The Latest News
Connect with Us

Notable Releases
From the Store
Game of Thrones Lannister Hat
Game of Thrones Lannister Hat
HBO US
Featured Sites
License Holders

Jump to content


Photo

Robert, Renly, or Stannis


  • Please log in to reply
345 replies to this topic

#301 Talleyrand

Talleyrand

    Bringing Foppishness back

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,716 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:47 AM

Donal Noye summed it up best: "Robert was the true steel. Stannis is pure iron, black and hard and strong, yes, but brittle, the way iron gets. He'll break, before he bends. And Renly, that one, he's copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day."

I don't see why people accept this quote as something against Renly. The youngest Baratheon was five by the end of the war and Donal joined after losing his arm at Storm's End, meaning when he knew Renly as a very young child. It doesn't really seem fair to me to judge someone on how they were when they were 5

#302 Greyjoy the Reaver

Greyjoy the Reaver

    Squire

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 158 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 11:55 AM

I like Stannis the best. He seems to be on par for the best military commander of the three. Also he is the most interesting. I love his companions Davos and Melisandre. I do not believe him to be Azor Ahai however.

#303 Talleyrand

Talleyrand

    Bringing Foppishness back

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,716 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 12:05 PM

/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.

But its not as clear cut as that in this case. Robert threw a spanner in the works. Renly is higher up in the social scale than Stannis. He is one of the great lords, holding one of the old seven kingdoms with dozens of vassals, some who in turn have their own vassals. In comparison Dragonstone is one of the vassal houses of Crownlands. He has his own vassals, putting him in the middle of the lords' hierarchy rather than at the top like Renly. A lord cannot owe loyalty to a lesser lord from a different region.

#304 Frozen Soul

Frozen Soul

    Sellsword

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 12:17 PM

Renly's assassination IMO was not nice and I do have a problem with Mel's constant inteference, he is a kinslayer but both brothers were at war and either way they were going to fight until one of them died, had it been in battle he would still be a kinslayer but both brothers were willing to do the same thing.

By killing Renly, their leader, he avoided a battle which would have resulted in multiple casualties for both sides, instead he got to keep his forces intact and added those of Renly (still intact), considering that the ultimate goal was to fight against Lannisters (in and out of KL) and Robb's army, to secure the throne, which is rightfully HIS. Doing that was far more convinient than a battle were both sides would be weakened, which would have been beneficial for their enemy (which was one and the same for both brothers)

#305 Catastrophe

Catastrophe

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 636 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:13 PM

I can't believe I'm defending Stannis here, but how can anyone say that Renly's assassination is comparable with the Red Wedding? Even ignoring issues of scale (obviously killing thousands of people is worse than killing one), how are they at all similar? Renly was assassinated rather than being killed in combat, but he wasn't killed under false pretenses. He and Stannis had met under a peace banner earlier that day, but that meeting was over and negotiations had ended. The war had resumed, Renly was fully armored and marshalling his forces for battle. If Stannis had stabbed Renly during their talk under the peace banner earlier, then I'd say it was a violation of trust akin to the Red Wedding, but that's not what happened.

Just to clarify, I think Stannis' actions were clearly wrong, because it was kinslaying and because I actually do find Melisandre's shadow magic to be innately evil. However, I don't think there was anything wrong with when Stannis had Renly assassinated. If Stannis' troops had surrounded Renly's camp then and there, it would've been a legitimate tactical maneuver and I would've had no problem with it.

#306 The King in the South

The King in the South

    I'm sitting behind you

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:33 PM

By killing Renly via assassination Stannis actually saved the lives of thousands of men because they were going to fight anyways. Thus he actually did a good act in assassinating Renly.

(obviously it wasn't the best act, they could have you know, not fought at all, but given the circumstances I'm suprised people think it was a bad act when if he hadn't done it thousands of innocent commoners would have probably been killed)

#307 EdricBaratheon

EdricBaratheon

    Hedge Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 06:47 PM

Stannis is by far my favourite character in the series, and I would have to side with him, he would make a great King to Westeros!

One thing the kingdom has lacked is authority and stern control, Something Stannis can deliever! Also a stern battle commander! He might not be the most respected man in the kingdom, but at least he won't let his ego take control of him!

