#*robert baratheon

I used to think Robert was only a drunk, fat king who never wanted power and lived in the past, but I discovered recently (I watch the show - where it's not strongly implied he is an abusive husband and father - and I'm only at book one of ASOIAF) the things he has done. Like you have said, Joffrey could have turned a lot better if he had had better role models (I think he would have had some sadistic urges, but he would have repressed or controlled them at least). But I think that Cersei is the one who could have been totally different of what she is now, because she seemed to be so full of hope and dreams when she was young. With a decent husband, she could have been far more... stable than she is. But Robert's behavior towards her crushed them, and I think he played a big part in her paranoids tendencies and especially her desperate need to protect her children. So, even if I still don't like her for the things she has done (NEEDDD !!!), I understand her a little bit better.

Anyways, sorry for this long message. You probably didn't care, but I just wanted to let you know I found your analysis very deep and relevant !

I hope is ok to post this.

I agree about Robert. That was my interpretation too of him in the beginning. I actually pitied him. And it wasn't till my re-read when I started seeing a lot of things that bothered me about him. I think it is easy to get that idea of him, because mostly we get to know him through Ned's eyes. And Ned is not reliable when it comes to Robert. If we think about it, he really saw all the things his friend did, like fathering bastards, hardly ever caring for them, being abusive towards his wife, and drowning himself in wine, and yet he didn't really stopped seeing him as a good man grieving the love of his life, and having too much to handle as King. I think it's Ned's views on him what made me not look at all the things he had done, and that would have changed my feelings if it had been another character. Hardly ever Ned really allowed himself to see the flaws in his friend, yet he recognized there were problems there.

I think Joffrey would have been different if he had had different role models to guide him. I do think that there's something about his personality that drives him to be the way he is. But maybe he would have, like you said, controlled himself better, if at least one father figure would have paid some attention to him.

Really interesting what you point about Cersei. I haven't considered that in that way. I do think that the people who surrounds a person can definitely change that person for good or bad, but I can't really blame something like Cersei abandoning all her dreams and hopes because of the kind of husband Robert was. There's a big impact on it for sure, but ultimately I feel she would have kept a relationship on the side with Jaime anyway, and would have made her house prevail over the one resulting from the Baratheon-Lannister marriage. I can't just point at Robert and say because he was the way he was she has those paranoid tendencies. I think Robert did have a big impact in Cersei, for the wrong and not for the right. But it might have to do as well with a mix of that and her status in her own family, her father and the way he raised her and the way he treated her. I think many things come into place when it comes to Cersei's actions, paranoia, and struggles. Robert, his treatment towards her, and the way he was about his not legitimate children, is a factor on it, but I don't think it's majorly the cause of them. Mainly it comes from somewhere else, but since you are in book one, I don't want to spoil it. And maybe even when you finish the books, you could totally disagree about this one with me.

Hi!

It’s not dumb, I realized I barely talk about them.

I was actually rewatching season 1 last night, remembering how great it was, and how promising this series looked. So, my mind is fresh on it. haha

I think Sean Bean was perfect for the role. They definitely needed a leading actor to start the show, and bring in some viewers, and they chose wisely. I think Bean is a good actor, who makes justice to his characters, and has a particular presence and personality to give relevance to them. The movies usually increase their quality when his character dies. Not because they get rid of him, but because his death scenes are most of the time memorable. As Ned I think he didn’t have much challenges, but then again, the character was quite different from the roles he’s used to play. He usually plays the bad guy, and with incredible ease, so this was, in a way, a different area for him to explore. I think he had good chemistry with the actors he worked, and particularly with the younger actors. He embodied the father figure, the warrior, the lord, and the husband perfectly. And I have no complaints about his acting in this show really.

Mark Addy on the other hand over did it some times. I think the role suited him, and he certainly added that loud and obnoxious ways of the character. He embodied the warrior King, not prepared to be a political leader, but a war leader. He gave at times, good timing and depth to the character, and certainly presented a lot of chemistry with Sean Bean, thing that was central to their story. On the other hand I think he overacted certain traits of the role, in a few scenes, and particularly he didn't work that well with Lena Headey. Their scenes lacked of confidence from the actors, and seemed not credible, from both sides. The slapping scene, by Ned's bed, was particularly bad. However in general, I think he was suited for the role, gave his own touch of comic relief to the scenes, and played the decadent and lost in power and wine King, pretty well.

Hmm can I say only Aemon? lol.

I don’t like the Targs in general, they were never my favourites, and I hate some of them. Viserys had moments I found interesting, but he was still an awful brother; Visenya and Rhaenys’ stories were really interesting for me, but still they were conquerors just like their brother-husband, so no, I’m not so fond of them either. Again, I’m not particularly nice when judging the best or worst among the Targs.

I agree with you that Jaehaerys and Alysanne were pretty good. They were pacifists and definitely reign so long because of that. Also Alysanne takes my vote for promoting the abolishing of the “First Night”. She was great!

For the rest, I’m not so sold on them.

In terms of Rhaegar. I think much of what is told about him, his personality and actions, is quite romanticized by the storytellers. So I’m not really sure whether I liked him or disliked him at some point. I was always quite indifferent about him. I do think he would have been a better king that his father, of course. Also, if Barristan’s words said so, then I believe it. (Ned’s opinions of Rhaegar, and Barristan’s, are the ones that I take more seriously, as I’m sure everyone else does. Cause let’s face it, Robert Baratheon was not so good when judging the Targs in general).

The best about the Targs is their not so distant relatives. The Baratheons are far better for me. And thinking someone whithin their not so distant family caused their destruction, is the most ironic part of it. I know the Baratheons repeated many of the things the Targs did, and I definitely don’t see them with more right to sit on the throne than the Targs, like I said before, anyone can claim it, but still the Targs conquering and submitting people to their will is something I can’t like, and that’s why there’s an instant rejection for my part towards them.

Hi, anon.

It seems like somebody didn’t read the book or doesn’t want to accept the truth about it like certain character, imo.

LOL. For real. 

The Targaryens (starting by Aegon I), are and always will be, conquerors. They took what they could and submitted people to their power because they had dragons. Dany is no different. Her whole arc is centered in the fact that she wants to get an army and people to take the throne. Not to retake, but to take it, even if she says is her right to sit on the throne. She is, as her family was, a conqueror. She’s already doing that, what happened in Meereen is proof enough.

We can discuss whether the Targaryens were good or bad for the Kingdoms, but people who weren’t willing to submit to them, had to anyway, because of the dragons. So I don’t see why they should be considered the good guys, when people had to accept them or die.

I don’t think the Targaryens had the right to sit on the throne and rule in the first place, so whatever the “usurpers” did,  is as fair, as them ruling Westeros.

Robert in a way won the throne, by dethroning a despot. So to me, he was certainly a little better than Aerys. Stannis has the right to the throne, giving that he inherits his brother, and his nephews and niece are illegitimate. But if we were to recognize Stannis’ rights, then why not consider Dany’s. So, IMO, everyone is in a level plainfield. And anyone can claim the throne.

To be quite honest, I don’t care about who sits on the throne. For me, the best solution would be to separate, and for each region to have its own King, Queen or ruler.

Dany (or Viserys) considering others “Usurpers”, is like a thief going to the police to report someone for stealing what they stole first.