• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Adelstein

  • Rank
  • Birthday August 6

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
  1. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    I find it hard to believe that any news of that has spread outside King's Landing, and probably not even within it. Very few of Robert's bastards are common knowledge: only the game-players in King's Landing really have any idea. Ned and Jon Arryn were as close to Bob as anyone, and they needed LF and Stannis to introduce them to Gendry. Gendry himself has no idea who his father is. The guards sent to kill Bob's children didn't know the significance of their targets. Which is, of course, the whole point. If everyone knew that Bob had so many bastards they might start wondering for themselves why they looked nothing like their "legitimate" half-siblings. The only two of Robert's bastards who are common knowledge are Edric and, more locally, Mya. And they're both fine. There is reason to be suspicious of Cersei and Joff, but for Joff to kill his half-brother is rather different than cutting Ned's head off; the taboo against kinslaying applies as much as anything else. Stannis on the other hand has made it pretty clear his intention is to kill Robert's children in King's Landing, and has very possibly just killed his brother. There's reason to believe that it would be better to hand Edric over to pretty much anyone but him. I would suspect that Penrose would prefer that it be the northerners who come to liberate him rather than the Lannisters. But "Anyone But Stannis" is a reasonable line for him to take at this point as regards Edric, I think.
  2. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    It's not exactly a massive leap of logic, though, is it? Who had the greatest motive to kill Renly at that point? Who benefitted the most from his death? That people buy into the Brienne story so easily and go over to Stannis as a result doesn't speak all that highly of their intelligence. Even if you accept that Brienne could have killed Renly it doesn't strike anyone as a remarkable and truly exceptional coincidence that she did so right then? And that it's rather likely that even if she did kill Renly herself she almost certainly did so on Stannis's account? I think Penrose was justified in calling horseshit on the Brienne story and instead drawing his own conclusions. Especially since he was right.
  3. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    I'm starting to think that the main reason Stannis doesn't do his spousal duty more often is that every time he considers it he has to fight his way through a horde of StanStans wanting him to bone them instead, and decides it's not worth the effort.
  4. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    What? No. That you denied participating in a debate against all available evidence and I offered you the opportunity to stop doesn't mean I agree with you, and trying to play it as if I do is frankly insulting, so please don't. I know it's illegal to disagree about anything with anyone (and especially those with Stannis-boners) but even so, come on.
  5. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    Forgive me, but... ...Yes you are. I mean, we can stop if you (and everyone else in the debate) likes. But denial =/= reality. (Although as far as Stannis is concerned it is rather apposite). I think you'll find they're traitors, because they disagreed with Stannis about something and had the balls to do something about it. Those bastards.
  6. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    It's like you really want to pretend Edric doesn't exist... There's also a chance - at the time - that Margaery is carrying Renly's child.
  7. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    I've never said Joff should be the heir, and if that's what you're arguing against I have a straw man to introduce you to. There's a difference between executing a convicted traitor after due process and having someone accused of treason assassinated. Even Aerys's execution of Brandon and Rickard Stark had more legal weight to it than did Stannis's killing of Renly, sorry to say. It's Stannis's Red Wedding, as mentioned above. An argument can be made from pragmatism that it's the right thing to do but it's completely outside all norms and the majority of people are going to find it despicable. Which is probably one of the reasons he hasn't told anyone it's what he did. We saw how the Stormlords reacted when they thought even for a moment that Renly was still alive. How would they have reacted if they knew that Stannis had murdered him? And while you can argue Renly had it coming, reusing the same trick on Penrose, a good man doing his duty as he understood it (just as Stannis had during the Rebellion) but a bit inconvenient for Stannis right now, was really a bit cheap when there were other options available and the shadow assassin was just the least risky. Indeed I think the Penrose killing serves two literary purposes. Firstly it allows us to see how the shadows happen (without spoiling the shock of the Renly moment) but it also demonstrates that Stannis has no qualms about killing anyone in his way by any means at his disposal, whatever the complexities or hypocrisies involved. It's not just the upstart younger brother against whom he doesn't have a chance - it's anyone, regardless of allegiance or sympathy. Robb, Tommen, Brienne, all these characters we might actually care about: they're all for the chop if he thinks they're an inconvenience. This is why when there was the debate over whether he was going to sacrifice an innocent child just to make himself king, we thought he might actually do it. But doubtless there are some people who think he should have.
  8. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    :agree: Oh thank god. It was never proven, I guess, that Maekar killed him (as in theory it could have been one of a number of people, although he accepted full responsibility) but that was in a judicial trial by combat, so the normal rules to prevent murder presumably wouldn't apply. I must admit that one has slightly puzzled me. I imagine nobody made much of a fuss about it because Maekar was still so far down the line of succession that it wasn't considered particularly important next to the fact of Baelor's death at all. Still it would be interesting to know if anyone raised that charge/claim against Maekar and his rule later. We know so little about his reign. Well this is part of it. By the understanding of most people at the time, Joff was the rightful king by the laws of succession at least, and both Stannis and Renly were rebels. Surely Renly wouldn't have named Joffrey his heir, yeah. But he might have named Edric: of all the available candidates he seems in some ways the most likely.
  9. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    Double post.
  10. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    Using dark magic to slash someone's throat in their tent is a standard method of judicial execution in Westeros, then. Good to know. Robert undoubtedly could have deprived Balon of his position, but the presumption very much appears to be that he would not, rather than the title was automatically forfeited on rebellion (see also: the Tyrells and their bannermen in the WotFK, and everyone who fought for the "wrong side" in the Dance. Heck, even in the Blackfyre Rebellion most of the lords involved seem to have got to keep their primary title). The heir to Storm's End is not entirely clear-cut. Normally one would assume it was Stannis, yes, but there could be debate on the subject. It could be argued to be Edric, and there are also questions over whether Stannis was cut out of the Storm's End succession by Robert anyway in effect, and whether one can hold the LP-equivalent title in both Dragonstone and another seat simultaneously. Stannis having murdered the previous holder would count heavily against him in such a debate, if it didn't disqualify him altogether. I know it's attractive to think in such black and white terms as Stannis does, but this really isn't the setting for it.
  11. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    The difference in this context is between heir and liege. In some cases they can be the same person, but they're different hats. An heir succeeds on the death of the principal and gains legal title to their possessions (sometimes subject to a delay for grant of probate, etc.) I guess we haven't been given a clear-cut example of how murdering somebody voids your title as their heir (although an unrelated murder should have no bearing: the Tywin-Tyrion situation is slightly opaque) - but in any sane legal system this is one of the fairly basic principles of inheritance, because a society where it's not just legally ok but desirable for the heir to murder their way to a title results in a total disaster of a society. I'd be astonished if a similar law wasn't in operation in Westeros. So if Stan is claiming Storm's End as Renly's heir, he loses out. Soz, Stannis. A liege lord is the ultimate owner, but in the sense of a landlord: he can reclaim the titles in question from his vassals but there is generally a process attached. But the king still can't go around killing his vassals and taking their stuff on a whim. There is another instance in the books of a LP defying the (otherwise undisputed) king: Balon Greyjoy. There was a war Balon lost, swore an oath, and then everything carried on as before. It seems that raising your banners against the king doesn't automatically forfeit your lordship of a given seat. (See also: the Tyrells, and countless smaller lords). If Stan is claiming Storm's End on that basis, Penrose still has a case that he's a tyrant who killed the lord of the castle out of hand and therefore isn't fit. (This is of course how Bob became king in the first place, and Stannis supported him). In fact this is pretty much what happened; had Stannis not been so implicated in Renly's death, it seems not unlikely that Penrose would have switched support to Stannis on Renly's death anyway.
  12. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    Tyrion and Tywin. Note that the law of inheritance is different to the law of suzerainty. Robb never purported to be Rickard Karstark's heir, rather his liege lord; the same goes for Tywin and the Reynes and Tarbecks. It operates completely differently. Also note that by this logic (i.e. the king can do what he likes) Stannis should have surrendered Storm's End to Aerys during the Rebellion. Therefore traitor blah blah.
  13. Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?

