Robert, Renly, or Stannis

[Tini]

He may well have made a mistake about cannibalism. It's treated much more casually in ACoK before becoming a monstrous crime in ADwD. Just like how it was perfectly normal for Jaime to inherit Casterly Rock in AGoT before becoming impossible in ASoS.

I don't remember if Jaime was officially considered the heir in aGoT but it's been a long time since I read it. Isn't it possible that it was still expected at that point that Jaime would give up his King's Guard duties at some point, and return to Casterly Rock to be his father's heir? At least his father didn't give up hope until aSoS, and the readers did not have a full understanding of what the King's Guard vows meant at the beginning.

I did not have the impression that cannibalism was considered a more monstrous crime in aDwD than it was considered before. It was a threat to discipline in Stannis' host during his campaign, the soldiers disobeyed orders given by their highest leader. Stannis is not likely to let this pass, it would encourage more soldiers to disobey orders they don't like. And Stannis is not known to be big on mercy. He was punishing disobedience, not cannibalism. No mistake there.

[Revan Baratheon]

stannis should end up co-ruling with Arianne

[Tini]

And what qualification has Arianne to rule anything? While most other characters seem older than their actual age, she seems to act younger, more immature, than she is supposed to be.

[Candor]

Lately she has been wising up quite a bit, though.

[LuisDantas]

I dont think he called Renly armies to the field and I dont think that there is anything dishonourable in his actions.

There is nothing dishonorable in those actions, except the entirety of them and most of what led directly to them.

I mean, really, it is not like there is even room for doubt, Mor. It was tactically unwise AND ethically despicable. I even liked Stannis before, but after that I wonder if the Night's Watch isn't too good for such a pathetic hypocrite.

while assassination usually considered distasteful or unhonorable thing, it's also an option that every good ruler must consider, I doubt that even Ned would have objected to assassinating Dany, if she was actually ready to invade westeros at the head of 40K army.

That is yet another reason why Stannis damnned himself. That assassination wasn't "distasteful", it was all-out dishonorable and cowardly. Stannis wasn't acting in self-defense or anything comparable. He acted on false pretense and disregarded basic combat field ethics. Maybe someday we'll have a POV clarifying how come the Reach supported him. I strongly suspect it wouldn't have happened at all if he did not also create the suspicion that Robb, Catelyn and Brienne had betrayed Renly (intentionally or otherwise). Few if any honorable Knights would willing support Stannis if they had so much as a glimpse of the depths of his cowardice and fanaticism.

Also the Red Wedding taint on the Frays is not for not showing their prowess in battle, but about oaths, betrayal and custom's.

My point exactly. The Red Wedding was worse than Stannis' betrayal and assassination of Renly. Maybe. Barely. Come to think of it, it could well not have happened if Stannis didn't blunder first.

I dont see this happening but indeed he would have been a great Lord commander.

If he does a great job of repenting his cowardice first, then yes, probably.

If he doesn't, the Others may do with him as they please. He has certainly earned no better.

True, the only reason he listened to her and later went to save the wall, was because the he was to weak and out of options after the failure at kings landing.

And because he had the good sense to listen to Davos.

[Tini]

My point exactly. The Red Wedding was worse than Stannis' betrayal and assassination of Renly. Maybe. Barely. Come to think of it, it could well not have happened if Stannis didn't blunder first.

Really? I mean, REALLY?! One person died when Renly was assassinated. One. Renly, who was the intended target. Thousands died during the Red Wedding, just because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Don't they count because we don't know their names?

[brashcandy]

Really? I mean, REALLY?! One person died when Renly was assassinated. One. Renly, who was the intended target. Thousands died during the Red Wedding, just because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Don't they count because we don't know their names?

It has nothing to do with not knowing the names of the soldiers. Everyone fully admits that the Red Wedding was terrible, but this still doesn't discount the particular evil of what Stannis did. We can argue that the Freys and Tywin had no loyalty to Robb, but Stannis' act makes him a kinslayer, and an unconscionable coward. It is not simply that Renly died, but it's the way that Stannis allowed it to happen that makes it abominable.