Also, with the whole Renly assasination, I wasn't entirely buzzing about it, It was an act of kinslaying! Although we see it to be a wrong action on Stannis's part, it was either let the siege of Storms End continue with a raging battle outside its walls, Surrond Renly's camp or meet on the open field and let a bloody massacre take place, or take out the head of the pack (in this instance, Renly). As much as it pains me to say this, Stannis saved countless lives with The Red Woman's shadow magic that day! A Good king has to make tough decisions that will limit the danger towards others! It wasn't an easy decision for Stannis, he still has to live with it, which is reflected throughout parts onwards!

#308 Jory

Jory

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 447 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 10:21 PM

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.


If you compare the two Lord's offers: Stannis offers Renly his old small council position (Master of Laws), Lordship of Storm's End, and status as heir until he produces a son (something that may never happen). Renly offers Stannis lordship of Storm's End. That's it. Then Renly laughs about Stannis' death.

Further - there is no direct evidence that Stannis ordered Mel to kill Renly. None. Stop saying there is.

#309 TheFlayedMan

TheFlayedMan

    Landed Knight

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 467 posts

Posted 17 December 2011 - 10:41 PM

Stannis. I do like them all, though. Baratheon is one of my favourite houses, after Stark and Bolton.

Edit: Also, did Stannis order Renly's death? I was under the impression that Mel told him that if Renly did not yield, he would die. Perhaps Stannis believes that it was Brienne who really did kill Renly, and he thinks the Red Woman saw it in her flames, rather than having actually caused it.

Edited by TheFlayedMan, 17 December 2011 - 10:49 PM.


#310 Talleyrand

Talleyrand

    Bringing Foppishness back

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,716 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 07:18 AM

By killing Renly via assassination Stannis actually saved the lives of thousands of men because they were going to fight anyways. Thus he actually did a good act in assassinating Renly.

(obviously it wasn't the best act, they could have you know, not fought at all, but given the circumstances I'm suprised people think it was a bad act when if he hadn't done it thousands of innocent commoners would have probably been killed)

If Stannis wanted to save lives he could have challenged Renly to single combat as Penrose, an honourable man did rather than go down the assassination route. If he did then i'd have nothing against the action.

#311 Kate Poem

Kate Poem

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 661 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 07:39 AM

If Stannis wanted to save lives he could have challenged Renly to single combat as Penrose, an honourable man did rather than go down the assassination route. If he did then i'd have nothing against the action.

I think answer Renly for king Stannis's challenge to single combat could be the same, as king Stannis's answer for Penrose's challenge. Renly here and king Stannis there had big army and they did'nt want risk their or other lives.
But... Renly proposed king Stannis nothing.
King Stannis offered Renly everything what he could offer.
A riddle: who from Baratheons was more "peaceful"?

#312 LuisDantas

LuisDantas

    Morituri Delendi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,030 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:39 AM

However, I don't think there was anything wrong with when Stannis had Renly assassinated. If Stannis' troops had surrounded Renly's camp then and there, it would've been a legitimate tactical maneuver and I would've had no problem with it.


Nor would I. But that is not what happened, and the differences are striking and very significant.


Think of it as a matter of acceptable weapons. Renly's claim was based in the strength of the armies that he can convince to follow him (he says as much at the close of the Cately chapter where he finds out that Stannis is attacking his forces). He even remarks that for all the talk of the Baratheons having some Targaryen blood, no one doubts that Robert was King due to his competence as a military leader, not his ancestry.

The war ethics of Westeros do not seem to be all that different from those of historical Earth at a comparable feudal period and culture. They are based on the idea that war is a necessity for various reasons, and that God will favor those who are most worthy (the extreme, pure example being the institution of Trial by Combat).

Part of those ethics is the idea that army size and weapons of both sizes should be determined by the allegiances they obtain. Basically, whomever has the most support deserves to win. It is actually a fairly ingenious (if still bloodthirsty) system of solving complex, difficult demographic matters. Armies are difficult and expensive to build and maintain. Too much emphasis on weapons, and you risk famine; too little, and you risk being conquered or slain by others. But nearly all conflicts brought a "natural selection" of sorts, by bringing deaths that made the social and demographic pressures that much more bearable. Better yet, the morale of the cultures were kept comparably high because those were "proud" and "honorable" deaths, not helpless resignation to the fact that they had not nearly enough lands and food for everyone who lived there. It may well be that no better system was available at such a tech level. Things are different now, although human psychology is still far more warlike than it ought to be. But that is another argument for another time.