    Ah yes, the logic of the StanStans. How I have missed thee. In general, in law, you void any claim on someone's inheritance if you murder them. Also, in Westeros, at least, kinslaying is bad. Proposition 1: Rectitude is independent of observation. Joff's bastardry makes Stannis the rightful king, even if nobody but Stannis knows this. Stannis killed Renly, even though nobody but Stannis knows this. Penrose can legitimately refuse Stannis, as Renly's killer, from claiming Renly's possessions (including Storm's End). Proposition 2: Rectitude is dependent on everyone knowing about it. Joff is Robert's rightful heir and Stannis is a traitor. Renly was coincidentally murdered by his most loyal follower right before a battle with Stannis. Penrose can legitimately refuse Stannis as he is a traitor. Proposition 3: Nuh-uh! Robert should have given Storm's End to Stannis. Therefore despite all appearances, anything Robert actually did, and the operation of any actual law, Storm's End was Stannis's all along. Penrose was a dick and Renly the greatest villain in the history of the universe. Also marry me Stannis I want your babies. Stannis fans tend to like to pick and choose between Prop1 and Prop2 depending on the circumstances. Stannis can do whatever he wants because he's the king, even though nobody knows about it. However his own skullduggery doesn't count so long as nobody finds out about it. In this instance, by the same argument used for Stannis's rightful kingship his claim over Storm's End also fails. (Prop3 also comes into play more often than would be ideal). Now, ok, under Proposition 1 the argument can be made that as Stannis is the rightful king Renly should have submitted to him - but even then Storm's End was still Renly's unless Stannis stripped it from him (and in fact Stan said Renly could keep it as part of the deal offered, so that title was never properly revoked). And it doesn't alter the normal presumptions about passage of title: by killing Renly without due process Stan forfeited his default claim on Renly's estate which, albeit the exact circumstances are woolly, could be argued to pass into Penrose's hands as executor. Stan could still formally revoke Renly's title retrospectively and claim it as king, if we're running with Prop1, but that doesn't appear to be what happens. Of course, Prop1 is also completely to ignore reality. Even if Stan is factually in the right it's still unreasonable to expect Penrose to roll over and hand over Storm's End to the person he believes has just killed his lord and king - and to deliver that lord and king's ward into the hands of his killer, just as we shouldn't expect Jon Arryn to hand over his wards to Aerys before the rebellion.
  14. Should tipping be banned?

