Work Text:
Robert Baratheon Got Away With Murder Because He Won the War
There's this thing people do with historical narratives where victory becomes moral validation. Winners were right because they won. Losers were wrong because they lost. Clean, simple, lets you sleep at night thinking the universe has justice built in.
Game of Thrones constructed a comfortable story for years: mad king does mad things, brave rebels rise up, righteous restoration. Robert Baratheon kills the "evil prince" who "kidnapped" Lyanna Stark, becomes king, and sure he's a drunk and kind of a brute, but fundamentally he's one of the good guys, right?
Except if you look at what Robert actually did—not the propaganda, the documented events—you're looking at a war criminal who faced zero consequences because he won.
War criminal. I mean that literally. Not by modern standards (irrelevant), but by medieval European customs, the actual basis for Westeros. The things Robert approved were atrocities even in the 14th century. Violations of taboos so fundamental that when medieval rulers committed them, they did it in secret and lied afterward.
Robert did it openly. Showed the bodies. Celebrated.
I. What Counts as a Crime (Medieval Rules)
Before someone says "different time/culture," let's establish the actual rules.
Legal in medieval warfare:
- Killing enemy soldiers in battle
- Executing prisoners after trial
- Looting for food/valuables (within limits—you need those peasants farming next year)
- Taking highborn prisoners for ransom
Illegal even then:
- Murdering children. Standard practice: take them hostage, raise them at court, maybe execute after adulthood if they're a genuine threat. Killing kids was monstrous.
- Raping highborn women, especially royalty. Not a modern feminist position—this was about honor and property rights. Rape of a princess was an atrocity.
- Killing prisoners without trial, especially lords.
- Desecrating noble corpses. Even your worst enemy deserved burial.
- Kinslaying. Murdering relatives—even enemies—was cursed by the gods. Fundamental taboo.
Historical precedent matters: When the Princes in the Tower disappeared in 1483 (Edward V age 12, Richard age 9), Richard III—probably the guy who killed them—never admitted it. Even a usurping tyrant understood that publicly murdering child heirs was beyond the pale. When Tsarevich Dmitry was killed in 1591, it was done covertly, and the scandal destroyed Boris Godunov's reputation.
Point: Medieval rulers who murdered children did it in secret and lied.
What happened to Rhaegar's children? Public murder. Bodies presented like trophies. No consequences.
II. The Sack of King's Landing
Timeline: Aerys is dead. Jaime killed him. War's over. No more battles. Targaryens lost.
Tywin Lannister—who sat out the entire rebellion at Casterly Rock waiting to see who'd win—shows up at King's Landing's gates claiming to be an ally. Gets let in.
His forces sack the city. Not "some looting." Sack. Medieval term for when you let soldiers loose with no restrictions. Widespread civilian killing. Systematic rape. Destruction. Looting.
Robert arrives after. Sees what happened. Does nothing.
No executions for rape. No punishment for butchering civilians. No condemnation. The man who fought a war to restore "justice" watched his ally's army commit atrocities and raised no objection.
What makes this worse: Tywin didn't fight in Robert's war. Contributed zero soldiers until the outcome was decided. No formal alliance. No treaty. Just showed up, sacked the capital, and Robert—who claimed to be the righteous alternative to the Mad King—accepted it.
Robert talked endlessly about Lyanna's honor, avenging her, justice. Then stood by while Tywin's soldiers raped their way through King's Landing.
Not "complicated politics." This is Robert showing you who he is: someone for whom "honor" and "justice" are words to justify what you wanted anyway.
III. The Murders
Let's be specific. Names, ages, methods.
Princess Rhaenys Targaryen. Three years old. Ser Amory Lorch dragged her from under her bed and stabbed her approximately fifty times. Fifty stab wounds on a three-year-old. Not combat. Butchery. Someone enjoying it.
Prince Aegon Targaryen. Infant, maybe a year old. Ser Gregor Clegane ripped him from his mother's arms and smashed his head against a wall.
Princess Elia Martell. Approximately 27. Princess of Dorne, wife of the crown prince, mother of the above children. Gregor forced her to watch both children murdered. Then raped her. Then killed her. Sources are clear on the sequence: she watched them die, was raped next to their corpses, then murdered.