By slaying Renly with a magic shadow, Stannis renounced his own war ethics - or perhaps it is best to say that he is betting his own on the legitimacy of Melisandre's claims of his sacred destiny. You will remember that Stannis often comments on how little he is "loved". Many times what he really means is that he can't convince enough men at arms to support him. That troubles him because his legitimacy as a ruler is (at least conventionally) directly derived from his ability to gather troops that will fight for him. The only out that he has is believing the mumbo jumbo about "Having a Destiny to Fulfill" - effectivelly, decreeing that God (in this case R'hloor) is on his side and that allows him to play dirty. Left Behind ethics, if you will.

Come to think of it, maybe he believes that he is R'hloor's chosen after all. It would make his conscience that much lighter, and "all" the expense would be his moral worth.

#313 LuisDantas

LuisDantas

    Morituri Delendi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,030 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:40 AM

If Stannis wanted to save lives he could have challenged Renly to single combat as Penrose, an honourable man did rather than go down the assassination route. If he did then i'd have nothing against the action.


This. I fully agree.

#314 LuisDantas

LuisDantas

    Morituri Delendi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,030 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:52 AM

I think answer Renly for king Stannis's challenge to single combat could be the same, as king Stannis's answer for Penrose's challenge. Renly here and king Stannis there had big army and they didn't want risk their or other lives.


True enough. That is a major contrast between Trial by Combat and Single Combat.

When one side insists in Trial by Combat, not even a ruler may (easily) deny the judged party that right. The right to risk life and and limb for the chance of being acquited from any charges is very highly respected indeed.

Solving military conflicts by single combat, however, is also a very respected and honorable institution - but a completely optional one. It won't happen unless both sides agree to it.

Why so? Because the war ethics of the time respected the size and military prowess of the armies over that of their commanders. As well they should.

Still, Stannis did not propose single combat to Renly, so we are left to speculate on his reasons not to. And on whether Renly would refuse.

For what it is worth, I believe Renly would indeed refuse single combat if given the choice. Too risky, and he was fully confident that he would win a conventional battle. Besides, it is telling that he did not propose single combat himself.

But... Renly proposed king Stannis nothing.
King Stannis offered Renly everything what he could offer.


Storm's End and the end of hostilities is hardly "nothing".

Why exactly is support to Renly outside the scope of what Renly could offer?


A riddle: who from Baratheons was more "peaceful"?


Renly. Why do you ask?

#315 Kate Poem

Kate Poem

    Noble

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 661 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 01:15 PM

Luis Dantas:
True enough. That is a major contrast between Trial by Combat and Single Combat.

When one side insists in Trial by Combat, not even a ruler may (easily) deny the judged party that right. The right to risk life and and limb for the chance of being acquited from any charges is very highly respected indeed.

Solving military conflicts by single combat, however, is also a very respected and honorable institution - but a completely optional one. It won;t happen unless both sides agree to it.

Why so? Because the war ethics of the time respected the size and military prowess of the armies over that of their commanders. As well they should.

Still, Stannis did not propose single combat to Renly, so we are left to speculate on his reasons not to. And on whether Renly would refuse.
"I don't want (...) Lightbringer my brother's blood"

Luis Dantas:
Storm's End and the end of hostilities is hardly "nothing".


Maybe, but I don't believe Renly was deaf. He must know what hurtful and unjust was Storm's End's thing for Stannis. Robert gave it to Renly to hurt and mock Stannis. Cersei said "it had be a disrespect" And now what? His younger brother throw it to him as... as what, used toy?

Luis Dantas:
Why exactly is support to Renly outside the scope of what Renly could offer?

