What did Renly mean by that odd statement to Catelyn

[mrunderhill]

\thread

Can't believe this is still even a discussion TBH... Claims are only as strong as your army that supports it. Whole kingdom? Easy. Only part (or none)? Not so easy.

Except history has shown this is not the case. Even in ASOIAF why did Dorne refuse to bow to Daeron I? I agree there gets to a point where overwhelming force is enough, but people don't forget. Look at what happened after Aegon I died? Rebellion. You only have to look around the world to see countless dictators falling and failing to pass their position to their children. The reason is that they never had an acceptable claim to power.

Renly is a fool and even if he had taken the throne was going to start the War of the Baratheons. With 'Ours if the Fury' being their motto the realm would bleed terribly.

[Howling Mad]

Still, the term "second sons" seems to have a special meaning in the series. It could just be a figure of speech, but given GRRM, perhaps there is something more to it.

IMO its foreshadowing for Stannis to contract with the Second Sons. The irony will be that when the contract is let the Second Sons will be under the command of Tyrion Lannister. :cool4:

[aceluby]

The reason is that they never had an acceptable claim to power.

No. The reason is that the people who control the armies (the lords in this case) needed to hold on to the claim don't think they have an acceptable claim to power. That's exactly what happened to Egypt... twice now and it wasn't until the MILITARY threw out the dictator that the civil war ended.

And if you think Renly is a fool you'd have to admit Stannis is a bigger fool w/ a smaller army and NO lords who swear fealty.

[mrunderhill]

No. The reason is that the people who control the armies (the lords in this case) needed to hold on to the claim don't think they have an acceptable claim to power. That's exactly what happened to Egypt... twice now and it wasn't until the MILITARY threw out the dictator that the civil war ended.

And if you think Renly is a fool you'd have to admit Stannis is a bigger fool w/ a smaller army and NO lords who swear fealty.

So basically people did not accept their claim to power and rebelled. Whether the people are powerful or the average bloke you only need people to accept your authority.

Stannis is claiming he is Robert's heir and Cersei's children are bastards. He would have to kill or imprison the children, but it does not cause trouble down the line.

Now with Renly his argument seems to be that he is the better man with the bigger army and screw everything else. What happens when Renly is older and somebody else makes that claim? What happens when Renly's eldest son takes after Stannis and his younger son after the father?

[Dragon Roast]

This is obviously a response from renly to something Catelyn said. If you want to get the real meaning, why didn't you include Cat's statement?

You can't just take half a quote and hope for people to guess it's meaning...

Here is the context:

"It would seem that you are the one who has forgotten Stannis," Catelyn said, more sharply than she'd intended.

"His claim, you mean?" Renly laughed. "Let us be blunt, my lady. Stannis would make an appalling king. Nor is he like to become one. Men respect Stannis, even fear him, but precious few have ever loved him."

"He is still your elder brother. If either of you can be said to have a right to the Iron Throne, it must be Lord Stannis."

Renly shrugged. "Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?" He did not wait for an answer. "Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer."

I'm not sure it adds much to the question. Renly is downplaying the importance of bloodline in favor of force of arms. One would expect Renly to do that as he had no claim beyond force arms that would put him in front of Stannis.

I was more curious if his odd framing was a sign that he didn't give a rat's ass about history or something else. I think convincing evidence has been presented that he didn't give a rat's ass about history. Still,the use of the term "second sons" is a nice echo if nothing else. It seems to have a special meaning in the series. Or not. It could just be a figure of speech, but perhaps there is something more to it...

[UVA]

Except throughout the story we do see a general rule of law being recognised.

What do you mean by “rule of law” in this context? I ask because, broadly defined, the rule of law is a concept based on the idea that there are laws applicable to everyone enforceable by the government; and nowhere in the text does any simulation of this exist. There is no single power in Westeros, not even what passes for a centralized government (the IT), that has a monopoly on violence (or threat thereof) to enforce the law across the Seven Kingdoms. More importantly there is not a legitimate judicial body that can impartially apply these laws. (The Great Council, as SJC notes, is the closest thing to legal arbitration Westeros has ever had.)

Precedents and Tradition are used to judge the superiority of a claim. Nobody thinks Westeros has a written law, but they have history, tradition and precedent that they follow.

I agree with this in principle, but we don't have examples of this being done in Westeros where competing claims are measured and judged. Also, I think there is a presupposition of objectivity here that isn’t quite accurate. In the series, precedent appears to morph into rules not law per se. Even so law ascribes to a greater level of objectivity, and therefore, is less flexible and less subject to change than a rule. These less-than-impartial rules can be contradictory such that succession norms are not clear cut in Westeros.

To add, SJC raises an interesting point about whether the Targaryen dynasty was even old enough to establish sufficient precedent to decide a case like Dany vs. Robert. Adjacently, the Baratheons, with a rule of only fifteen years, arguably did not establish a strong enough dynastic precedent to rule; and the Wot5K and the power vacuum left after Robert’s death seem to support this view.

Nobody is shouting out for Harry the Heir to take over the Vale. Of course Tradition and Precedent are not always respected. Renly for instance himself acknowledges that Stannis has a superior claim, but he does not care. When a decision is being made about the choice of Dany vs Robert, the weight of the superior claim will be measured with the practicality of the situation.

Again I agree with this. But again too, who is going to resolve this controversy? What standards do we use in order to judge the superior claim? As you said, precedents are subject to change. I would further add that rules/precedent are not universally accepted and enforceable. So without a more universal, binding succession law, how can we remove competing interests and sustain impartiality? Or prove with any objectivity who is ‘right’ in this case?

Aerion Brightflame's son had the better claim than Egg. However, due to the situation at Hand, the superior claim was wavered away for the practicality of having a strong king. Just, because Egg won does not mean his claim suddenly became stronger.

I have no problem with this. The Great Council’s decision here is the closest example in-universe of a lawmaking body, that interestingly, overrides precedent giving us another example of the anemic power of precedent.

That being said we still have to judge, who had the stronger claim based on the evidence we have. All things being equal history, tradition and precedent favour Robert over Dany.

As I mentioned above, you’re assuming we have the tools to make such a judgment, and we agree that precedent (and I’m lumping in history and tradition in the term) is subject to radical change in Westeros. As such I assert that these rules are not sufficient enough to decide the issue of Dany vs. Robert, or Dany vs. Stannis at this point.

We don't actually know by what right Robert exactly claimed the Throne. We have contradictory claims made from different people, however, I am more likely to trust Ned and Jon over Robert and Renly.

I really think that Robert’s claim based on his Targaryen ancestry is ancillary to the right of conquest. I don’t know of any evidence to suggest that Robert initiated the rebellion on the basis of his claim by blood. Robert didn’t declare until the Trident IIRC.