Here's the part that should make your skin crawl:
Aegon's legal status.
Aerys: dead. Rhaegar: dead (weeks earlier at the Trident). Who's next in line? Aegon.
Aegon wasn't just "Rhaegar's son." At the moment Gregor smashed his skull, he was the legal King of Westeros.
Coronation is ceremony. Succession is automatic. When Edward IV of England died, his son Edward V became king immediately even though he was twelve and got murdered before coronation. Same principle.
Gregor Clegane committed regicide. Murder of a reigning king.
Tywin ordered it (or hinted strongly—let's not pretend Gregor acts independently).
Robert approved it.
Robert's reaction (direct from the text, paraphrased from AGOT):
Ned Stark sees the bodies. Disgusted. Calls it murder. Says they were babes.
Robert: "I see no babes. Only dragonspawn."
Not "regrettable but necessary." Not "Tywin went too far."
"Only dragonspawn."
He was pleased they were dead.
What Robert did after:
- Didn't punish Gregor or Lorch. Both stayed in Lannister service. No trial, no exile, no execution. They murdered a king, a princess, and a queen. Zero consequences.
- Rewarded Tywin. Accepted him as ally. Married Cersei, sealing the alliance. Made Tywin effectively second-most powerful man in the realm.
- Quarreled with Ned, then reconciled. Ned left in disgust. They made up after Lyanna died. Ned accepted Robert's pardon and his title as Warden of the North.
That last point matters. By accepting Robert's legitimacy, Ned became complicit. He knew about the murders. Objected weakly, briefly. Then spent fifteen years serving the man who approved them.
IV. The Kinslaying Problem
Robert's claim to the throne rested partially on blood ties to Targaryens. His grandmother was Rhaelle Targaryen, daughter of Aegon V. Made Robert a distant cousin to every Targaryen alive in 283 AC.
Initial rebellion justification: "Aerys is mad" (true) and "we're defending ourselves" (true—Aerys demanded Jon Arryn hand over Robert and Ned for execution).
But once Robert took the crown instead of installing a regency or calling a Great Council, he needed legitimacy. The Targaryen blood tie was part of that. "I'm not just a rebel—I have a claim."
Fine.
You cannot simultaneously claim legitimacy through blood relation and murder those same relatives.
This is kinslaying. In Westerosi culture (Old Gods and the Seven), kinslaying is cursed. One of the worst things you can do.
Robert personally killed Rhaegar (his cousin). Approved murdering Aegon and Rhaenys (Rhaegar's children, also his relatives).
This is kinslaying.
But nobody calls him a kinslayer. Why? Because he won.
Jaime kills one king—literally about to murder half a million with wildfire—and gets branded "Kingslayer" for life. Robert kills or approves killing multiple relatives including an infant king and he's celebrated as hero.
History is written by people who don't lose wars.
V. Rhaegar's Body
Medieval custom demanded baseline respect for fallen highborn warriors. Treat the body with dignity, return it to family, public acknowledgment ("he fought bravely" even if you hated him), don't let mobs desecrate.
Richard III of England: killed at Bosworth 1485, buried with honors in a church. Charles I: executed for treason 1649, body still returned to family for proper burial.
Rhaegar died at the Trident. Robert's warhammer crushed his chest, dented the Targaryen breastplate covered in rubies. Body fell in the river. Rubies scattered.
For years afterward, people searched the Trident for those rubies. The ford got nicknamed Ruby Ford because treasure hunters kept wading through looking for them.
Body never returned to his family. No funeral. No honors. No acknowledgment of his skill (and Rhaegar was skilled—won every tourney before the war).
Robert let Rhaegar's death site become a treasure hunt. People picking rubies off a dead prince's armor like a shipwreck to loot.
Desecration. Violation of basic chivalric custom.
Robert didn't just allow it. He celebrated. "Avenged Lyanna." Threw feasts. Told the story for fifteen years.
Not how an honorable man treats a fallen enemy.
VI. Dragonstone
After Aerys died and Robert took the crown:
Dragonstone situation: Viserys (approximately 7 years old), Queen Rhaella (pregnant with Daenerys), small garrison, no fleet, no armies.
Military threat? A seven-year-old can't lead rebellion. Pregnant widow with no army can't invade. Dragonstone's an island—blockade it if you're worried.