I suppose nothing what Stannis could want. You are right, but no one had Westeros in this moment. Renly could be join forces with his older brother, accept a title of Crown Prince and place in Small Council, end a war in short time. He had'nt any barriers before that. Maybe it would be losing a face or something. Maybe Tyrells could be furious, but Margaery will become Queen in last. Maybe his army will rebel before his decision. Maybe.
I know all of that, but Renly was loved as Robert, and Robert could piss in the goblet and people begun sing praises about taste of the wine.
I don't believe he could lost his army or Tyrells or something after bending a knee before Stannis. Yes, of course, a risk did exist, but... I don't believe. Maybe I am wrong.
Nevermind -I think he should rethink: What can I have, if I' ll bend a knee? What can I lost, if I'll not bend a knee? Is the Crown worthy my brother's life or not?
I am completely sure he was'nt thinking about it. I feel disapointed.

Luis Dantas:
Renly. Why do you ask?


I don't know now, really. Was he more peaceful, when he spat in his brother's face, disrespecting his innocent own niece? I don't know, what can I write for these "arguments".

Edited by Kate Poem, 19 December 2011 - 06:18 AM.


#316 Queen Cersei I

Queen Cersei I

    The First and Last of Her Name

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 02:06 PM


Ultimately, I don't think any of the Baratheon brothers were ever fit to rule Storm's End, let alone all of Westeros. At least Robert was able to overthrow the Mad King, though, and he did keep the realm together for a little while. I'd say he was the best of them, not that it's saying much.


Oh, I agree with this last part so much it's not even funny. The great flaw of all the Baratheon brothers, imo, and what brought them all, despite their disparate personality types, together, was the fact that they were all utterly selfish; unwilling to be truly altruistic and put the needs of others first and foremost.

However, of the three Stannis is by far the most developed, complex character, has been from the beginning, from his very first scene, and this has increased with every scene he's been in. In comparison (and, honestly, even on their own merits) Robert and Renly are both pretty one note. Renly justifiably-- despite the fact that he played an important role in creating the war of five kings, he was in relatively few scenes; a minor character with a major impact.

And Robert. Robert, Robert, Robert. The more I look at this guy, the more I feel that he is a not only a “bad,” character, but a ridiculously one dimensional one as well. Because, for all the swagger and color, there is really not much subtley, complexity, psychological realism, or even originality there. King Robert seems to have every aspect of the “wild, life loving warrior oaf with a heart of gold”—loves drinking—check; super promiscuous—check; big and hearty—check; super loud and boisterous—check; big beard—check; crass sense of humor, constantly making jokes—check! Loves boasting—check! Foolishly stubborn—check!

Seriously, rereading King Bob’s scenes, GRRM seems to have sacrificed character development, subtlety, nuance, and any sort of originality to vivid descriptions of Robert lurching around, drunken and red-faced, doffing tankards of wine while laughing boisterously and slapping his knee. (Seriously, in almost every scene he’s in, Robert a. is red faced; b. Is drinking or drunk; c. has a skin of whine in hand; d. Is laughing, talking, or generally behaving loudly and e. slaps some part of his body heartily—his belly, his knee, his thigh—the guy is always slapping himself, generally to prove a point.) And for those who doubt me… just go back and read AGOT. King Bob is drunk, red faced, laughing, boasting, carrying wine, and slapping away at various body part for every bloody scene he is in.

"Pray in the fields peasants" eh? "This is my castle, (even though you actually live here and I've spent the last 10 years in KL) and I get to burn your places of worship because I'm the lord"

Yeah, and Davos, pretty much the voice of reason and morality, notably objects to this action on Stannis's part. And Davos, for reasons I've never really been able to fathom (self-interested self advancement? Innate loyalty? Repressed homoerotic attraction?) pretty much supports Stan the man 150 percent on everything, including his deeply morally ambiguous acts that Davos himself would clearly never do. As good old Dave says to Salador Sann, defending Stannis's little fratricide, "Renly was guilty of treason!" And Salador Sann was like, "Yeah, okay dude. Cause THAT totally makes it all okay!"

I love it when the marauding, looting pirates play the voice of reason and morality.

P.S.-- where does Stannis get off keeping a fucking pirate when he meanwhile goes off to the three sisters and kills all the smugglers the lordship there keeps in his employ? I mean, pirate> smuggler? Or does Stannis simply feel that, yet again, the ends justify the means?

#317 The King in the South

The King in the South

    I'm sitting behind you

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,365 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 02:33 PM

If Stannis wanted to save lives he could have challenged Renly to single combat as Penrose, an honourable man did rather than go down the assassination route. If he did then i'd have nothing against the action.