[Kate Poem]

First of all, Renly was by no means a traitor OR a usurper. He betrayed no one, and he took no throne. He was a self-proclaimed King, much as Stannis himself. It is true that Stannis had the support of the letter of the law once the incest was officially recognized - however, it is just as true that Stannis lacked that recognition. He was not sitting in the Iron Throne, Joffrey was. Renly never swore fealty to either Stannis or Joffrey, and he most certainly deposed neither, so I just don't see how he could be a traitor or usurper instead of a rebel, more properly a claimant King. Same as Stannis, really.

/sigh/ Must I explain again the same thing again?

Maybe I am wrong, but in Westerosi highborn society families rule themselves in one or another, but I think a law of... first son (child in Dorne) is common.

Father is liege lord for his sons, he must care for marriages for his daughters. After death of the father, first son become liege lord for his brothers and caregiver for his sisters if they do exist.

Head of House Baratheon, after death of Robert is STANNIS. Even if Tommen could be real son of Robert, he could'nt be - to be a Head of House Baratheon or next King after ROBERT.

After death of Ned Stark Rickon could'nt become Lord of North. After death of Rickard and Brandon Stark Benjen the youngest could'nt become Lord of North.

Renly Baratheon was traitor and usurper of: "nephews", he planned probably kill them; his older brother and his liege lord - he wanted kill him.

He could become Heir of the Crown after Stannis. He did'nt want it.

Renly had in his usurper's backside his kinslaying x 3 Stannis, Joffrey and Tommen.

Stannis can't forget about Renly's peach... and who is BAD?

Stannis?

You are wrong.

[mor2]

@LuisDantas, I think that we have a diffident definition of 'honorable Knights' or who would they follow.

[Stannis the Great]

Would people seriously feel better had Stannis cut Renly down himself on the battlefield? Dead is dead (well it should be!). Renly was willing to kill Stannis if he needed to.

They were both too stubborn and short-sighted to see that they were playing themselves into Lannister hands. In an ideal world Stannis would have recognised Renly as his heir and Renly would have accepted it knowing that Stannis doesn't have sex with Selyse and that the kingdom wouldn't accept Shireen due to sexism and greyscale. But both of their actions forced both of them into a situation where only one (at best) was going to come out alive.

[Tini]

It has nothing to do with not knowing the names of the soldiers. Everyone fully admits that the Red Wedding was terrible, but this still doesn't discount the particular evil of what Stannis did. We can argue that the Freys and Tywin had no loyalty to Robb, but Stannis' act makes him a kinslayer, and an unconscionable coward. It is not simply that Renly died, but it's the way that Stannis allowed it to happen that makes it abominable.

It has to do with one dead person versus 1000 dead persons. I say that killing 1000 people is worse than killing one. Not that killing one is a good act.

Kinslaying, and guest slaying, is condemned because it usually hits unsuspecting victims, and violates trust. The bonds of trust, of kinship, between Stannis and Renly were already broken way before Renly died. So I don't see how this act of kinslaying was worse, or more evil than if they had let their armies clash, killing lots of people on the way. Then ordering someone else to kill the leader of the opposing army because they cannot do it themselves due to kinship reasons. That is cowardice, too. Taking action yourself, knowing that it will condemn you in the eyes of the word, takes a certain kind of courage. Ned Stark knew. So did Robb, when he executed Karstark. I think Stannis may know as well.

[Tini]

Would people seriously feel better had Stannis cut Renly down himself on the battlefield? Dead is dead (well it should be!). Renly was willing to kill Stannis if he needed to.

Yes, I think they would.

At least if he had done the "honorable" thing, if he had taken his brother captive on the battlefield instead of killing him, giving him a fair trial that will convict the brother of high treason, and sentence him to death. The execution would have been taken care of by an executioner not related to his victim thus keeping the winner's hands clean.

It's all about keeping one's hands clean, as Littlefinger would say.

I think GRRM does a good job showing that in war all sides are guilty of atrocities, no matter if their hands are clean. War is wrong. As you said, in an ideal word the brothers would have avoided it.

[Noimporta]

At least his father didn't give up hope until aSoS, and the readers did not have a full understanding of what the King's Guard vows meant at the beginning.

Actually, we did as soon as Joffrey dismissed Barristan.

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas, I think that we have a diffident definition of 'honorable Knights' or who would they follow.

So it would seem. I'm somewhat appalled, I must say.

[LuisDantas]

Would people seriously feel better had Stannis cut Renly down himself on the battlefield?