Robert ordered Stannis to attack with a fleet. Not blockade. Not offer terms (abdication, exile, hostage-taking). Attack. Clear intent to kill everyone.
Outcome: Rhaella died in childbirth during a storm (Daenerys born, Rhaella didn't survive). Viserys and baby Daenerys escaped (Stannis arrived hours too late). Robert was furious they got away.
Robert's intent if Stannis succeeded: murder Viserys (seven-year-old, legal king after Aegon's death), murder Rhaella (Queen Regent), murder newborn Daenerys.
Robert ordered this. Their escape doesn't erase intent.
Fifteen years later (AGOT canon): Robert hears Daenerys—fourteen, married, pregnant, living in Essos—might pose a threat. Orders her assassinated. Sends poisoner.
Ned finally objects strenuously. Robert overrules him.
This is who Ned served for fifteen years. A man ordering pregnant teenagers murdered for their last name.
VII. The "Rhaegar Raped Lyanna" Narrative
This is the foundational lie justifying everything Robert did. If Rhaegar was a rapist, Robert's war was righteous, vengeance justified, maybe even murdering Rhaegar's children makes sick sense.
If Lyanna went willingly, Robert's narrative collapses.
What we know:
Tower of Joy: Dorne, remote tower. Lyanna there approximately one year. Guards: three Kingsguard—Ser Arthur Dayne (Sword of the Morning, most famous knight of his generation, Rhaegar's closest friend), Ser Oswell Whent, Lord Commander Gerold Hightower.
When Ned arrives (after war, after Robert's king): Lyanna dying. No chains. No locked doors in any account. No physical evidence of captivity. Three Kingsguard fight to death to stop Ned reaching her.
Question one: Would Arthur Dayne guard a rape victim?
Arthur Dayne is the paragon of knighthood throughout the series. Barristan says he was the finest knight he knew. Famous for honor.
Are we believing Arthur Dayne, Oswell Whent, Gerold Hightower—knights who swore sacred oaths to protect the innocent—stood guard for a year while Rhaegar repeatedly raped a teenage girl?
Not just unlikely. Character assassination with zero evidence.
Arthur spared the Smiling Knight during their duel (offered him a sword when his broke—canon). Knighted Jaime at fifteen, recognizing honor in a kid.
This man doesn't guard a rape dungeon for a year.
Question two: Could Lyanna be held captive without restraints?
Lyanna's character: "Wolf's blood"—wild, untameable like Brandon. Excellent horsewoman. Trained with swords secretly. Defended Howland Reed at Harrenhal (beat up bullies). Hated injustice, hated being told what to do.
This woman held captive a year in a tower (not dungeon, no bars/chains mentioned)?
She's in Dorne. Civilization. Villages, roads, castles. If she wanted to escape: steal a horse (skilled rider), run at night (three guards have to sleep), scream, signal, something.
For a year?
Woman with Lyanna's temperament would've tried. Zero evidence she did.
She stayed willingly.
Question three: Why didn't Arthur release her after Rhaegar died?
Timeline: Rhaegar dies at Trident. Aerys dies. Robert becomes king. Then—weeks or months later—Ned rides to Dorne.
If Lyanna was prisoner, Arthur's duty to Rhaegar ended when Rhaegar died. War over. Targaryens lost.
Arthur could've: released Lyanna (Robert's betrothed—might earn mercy), surrendered (seek honorable terms), left (war's over, why hold a prisoner?).
Instead he fought Ned to death.
Why?
Only explanation: Arthur followed Rhaegar's last orders to protect Lyanna and her child. Not as prisoners. As people Rhaegar loved.
Question four: Physical absurdity of "repeated rape"
Robert's narrative: Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna repeatedly over a year.
If someone's violently raped repeatedly: physical injuries (vaginal tearing, bruising—visible), psychological trauma (Lyanna would tell Ned), pregnancy complications (stress/trauma = higher miscarriage risk).
Ned finds Lyanna in "bed of blood" (childbirth). She makes him promise something (protect Jon).
Nowhere in Ned's POV does he mention: Lyanna accusing Rhaegar, visible injuries consistent with rape, Lyanna expressing anything but concern for her baby.