If they wanted to save lives they could have just not fought at all. I'm not condoning Stannis's action at killing Renly at all, but it was a far better choice than to just charge eachother down.

And a single combat option is hardly "honorable" because they are still choosing to fight, and it's pretty like the armies would have foughten anyways.

#318 LuisDantas

LuisDantas

    Morituri Delendi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,030 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:30 PM

If they wanted to save lives they could have just not fought at all. I'm not condoning Stannis's action at killing Renly at all, but it was a far better choice than to just charge eachother down.

And a single combat option is hardly "honorable" because they are still choosing to fight, and it's pretty like the armies would have foughten anyways.


I can only say that your perception of combat ethics and motivation is quite alien to me.

#319 Queen Cersei I

Queen Cersei I

    The First and Last of Her Name

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,895 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:38 PM

Funny, I happen to love Stannis because he is so unloved in ASOIAF. 


I don’t really care about what the fandom thinks of him, but I feel incredibly sorry for him due to the way nobody really likes him in Westeros (with a few exceptions.) Stannis seems like even more of an alienated cipher than does Tyrion. Tyrion at least has one brother who unconditionally adores, champions, and understands him. Furthermore, Tyrion has a sense of humor about his situation, and is able to accept himself, that he will never be the tall, handsome, popular type. Not so Stannis. Nobody likes him, nobody ever really has, and he’s never really gotten over it.

Despite all his accomplishments no one respects him except Davos and Melisandre. 


IMO, Mel doesn’t truly love or respect him; she loves and worships the savior image of her god that she has projected onto him. Mel loves R’hloor first and foremost, and when she discovers that Stannis is not her god’s chosen one (but that the chosen one’s are Dany and Jon Snow), she will not stick around for long. Mel cares for Stannis, but her first priority is saving the world, and (she believes) she needs Azor Azai to accomplish this. She doesn’t really need a balding, middle aged man with emotional issues.

IMO, in the next book, after Jon is brought back, Mel will realize that he is Azor Azai reborn, and being a sexual affair with him. (Perhaps after being almost murdered by his own men—not unlike Mormont—Jon Snow will rethink his staunch system of morality, and be willing to engage in some shadow baby assassination assistance. Hey, GRRM did say Jon would become more morally ambiguous in the future. This is where Mel—and the shadow baby sex—will come in.) When it turns out Stannis is (obviously) still alive, Mel will opt to remain with Jon Snow. IMO, Stannis will be furious and have a bit of a mental breakdown after losing his greatest ally, supporter, advisor, and lover, and, imo, there will be a huge element of sexual jealousy involved, since clearly their sexual relationship is a big component of the Mel/ Stannis thing, though Stannis would never, ever admit this to himself. When Stannis see’s he’s lost it all, he may become very dangerous and very desperate indeed.

He deserves so much more than he has recieved in life. 


Arguable. Stannis was undeniably unlucky—he was born just a year after his all- star brother, who so notably excelled at everything—fighting, getting girls, charming others—that Stannis sucked at. He was born with a rather awkward, shy, uptight and suspicious nature, which was worsened by constant competition with his ridiculously successful and wildly popular brother, and the loss of the only two people there to love him wholly and unconditionally—his parents—at a very young age.

But as an adult he has, to a certain degree, arguably merely reaped what he has sewn. He has never let go of a slight or a grievance, alienating those who could advance him. He has never stopped feeling persecuted, which make interpersonal relationships (with the other nobles, with the smallfolk, etc.) very strained and difficult, again a damper on possible allies. He has channeled his sense of grievance into ambition. He has ignored his wife (which you, and few others clearly blame him for, since she is “gross,”) but far more inexcusably, near ignored his daughter. He has committed numerous morally ambiguous, sometimes downright hypocritical acts in the name of his cause. These acts, according to Stannis’s own stated code of justice (“a good act does not cancel out a bad one”) are therefore not canceled out by Stannis’s undeniably righteous acts (going to the wall, recognizing the threat posed by the others, etc.)