    Yeah; obviously I'm coming at this from a non-American angle. It seems like it's only relatively recently (possibly an American influence) that tipping has even become an overt thing in bars and pubs: previously if you wanted to reward the barman you'd add "one for yourself" to the round. Tipping outside the food and drink industry is still very uncommon, in my experience at least. But it's one of those areas that seems to be becoming a minefield. Judging just from this thread, people feel very strongly that they should be tipped; on the other hand, there are a lot of people who are very awkward about that sort of thing and wouldn't feel comfortable accepting a tip, let alone offering one and being turned down. I'd be mortified for the rest of the day! I just don't feel like an American tipping culture is a positive direction to be heading in. Maybe it works over there (although, again, on the evidence of the thread, it seems there are a fair few glitches in the system) but it's not something I really want to see here. I'd rather just that everyone was paid an appropriate wage in the first place, did their jobs properly, and then I don't have to worry about it every time I use a service.
  15. Should tipping be banned?

    Well, that's the thing. I feel like I'm getting mixed messages. On the one hand, it's "treat serving staff with respect; their job is hard." I'm fully on board with that. I try to treat everyone with respect anyway. But I don't see how that necessarily translates to "pay them". If I stop to give a tourist directions in the street, a sincere thank you is appreciated. If he tried to pay me, I'd be insulted. I feel like the respect angle is a red herring. The customer should treat serving staff with respect regardless of any tipping policy. It doesn't mean that the customer should be solely responsible - on a discretionary basis - for paying their wages. And if it's not discretionary, why not just stick it on the bill? As has been mentioned above (and not really addressed) there seems to be no rhyme or reason to which jobs get tipped and which don't. Why is it that it's almost mandatory to tip serving staff, but in the case of some professionals it's actually illegal for them to accept one? They're both ultimately in service positions. At least in the UK it's almost entirely confined to restaurants and the odd bar/pub, so although it still doesn't really hold up to close scrutiny at least the circumstances in which you encounter it can be more easily controlled.