Jump to content

Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?


Recommended Posts

1. Nobody in the books denied Stannis' claim on the castle, not even Penrose. Saying it doesn't belong to him is an excuse made up by readers, nothing more.

2. It did not belong to Joffrey because Joffrey isn't related to the Baratheons. Do you think Jeyne Pool has a claim on Winterfell because she poses as Arya?

3. After Renly was dead, who was the last surviving Baratheon? Stannis. The castle belonged to him. And that's not taking into account he was the older Baratheon to begin with.

1) nobody comments either way. What would be the point of Penrose pointing out the legalities to a man who has already invaded and tried to take it from the man everyone acknowledged as the legal owner? Like Stannis would go 'OMG, that's a good point! Guys, pack up, we're off. Sorry about the whole misunderstanding.'

2) Joffrey is not posing as anything. He is, LEGALLY and to his knowledge the son of Robert Baratheon. Our views as readers are neither reflective of what Westeros/the law knows, nor are they omniscient. There may be a Maester out there who knows Stannis is a bastard son of some moody bald skinny guy. Our unawareness of same doesn't make it untrue, and if we became aware of it, nothing about the law would change.

3) there is no need to take into account who the older Baratheon was; it never belonged to Stannis, period. It belonged to Robert, and then to Renly. If you want a legal argument, again, renly's heir would be Joffrey. If you want a moral argument, it would be not Renly's murderer. Every criminal code in the Western world reflects that moral position; a murderer should never profit from his crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Joffrey is not posing as anything. He is, LEGALLY and to his knowledge the son of Robert Baratheon. Our views as readers are neither reflective of what Westeros/the law knows, nor are they omniscient. There may be a Maester out there who knows Stannis is a bastard son of some moody bald skinny guy. Our unawareness of same doesn't make it untrue, and if we became aware of it, nothing about the law would change.

3) there is no need to take into account who the older Baratheon was; it never belonged to Stannis, period. It belonged to Robert, and then to Renly. If you want a legal argument, again, renly's heir would be Joffrey. If you want a moral argument, it would be not Renly's murderer. Every criminal code in the Western world reflects that moral position; a murderer should never profit from his crime.

Stannis knew Joff was a bastard, therefor he was the legal owner of Storms End, as he is both next in line and the legal king, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis knew Joff was a bastard, therefor he was the legal owner of Storms End, as he is both next in line and the legal king, period.

1) Stannis' knowledge does not make law.

2) Stannis thought Joffrey was a bastard. Hair =/= knowledge. But if it does in your mind, are you coming round to Stannis Storm, the Bald Bastard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Stannis' knowledge does not make law.

There is no supreme court in westeros. There is no democracy either. Stannis' knowledge made him legal king, despite of what most people believe. If not, Jeyhe Pool is the Lady of Winterfell by law, since most people probably believe she is Arya.

2. He suspected it and was right. He had a good reason to suspect it too. It doesn't change the fact that Stannis was legal king and the next Baratheon in line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no supreme court in westeros. There is no democracy either. Stannis' knowledge made him legal king, despite of what most people believe. If not, Jeyhe Pool is the Lady of Winterfell by law, since most people probably believe she is Arya.

2. He suspected it and was right. He had a good reason to suspect it too. It doesn't change the fact that Stannis was legal king and the next Baratheon in line.

1) Supreme Court and Democracy are other irrelevances. Neither has anything to do with the lack of effect one individual's opinion has on the law.

I'll try it this way: suppose R+L = J is true, and we readers find out it's true. But no one in the books can or does prove it. Jon's legal claim to the throne is therefore non-existent. And everyone in here recognizes this fact. I'm not sure why it ceases to be understood when talking about Stannis.

2) His being right does not turn his suspicion into knowledge. Especially as part of that suspicion (the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn) is false. He did not know. He thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Supreme Court and Democracy are other irrelevances. Neither has anything to do with the lack of effect one individual's opinion has on the law.

I'll try it this way: suppose R+L = J is true, and we readers find out it's true. But no one in the books can or does prove it. Jon's legal claim to the throne is therefore non-existent. And everyone in here recognizes this fact. I'm not sure why it ceases to be understood when talking about Stannis.

2) His being right does not turn his suspicion into knowledge. Especially as part of that suspicion (the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn) is false. He did not know. He thought.

1.) Even Jon Snows claim (had he not joined the NW and if he is not a bastard) would be real. That people in the realm don't know about it and wouldn't support it doesn't stop it from being the truth. It's the same with Stannis. And law (to my understanding) is always based on the truth, if possible.

2.) If we go this way, nobody "knows" that Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella are Robert's children. They only suspect it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Sigh* regarding the original question...



Stannis did his duty regarding sleeping with his wife, but nothing more. Certainly more so than Tyrion with Sansa and less than Jon Arryn with Lysa. All the duty in the world can't make two people who simply aren't attracted to each other spend more time together than they really have to. Stannis did his husbandry duty once every six months, it is very possible they might have conceived more children had he done it more. I also imagine there we would see accusations of him raping Selyse on this board if he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) Even Jon Snows claim (had he not joined the NW and if he is not a bastard) would be real. That people in the realm don't know about it and wouldn't support it doesn't stop it from being the truth. It's the same with Stannis. And law (to my understanding) is always based on the truth, if possible.