If your sister was raped for a year, wouldn't that be the first thing she'd tell you?
Silence is deafening.
Occam's Razor:
Robert's version: Rhaegar (bookish, melancholic, loved his harp, no violence history) suddenly becomes rapist. Kidnaps Lyanna. Rapes her a year. Three most honorable knights guard rape dungeon. Lyanna (wild, fighter) never tries escaping despite no restraints. Dies without accusing Rhaegar to Ned.
Or: Lyanna didn't want to marry Robert (canon: she cried when Ned said "Robert will never be faithful"). Rhaegar fell in love with Lyanna. She chose to go. They hid (knew scandal would be bad). War broke out (Brandon's idiocy + Aerys's madness). Rhaegar left Lyanna at Tower with best knights to protect her and their child. She stayed willingly. Died of grief when learning Rhaegar died.
Second version requires zero character assassinations, fits every fact.
Why Robert clings to rape narrative:
Alternative is psychologically unbearable.
If Lyanna went willingly: Robert was rejected (she chose another). Robert's inadequate (not good enough). Entire war—thousands dead—fought over Robert's bruised ego.
Robert cannot accept this. Constructs narrative: Lyanna wanted him (preserves ego), was stolen (not his fault), raped (Rhaegar = monster, Robert's vengeance = righteous).
Repeats this seventeen years. Until death. Becomes truth through repetition.
Everyone—Ned, lords, maesters, fandom—accepts it. More comfortable than the alternative.
VIII. Eddard Stark
Ned's reputation: "Most honorable man in Westeros."
Ned's actual record:
During war: fought alongside Robert every battle, commanded Northern armies, present at King's Landing after Sack, saw Rhaenys and Aegon's bodies.
Reaction: "outraged and disgusted."
Action: left King's Landing. Rode to Storm's End, then Dorne. Found Lyanna. She died. Came back, reconciled with Robert. Accepted pardon and title Warden of the North.
Ned witnessed regicide (King Aegon's murder), three-year-old stabbed fifty times, rape and murder of a queen.
Called it murder. Then accepted a title from the man who approved it.
This is complicity.
By serving Robert fifteen years, Ned legitimized Robert's regime, tacitly approved the methods, became part of the system built on child murder.
Jon Snow:
Ned knew: Jon is Lyanna's son (presumably Rhaegar's). Massive political threat to Robert. Robert wants all Targaryens dead.
Ned claimed Jon as bastard (protecting him—genuinely selfless).
Never told Jon the truth. Jon grew up thinking he was a bastard, stigmatized, believing he was product of Ned's dishonor.
At fifteen Jon joins Night's Watch (life sentence—no marriage, children, lands, future) still believing he's bastard.
Why didn't Ned tell him?
Standard reading: protecting Jon.
Actual: telling Jon = threat to Robert = Ned's political position collapses.
Ned chose his comfort (staying Warden, keeping Robert's friendship) over his nephew's identity.
Ned as narrator:
Everything we "know" about Tower of Joy comes from Ned's POV—memories and fever dreams in AGOT.
What it tells us: fight was 7-vs-3, incredibly difficult (only Ned and Howland survived), Arthur better than Ned, Lyanna dying, she said "promise me."
What it doesn't tell us: whether Lyanna went willingly, whether she accused Rhaegar, how Arthur actually died (Ned's memory vague—did Howland stab Arthur in back? Dishonorable, hence vagueness).
Ned has every reason to misremember:
If Lyanna went willingly, Ned murdered men guarding his sister. If Arthur died dishonorably (two-on-one), Ned's shame would be immense. He lied to Jon fifteen years. Served the man who'd have murdered Jon.
Ned's memories are self-serving. He remembers the version letting him live with himself.
Don't trust Ned's version.
Ned's selective honor:
Dragonstone attack (283 AC): Robert ordered killing a seven-year-old boy (Viserys), pregnant queen (Rhaella), and any children. Honorable action: refuse to serve a man ordering child murder. Ned's action: accepted Robert's pardon, served as Warden of the North.
Daenerys assassination (298 AC): Robert ordered killing pregnant fourteen- year-old. Honorable action: resign immediately. Ned's action: resigned only after Robert ignored his advice—*fifteen years* after the first time Robert ordered murdering Targaryen children.