Overall, I see Stannis as poised for a gigantic fall, during which he will become one of the major “big bads” of the series. IMO, he’s no worse or better (arguably) than Dany yet, but he shows the potential to commit heinous acts that she has not. I would bet my life at this point that Stannis is going to end up, once abandoned by Melisandre for the two true sides of Azor Azai—Dany and Jon—and hearing of the threat of Dany and her coming Dragons, and being encouraged by his conveniently one dimensional caricature of a wife, will do the unthinkable and burn his own daughter to wake the stone dragon.

I would like to see him claim the Iron Throne, but I would prefer he finds whatever will make him happy.


To paraphrase Jon Snow in ADWD, I’m not sure it’s in Stannis to be happy. The closest we’ve ever seen him is in the scene where, shortly after his brother was murdered, he brings all of the bannermen with him to Storms End and talks to Davos. This is when: a. He has just shortly finished shagging Melisandre repeatedly for the first time, and b. when he thinks he’s defeated all competition (with his brother) and the crown is very likely his.

So maybe Stannis could have some chance of happiness if he won the Iron throne for his own, and had the lovely Mel by his side (and in his bed.) However, I can’t see that happening.

Utter and complete power, and the love, worship, and undying devotion of a slim, nubile, gorgeous young woman (who also is willing to sleep with them whenever they want, and is probably supernaturally skilled in the bedroom.) Is that so much to ask for?

Edited by Queen Cersei I, 18 December 2011 - 03:39 PM.


#320 LuisDantas

LuisDantas

    Morituri Delendi

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,030 posts

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:48 PM

Kate, as long as you take as a starting premise that Stannis ought to be King regardless of combat ethics, relevant facts or circunstances, I'm afraid I just won't see much sense on what you say.

"I don't want (...) Ligthbringer my brother's blood"


Position 24432 in the Kindle 4-book bundle, ok. I've found it. Stannis says it. Not sure what you hope to illustrate by mentioning it. Are you suggesting that Stannis did not mean to kill Renly? That doesn't fit very well with what actually happened later.



Luis Dantas:
Storm's End and the end of hostilities is hardly "nothing".


Maybe, but I don't believe Renly was deaf. He must know what hurtful and unjust was Storm's End's thing for Stannis. Robert gave it to Renly to hurt and mock Stannis. Cersei said "it had be a disrespect" And now what? His younger brother throw it to him as... as what, used toy?


Tough for Stannis, but why would that be relevant? Stannis is supposed to be an adult man. Are you really suggesting that Renly should give out his claim to the Throne and support Stannis' out of pity?


In the quote following, I meant Stannis in the second occurrence of "Renly". Sorry, my mistake.

Luis Dantas:
Why exactly is support to Renly outside the scope of what Renly Stannis could offer?

I suppose nothing what Stannis could want. You are right, but no one had Westeros in this moment. Renly could be join forces with his older brother, accept a title of Crown Prince and place in Small Council, end a war in short time.


You are assuming that Renly genuinely believed that Stannis could be an acceptable ruler. I just don't see how or why he would. Even if he did, I fully agree with what he says to Catelyn: his own claim is just as legitimate as Robert's used to be, and it is foolish to give it up to Stannis just because.


He hadn't any barriers before that. Maybe it would be losing a face or something. Maybe Tyrells could be furious, but Margaery will become Queen in last. Maybe his army will rebel before his decision. Maybe.
I know all of that, but Renly was loved as Robert, and Robert could piss in the goblet and people begun sing praises about taste of the wine.
I don't believe he could lost his army or Tyrells or something after bending a knee before Stannis. Yes, of course, a risk did exist, but... I don't believe. Maybe I am wrong.
Nevermind -I think he should rethink: What can I have, if I' ll bend a knee? What can I lost, if I'll not bend a knee? Is the Crown worthy my brother's life or not?
I am completely sure he was'nt thinking about it. I feel disapointed.


I realize you were misled by my mistake above, but thing is, Renly never had any good reason to give up his claim. Therefore, I simply see no sense in such a scenario. It was never likely and is in fact inherently absurd.


Luis Dantas:
Renly. Why do you ask?


I don't know now, really. Was he more peaceful, when he spat in his brother's face, disrespecting his innocent own niece? I don't know, what can I write for these "arguments".


Nothing, at least until you show evidence that Renly hired assassins or something similar.