2.) If we go this way, nobody "knows" that Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella are Robert's children. They only suspect it.

1) truth is sometimes the desired end of law; it is not it's foundation. There are many laws that are specifically designed to prevent truth from being known. Laws are, in simplist form, a set of rules designed to reflect societal preferences as it relates to human behaviour. In any event, even if you think Stannis' claim is 'true', that does not at all make it legal.

2) exactly. Well, presumably Cersei might have knowledge, but she's also unreliable as a narrator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do love threads like this, though, because they absolutely fill right up in no time at all, which in my opinion puts to the sword any notion that Stannis isn't an important or interesting character. He's a beautifully crafted piece *sticks nose in the air* *wipes tear from eye*


Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) truth is sometimes the desired end of law; it is not it's foundation. There are many laws that are specifically designed to prevent truth from being known. Laws are, in simplist form, a set of rules designed to reflect societal preferences as it relates to human behaviour. In any event, even if you think Stannis' claim is 'true', that does not at all make it legal.

2) exactly. Well, presumably Cersei might have knowledge, but she's also unreliable as a narrator.

Inheritance laws are based on the truth. If is says "if the king leaves no children, his brother inherits the throne" than it should be acted accordingly. I doubt Jeyne Pool is the lady of Winterfell, do you? Nowhere does it say "if someone poses as the legitimate heir, the true heir does not inherit".

Stannis is the king and lord of Storms End by right. It doesn't matter if few people believe it, we as the readers know it is the truth. Eddard Stark knows, Cersei knows, Jaime knows. Stannis suspects it and is right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Do you have an westerosi example for the claim being void if you kill the person (in this case traitor) who owned it previously? If so, Winterfell lost its claim on the Karstark lands, Casterly Rock lost it's claim on the Reyne and Tarbeck lands, the Baratheons had no claim on Storms End to begin with because they killed the Durrandon king, etc. Funnily enough this doesn't happen in the books at all. Just another excuse made up by readers who don't want to accept that Stannis' actions in this regard are legit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have an westerosi example for the claim being void if you kill the person (in this case traitor) who owned it previously? If so, Winterfell lost its claim on the Karstark lands, Casterly Rock lost it's claim on the Reyne and Tarbeck lands, the Baratheons had no claim on Storms End to begin with because the killed the Durrandon king, etc. Funnily enough this doesn't happen in the books at all. Just another excuse made up by readers who don't want to accept that Stannis' actions are legitimate.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Tyrion isn't heir to Casterly Rock because he was convicted for murder to begin with.

Stannis was Renlys liege lord, because he is king.

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.
If you think Roberts Rebellion was unjustified, okay, that would be a different discussion.
And you still have to cover the Bratheon point. How could he inherit the castle if he killed the previous owner?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyrion isn't heir to Casterly Rock because he was convicted for murder to begin with.

Stannis was Renlys liege lord, because he is king.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No, but Stannis didn't do that .He killed a traitor and because there are no other heirs around the castle falls back to it's supreme owner, the liege lord. And that's not taking his Baratheon claim into account, which certainly is still valid because Stannis killed the previous owner on a legal basis in contrast to just murdering his way to the top like lord Hunter did.

A traitor has no claim to anything granted by the king; Robert was just forgiving enough to let Balon keep his position, he was under no obligation to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inheritance laws are based on the truth. If is says "if the king leaves no children, his brother inherits the throne" than it should be acted accordingly. I doubt Jeyne Pool is the lady of Winterfell, do you? Nowhere does it say "if someone poses as the legitimate heir, the true heir does not inherit".

Stannis is the king and lord of Storms End by right. It doesn't matter if few people believe it, we as the readers know it is the truth. Eddard Stark knows, Cersei knows, Jaime knows. Stannis suspects it and is right.

You are really not making great arguments here, IMO.

Jayne Poole is knowing,y pretending to be another person who actually exists. If Arya were the Arya we know but unbeknownst to her (or anyone) Cat slept with Mr. Poole one night and that resulted in Arya, THAT would be the parallel you're looking for. And Arya would still be a Stark, legally speaking. Joff and Tommen aren't 'posing' as anything. They are, in the eyes of the world/law/themselves, exactly who they say they are.

The ONLY thing that separates that perception with reader perception is Cersei's internal memories of his she handled sperm. The law cannot account for that, it has no way to even approach handling that. Stannis making declarations doesn't even scratch the surface.

And, no, we readers do not know Stannis is Lord of SE. We know the law, and we have differing opinions on the ethics. Very many of us believe Stannis' ethical claim to SE is negated by the means he took to claim it.

That's the problem; you want to make a legal argument for the part that works for you and a moral argument for the rest. But if you apply either to the whole, Stannis' claim is invalid.

Edit: holy shit, superninja'd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but Stannis didn't do that .He killed a traitor and because there are no other heirs around the castle falls back to it's supreme owner, the liege lord. And that's not taking his Baratheon claim into account, which certainly is still valid because Stannis killed the previous owner on a legal basis in contrast to just murdering his way to the top like lord Hunter did.

A traitor has no claim to anything granted by the king; Robert was just forgiving enough to let Balon keep his position, he was under no obligation to do it.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...