Jon's parentage: honorable action would've been telling truth eventually. Ned: lied forever, let Jon take black as bastard.
Pattern: Ned follows rules when convenient, breaks them when feelings dictate, never acknowledges contradictions.
Judges Jaime for kingslaying (breaking oath to Aerys) while serving kinslayer and regicide accessory (Robert).
Not honor. Tribalism dressed as principles.
IX. Oberyn's Narrow Revenge
Oberyn Martell, Elia's brother. Seventeen years obsessed with avenging her.
What he does: trains to kill Gregor Clegane (executioner). That's it.
Doesn't go after: Tywin (gave order), Robert (approved and rewarded), Amory Lorch (murdered Rhaenys), Eddard (served Robert, legitimized regime), the system.
300 AC: Oberyn fights Gregor in Tyrion's trial. Kills him (poison) but dies.
Absurd.
Gregor's a tool. Monstrous, sadistic, but an instrument. Didn't decide to murder Elia's children. Tywin decided. Robert approved.
If Oberyn wanted justice: kill Tywin, kill Robert, expose complicity of Ned/Jon Arryn/every lord serving Robert, demand formal acknowledgment Elia and children were murdered unjustly.
Instead: kills executioner seventeen years later in trial unrelated to Elia.
Why did GRRM write this?
Showing Oberyn pursue actual systemic justice would require admitting Robert's regime built on war crimes, Ned complicit, "good guys" just winners avoiding consequences.
GRRM set up perfect opportunity to show how victory erases crimes, how "honor" coexists with complicity. Instead Oberyn focuses on one perpetrator, dies, system continues.
Dorne never gets justice. One executioner's death. Tywin dies on toilet (Tyrion, unrelated reasons).
X. Cersei, Robert's Mirror
Nobody wants to talk about this: Cersei's Robert's mirror.
GRRM wrote her as "villain"—ambitious, cruel, incompetent ruler. But look at her marriage to Robert.
Cersei tried. At first.
She says explicitly in AFFC: tried to love Robert. Dressed beautifully. Attempted seduction. Wanted marriage to work.
Robert's response: on wedding night, got drunk and called her "Lyanna" in bed (multiple times), hit her (at least once—canon), ignored their children (never noticed they didn't look like him), treated her as object.
Cuckold irony: Robert spent seventeen years mourning Lyanna—with Rhaegar by choice, rejected Robert, never wanted him.
Meanwhile actual wife cuckolded him with her brother. All three "children" Jaime's.
Robert never noticed.
Why? Didn't look. Joffrey, Myrcella, Tommen—none have Baratheon features (black hair, blue eyes—dominant genes, "seed is strong"). All blond Lannisters.
Robert so obsessed with dead woman who didn't want him, ignored living woman whose revenge was right there.
What would you do in Cersei's position?
Married (no choice) to man who: fucks other women constantly, gets you pregnant then ignores children, treats you as property, calls you another woman's name in bed, hits you, drunk brute, moral tyrant who can't self-reflect.
You're supposed to endure this?
Cersei didn't. Took lover (Jaime—problematic, but emotionally makes sense: he loves her). Ensured children were hers (not Robert's). Eventually had Robert killed (through Lancel, too drunk on hunt).
Can't call Cersei villain anymore.
Not after seeing Robert. Not understanding any woman in her position would've been destroyed by that marriage.
Not a good person—does cruel things. But Robert made her worse.
Living with Robert—treated as object, replacement for dead woman, womb for heirs he didn't care about—would break anyone.
Cersei didn't break. Got mean.
Ned judges her. Served the man approving child murder, lied to nephew fifteen years, built "honor" on selective blindness—looks at Cersei, sees scheming adulteress.
Never asks: what did Robert do to her? How'd she get here?
Asking requires acknowledging best friend was monster.
Ned can't. Judges Cersei, protects Robert (warns Cersei to flee so Robert doesn't murder her and kids), goes to grave thinking he was honorable.
XI. What This Means
Robert Baratheon:
Committed kinslaying (killed Rhaegar, approved murdering Rhaegar's children—all relatives). Approved regicide (Aegon legal king when murdered). Approved murdering three-year-old (Rhaenys, fifty stabs). Approved rape and murder of queen (Elia). Desecrated enemy corpse (Rhaegar in river, rubies looted years). Ordered murdering more children (Viserys, Daenerys—failed, intent there). Ruled fifteen years as drunken abusive tyrant. Treated wife as property, bastards as trash, "friends" as enablers.