Why, yes! Definitely. It would a completely different situation, with far less (or no) moral damage to Stannis.

Dead is dead (well it should be!). Renly was willing to kill Stannis if he needed to.

Yes. But not treacherously, and that makes all the difference.

Do you remember why Robb executed Lord Rickard Karstark? Robb summed it up nicely in that Catelyn chapter.

It is one thing to kill an opponent in the battlefield, duly armed and giving the other side due opportunity to decide how badly they want to run the risk to life and limb. In fact, it is largely by running that risk that both Lords and rank soldiers earn their respectability in the first place.

By choosing not to do so, Stannis disposed of his own respectability, much as Lord Walder Frey did when he violated the tradition of hospitability.

All in all, it was a surprising move from Stannis, out of character even. His discourse is so divorced, so incompatible with such a low stooping, that I can only assume that he was already broken and seriously inbalanced at that time. Or else he is a deep hypocrite.

Either way he is indeed despicable for killing Renly as he did. It surprises me that there is even a serious question on the matter.

They were both too stubborn and short-sighted to see that they were playing themselves into Lannister hands.

Maybe so, although IIRC that was what Catelyn was trying to make them understand. She might well have succeeded if Stannis hadn't resorted to dishonest tactics. In fact, the whole confrontation probably wouldn't have happened, since Stannis would not choose to lose his forces so pointlessly. By all accounts, he is a good General.

In an ideal world Stannis would have recognised Renly as his heir and Renly would have accepted it knowing that Stannis doesn't have sex with Selyse and that the kingdom wouldn't accept Shireen due to sexism and greyscale. But both of their actions forced both of them into a situation where only one (at best) was going to come out alive.

That is a jaundiced account of the facts. Mainly because it fails to recognize the practical realities of the need of support for a monarch.

[JKeats]

Eh, Renly's assassination is no big. The guy had it coming.

[LuisDantas]

/sigh/ Must I explain again the same thing again?

I have no idea. It is very difficult for me to put myself into the place of a Stannis supporter.

Maybe I am wrong, but in Westerosi highborn society families rule themselves in one or another, but I think a law of... first son (child in Dorne) is common.

Father is liege lord for his sons, he must care for marriages for his daughters. After death of the father, first son become liege lord for his brothers and caregiver for his sisters if they do exist.

Agreed so far, but that has hardly any relevance to the matter of legitimacy of the claims of the Baratheon brothers. You're only stating what the tradition and the laws of that culture say.

As in real life, it would be odd indeed if that settled matters at all often. Or if it had anything to do with what is fair or just. Law and traditions are political entities, and they will and they must be challenged continually by other political entities and realities.

Head of House Baratheon, after death of Robert is STANNIS. Even if Tommen could be real son of Robert, he couldn't be - to be a Head of House Baratheon or next King after ROBERT.

Not without a regent, you mean? Because that is in fact what happened.

Stannis could easily and legitimally present a case for being the Regent for Joffrey or Tommen, weren't he aware of the true filiation of the two. I don't think it would be an easy claim to enforce, since obviously Cersei, Tywin and others would also apply for the regency. But sure, it would be legitimate.

That is not however what he did. I don't expect him to simply wait until someone decides to challenge the Lannisters and demand some major political change or a challenge to the legitimacy of Cersei's offspring, of course. But the way he insists in claiming that he is the legitimate ruler while at the same time slaying Renly treachorously does him no favor at all.

He can't claim the moral (or rather, legal) high ground while also casually betraying basic ethical principles of his own culture. Not without branding himself a serious hypocrite, anyway.

After death of Ned Stark Rickon couldn't become Lord of North. After death of Rickard and Brandon Stark Benjen the youngest couldn't become Lord of North.

That does not seem to be the case. Both Robert Arryn and Bran Stark have indeed become Lords at a young age. Rickon was never Lord of Winterfell, but only because his father and older brothers were ahead of him in the line of succession.

Renly Baratheon was traitor and usurper of: "nephews", he planned probably kill them; his older brother and his liege lord - he wanted kill him.

Quite frankly, I doubt it. He may have recognized that it would be a likely outcome, but his claim seems to have been the most political of them all. From all appearances, he would be glad to let Stannis, Joffrey and Tommen live well enough alone and attain power out of sheer popularity and support if he had the chance.

