into the North, to ensure his credentials in both realms.

Ultimately, the longevity of Robb’s new kingdom would depend on how well he manages to balance the interests of both kingdoms. Historically, major political forces in the Riverlands have been willing to accept outside rule as long as they feel that local prerogatives are being respected and that they’re not being used for another region’s interests. It definitely helps that Robb Stark warred to free the Riverlands from Lannister dominion – but in the future, Kings of the North will need to make sure they don’t demand too much, too often to support the North (men for the Wall, military aid in dealing with Wildling invasions), without balancing that with royal support for the Riverlands. So if a Stark King is going to build up a naval port on the Saltspear, as I have recommended, he’d better pair that with building up Seagard; if he’s going to build a canal linking the White Knife to Blazewater Bay, he’d better support a canal on the Blue Fork or linking the Godseye to the Trident. 

Definitely second-class status. As WOIAF points out: “Just as Arlan III Durrandon had done three centuries earlier, Harwyn claimed the riverlands for himself. Those riverlords who had fought beside him had done naught but exchange one master for another…and their new master was harsher, crueler, and more exacting than the old one.”

The Ironborn taxed the Riverlands mercilessly to pay for the Hoare’s wars against the Westerlands, the Stormlands, and the Vale, demanded tribute from the local lords on top of it, took Riverlander women as salt-wives, and you’d better bet Riverlanders were used as cannon-fodder thrown at the Bloody Gate, and then there’s Harrenhal, for which “Harren the Black had driven thousands to their deaths in the building of his great castle of Harrenhal, plundering the riverlands for materials and beggaring lords and smallfolk alike with his appetite for gold.”

So basically the best the Riverlords could hope for is to be treated as local quislings for a gang of brutal tyrants.

And just to be clear, by this point in the history of the Iron Islands, the whole “all captains equal in the Kingsmoot” thing doesn’t exist. There hadn’t been a kingsmoot for thousands of years, ever since Urron Redhand, and the Hoare kings ruled by right of blood. 

To continue my previous point, you seem to be assuming that succession disputes are simply about politics, and that the quality of the alternative claimant’s argument doesn’t matter. But of course it does! There’s numerous examples of claimants representing a theoretically dominant faction losing because they had a shitty case – beyond Jane Grey, I’m thinking of the Duke of Monmouth and the Catholic League in the French Wars of Religion. Having a good hereditary claim actually matters.

Well, you have the Hightowers, the Lannisters, the Strongs, the Redwynes, the Baratheons, etc. They’re all on board. Also, anyone who doesn’t like Daemon Targaryen, and there’s a lot of those people running around because that man mass produces enemies. And of course, whichever prominent lord Aegonrya was married to. 

Of course the quality of the argument matters, but it depends on how people see the situation. If we’re going by legal claim, a lot of lords might say that after the Council of 101 neither Rhaenrya nor Aegonrya could inherit, so the nearest male relative of the Targaryens should inherit. 

serfriendzonetoth:

racefortheironthrone:

Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis: Daenerys IV, ACOK

“I don’t…I don’t understand….Help me. Show me.”
Synopsis: Dany goes to the House of the Undying to open the doors of perception, maybe play some prog rock.
SPOILER WARNING: This chapter analysis, and all following, will contain spoilers for all Song of Ice and Fire novels and Game of Thrones episodes. Caveat lector.
(more…)

View On WordPress

Tackling the House of the Undying like this is a Son of Kong-like achievement. Bravo!

A small quibble; you seem to assume that Rhaegar was looking to create a Prince That Was Promised who was equal parts Ice (Stark) and Fire (Targaryen.)

But in the vision in which he names Aegon, Rhaegar refers to Aegon as the Prince That Was Promised.

What about the idea that Rhaegar was trying to re-create the Conqueror’s generation? He has a courtly, charming Rhaenys from Elia, then an Aegon as well. Now he needs a warrior maiden, a Visenya. Cue the unmasking of the Knight of the Laughing Tree as a woman…

It’s true that he was talking about Aegon, but “three heads has the dragon.” I think Aegon interpreted the prophecy as needing three people to fulfill it. 

Yes. 

There are major open questions there. In terms of the sword, it’s probable that the same “friends at court” who freed Bittersteel after Haegon’s murder also liberated the sword. Given how close to their original landing the Fourth Rebellion ended, it’s quite likely that Bittersteel simply just retreated back to the boats with the sword.

As to the army, that’s quite curious. Obviously, the Golden Company’s discipline helps a good deal in terms of keeping the army together in retreat, especially with Bittersteel being captive in the aftermath of the Third Rebellion. Most likely, they retreated back to their Tyroshi fleet at some rendezvous point. 

But honestly we don’t know enough about the course of either war to be sure.

Oh, I see. Here’s my thinking: you don’t invite the king after refusing to pay your taxes without some sort of plan to make use of the king’s physical proximity, because that’s not exactly a strategy likely to gain royal assent to a charter.  

So I could definitely see Aerys escalating things to violence when Darklyn had hoped for a more bloodless scenario, but I think there must have been some plan to seize the person of the king. 

“Rhaenyra murdered her father! Rhaenrya births demons! Here’s Viserys’ deathbed will! Rhaenrya’s an ungodly woman and our Queen has been anointed by the High Septon!” 

There’s a bunch of ways to play the game when you start with control of the Small Council. 

I don’t really see how, barring faking the death of a knight of the Kingsguard, you fake something like that. 

It was both remarkably generous and completely inadequate to the situation. The basic problem is that both Stannis and Renly have committed to diametrically opposed positions. 

I don’t think he thought it would be, but it was as far as he was willing to go.

And the Tyrells didn’t seem to care, in OTL.