Consequences: none.
Died hunting (drunk, killed by boar—Cersei's doing). Remembered as "rebellion hero." Fandom debates if he was "really that bad."
Meanwhile Rhaegar:
Man Robert killed, children murdered, wife raped and killed—remembered as villain.
"Dragon prince who kidnapped Lyanna Stark."
Why? Robert won. Robert's version—"Rhaegar raped her"—only one surviving.
Rhaegar dead. Lyanna dead. Arthur, Oswell, Gerold—dead. Everyone knowing truth gone.
All remaining: Robert's lie. Repeated until it became history.
This is what victory does.
Doesn't make you right. Makes you unchallengeable.
Crimes become footnotes. Enemies become villains. Narrative becomes truth because nobody's left contradicting it.
This isn't just Westeros. This is how actual history works.
How many "heroes" won through atrocities? How many "villains" were just losing side? How many comfortable narratives about honor, justice, history bending toward righteousness are just winners' propaganda we've accepted because it's easier than confronting truth?
Robert Baratheon's not a hero. He's a war criminal who won.
World—Westeros and ours—let him get away with it.
Because that's what we do. Lionize victors. Forget crimes. Blame victims.
Call it history.
Author's note:
Every fact here is canon. Books, show, GRRM's supplementary materials. Murders happened. Robert's approval documented. Timeline accurate. Oberyn's narrow focus canon. Ned's service canon. Cersei's marriage testimony canon.
Only interpretive leap: Lyanna went willingly.
Explains: why three honorable knights guarded her, why no chains, why she never accused Rhaegar to Ned, why Arthur fought to death after Rhaegar already dead.
If you believe Robert's rape version, explain: why paragons guarded rape victim, why Lyanna never tried escaping, why no mention of accusing Rhaegar, why physical evidence (no restraints, no visible injuries) contradicts repeated violent assault.
Occam's Razor: Lyanna chose Rhaegar. Robert lied seventeen years because admitting rejection was unbearable.
Everyone accepted the lie. More comfortable than truth.
That's the real crime. Not just what Robert did—but we let him get away with it by believing his story.
Second note: On "missing the point"
I can hear objections. "Too harsh on GRRM." "He's showing moral complexity." "Projecting modern expectations." "The whole point is no clear good and evil."
Let me be direct. This fundamentally misunderstands what this piece does.
Not a moral analysis. A legal inventory.
Not arguing Robert should've been better (though he should've). Not demanding GRRM write justice porn (wouldn't mind).
Doing something simpler: calling things by their actual names.
The regicide nobody mentions:
When Gregor murdered Aegon, he didn't kill "Rhaegar's son" or "Targaryen infant" or "potential threat."
He killed the reigning King of Westeros.
Aerys dead (Jaime). Rhaegar dead (Robert, weeks earlier). Crown passes automatically—coronation's ceremony, succession's law. Edward V became king when his father died even though twelve and murdered before coronation. Same principle.
Aegon was king when he died. Gregor committed regicide.
GRRM never calls it that. Not once. Not in any character's thoughts, any maester's account, any conversation.
Not artistic ambiguity. A blind spot.
Text calls Jaime "Kingslayer" approximately eight thousand times. Defining characteristic. Characters spit it. He thinks about it constantly. Narrative won't let you forget Jaime killed a king.
Meanwhile actual murder of actual reigning king—infant—gets described as "murder of Rhaegar's children."
Not regicide. Not kingslaying. "Murder."
Why?
GRRM doesn't see it that way. Thinks of Aegon as "Rhaegar's son," not "legal king." Narrative follows his framing.
Not complexity. Imprecision.
Kinslaying Robert gets away with:
Westerosi culture considers kinslaying cursed. Established canon. One of worst things you can do.
Robert: claimed Targaryen descent for legitimacy (grandmother Rhaelle), killed Rhaegar (cousin), approved murdering Aegon and Rhaenys (Rhaegar's children, also relatives).
This is kinslaying.
By Westerosi law, custom, theology—kinslaying.