And please, stop accusing Renly of being a "traitor and usurper" out of nowhere. It is an unfounded accusation and hurts your case. Challenging a claim and presenting his own makes him neither.

He could become Heir of the Crown after Stannis. He didn't want it.

Renly had in his usurper's backside his kinslaying x 3 Stannis, Joffrey and Tommen.

Neither of which he killed, or even showed much of a desire to kill. So I wonder what you mean by calling him a kinslayer.

Stannis can't forget about Renly's peach... and who is BAD?

Melisandre. Stannis is more weak, coward and hypocrite than properly bad. But if I must choose to call either Renly or Stannis bad, sure, it is definitely Stannis.

Stannis?

You are wrong.

Because?

[LuisDantas]

Eh, Renly's assassination is no big. The guy had it coming.

How so?

[JKeats]

How so?

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/59435-the-stannis-appreciation-thread-only-good-guys-allowed/page__st__40__p__2814765#entry2814765

[Kate Poem]

Agreed so far, but that has hardly any relevance to the matter of legitimacy of the claims of the Baratheon brothers. You're only stating what the tradition and the laws of that culture say.

(...)

That is not however what he did. I don't expect him to simply wait until someone decides to challenge the Lannisters and demand some major political change or a challenge to the legitimacy of Cersei's offspring, of course. But the way he insists in claiming that he is the legitimate ruler while at the same time slaying Renly treachorously does him no favor at all.

He can't claim the moral (or rather, legal) high ground while also casually betraying basic ethical principles of his own culture. Not without branding himself a serious hypocrite, anyway.

That does not seem to be the case. Both Robert Arryn and Bran Stark have indeed become Lords at a young age. Rickon was never Lord of Winterfell, but only because his father and older brothers were ahead of him in the line of succession. (...)

(...)

And please, stop accusing Renly of being a "traitor and usurper" out of nowhere. It is an unfounded accusation and hurts your case. Challenging a claim and presenting his own makes him neither.

Neither of which he killed, or even showed much of a desire to kill. So I wonder what you mean by calling him a kinslayer.

Melisandre. Stannis is more weak, coward and hypocrite than properly bad. But if I must choose to call either Renly or Stannis bad, sure, it is definitely Stannis.

Because?

1/ I was thinking laws of successions were in Westerosi society clear, but... can I ask You why Stannis choose support Robert's rebellion and what he said to Davos Seaworth about it? Can I ask why Kevan was loyal and obedient to Tywin Lannister? Why Arianne, oldest child of Doran got mad after reading her father's "e-mail" to her YOUNGER brother, Quentyn?

2/ "Slaying Renly treachorously". If am I right, it was a war. Stannis wanted give his younger brother the title Heir of Iron Throne, place in his Small Council or death. Renly, from generosity of his sweet kingly heart, propose him Storm's End (I don't believe he heard not how painful was for Stannis thing with Storm's End) or death - and - even - from angelic goodnes of his pure soul - decided about unbeheading of his corpse. So sweet!

3/ I don't want write anything about hipocrysy, betraying his principles etc. etc. or lack of it.

4/ Robert Arryn had'nt any siblings. He is only heir of Jon Arryn.

5/ Yes, yes, yes!!! Rickon was never Lord of Winterfell, but only because his father and older brothers were ahead of him in the line of succession.

I meant that!

6/ Do You remember Renly's words to Catelyn? Before news about Storm's End and Stannis? I don't believe he would be glad to let Stannis, Joffrey and Tommen live well enough alone and attain power out of sheer popularity and support if he had the chance. If I am right, he wanted to be real king and to be safe with his queen and (in future) heir. He did'nt, he does'nt need resentful, angry and belittled Joffrey and hurted, completely belittled Stannis.

7/ I think Renly is usurper, but - okay, I'll stop writing this word. But I am completely sure, on 1000 % he was traitor for his brother. I know he did'nt like him, but it is'nt excuse.

8/ Renly ordered his bannermen "oh, and remember - don't behead my brother's corpse". What, You think, king Renly planned do after his victory? With decrowned nephew, younger niece and little nephew, with their mother, their uncles, grandpa etc. etc.?

"All of you, bend your knees and swear fealty. Good. You can go to Casterly Rock in peace."

9/ English is'nt my native language, but I'll write about "King Stannis is'nt weak, bad coward" in Polish and I'll try translate it on English. I promise.