GRRM never calls it that. No character calls Robert kinslayer. No equivalent to "Kingslayer" following him. No curse. No divine punishment.
Why?
GRRM thinks of Robert as "rebel king," Rhaegar as "enemy," not blood relatives whose killing constitutes taboo.
World GRRM built has rules. Robert violated them. Text doesn't acknowledge.
Not "showing how power works." Inconsistent worldbuilding application.
"But GRRM deliberately shows victors rewrite history!"
I know. I said that.
But difference between:
A) Characters repeating propaganda (showing victors rewrite history)
B) Narrative failing to name what happened (author shares characters' blind spots)
If GRRM wanted showing "victors rewrite," could've had one character—Barristan, Jaime, Oberyn, Varys—think "regicide" remembering Aegon's death.
Could've had someone point out Robert's Targaryen blood + murdering Targaryens = kinslaying.
Didn't.
Not artistic restraint. GRRM not thinking of events in those terms.
"Applying modern expectations to medieval setting!"
No. Applying setting's own logic.
Medieval European custom—actual Westeros basis—had rules about: killing children (don't, or do secretly and lie), kinslaying (cursed), desecrating noble corpses (dishonor), regicide (worst crime).
Didn't invent these. GRRM put them in his world (guest right, kingslaying taboos, kinslaying curses, bloodlines/legitimacy importance).
Holding his world to its own standards.
When Jaime kills Aerys, text calls it kingslaying, never lets him forget.
When Gregor kills Aegon (legal king), text calls it "murder," moves on.
Not moral complexity. Inconsistency.
"GRRM shows power matters more than law!"
Sure. Agree. Clearly one of his themes.
But showing power trumps law still requires acknowledging what law is.
Can't show "Robert gets away with kinslaying because won" if never call it kinslaying.
Can't show "victors rewrite regicide as justified" if don't establish it was regicide.
Text has to name the thing before showing people ignoring/excusing it.
GRRM doesn't. Just doesn't use words.
Means reader also doesn't think in those terms. Robert's crimes softened by narrative omission, not in-universe propaganda.
"Just your interpretation!"
No.
Facts: Aegon next in line after Aerys and Rhaegar died (fact). Succession automatic in Westerosi law (established via every succession). Killing king = regicide (definition). Therefore: Gregor committed regicide (logical conclusion).
Facts: Robert claimed Targaryen blood (text). Rhaegar Robert's relative through Rhaelle (text). Robert killed Rhaegar (text). Approved killing Rhaegar's children, also Robert's relatives (text). Killing relatives = kinslaying (Westerosi definition). Kinslaying = cursed (repeated). Therefore: Robert committed kinslaying (logical conclusion).
Not interpretations. Facts arranged logically.
Can't argue "Aegon wasn't really king" (was, by legal rules GRRM established).
Can't argue "Robert and Rhaegar weren't really related" (were, through Rhaelle, Robert used as claim).
Only argument: "GRRM didn't intend readers thinking that way."
So what?
If GRRM built world where regicide and kinslaying are major taboos, wrote character committing both, facts don't care whether he intended readers noticing.
Why matters:
When text doesn't name Robert's crimes accurately, readers don't see clearly.
See "Robert killed Rhaegar in battle" (combat, honorable-ish). Not "Robert committed kinslaying" (cursed, taboo).
See "Robert approved murdering Rhaegar's children" (brutal, but war's brutal). Not "Robert approved regicide" (murdering reigning king, infant).
Framing changes everything.
GRRM's framing—by omission, not using legally accurate terms—softens Robert's crimes.
Not intentionally probably. But effectively.
This piece isn't missing the point.
GRRM's point presumably: power matters more than law, victors write history, moral clarity rare.
My point: if showing that, have to name what's being erased before showing erasure.
GRRM didn't name it. Readers don't see it. Robert gets pass he doesn't deserve—not from in-universe propaganda, from narrative imprecision.
Not accusing GRRM of cowardice.
Accusing him of not looking at his own creation clearly enough.
Built world with rules. Wrote character violating rules. Didn't apply terms those violations should trigger.
Not artistic ambiguity. Oversight.
Pointing this out isn't "missing point." It's doing work GRRM didn't: calling things by actual names.