Jump to content

Is it Stannis duty to please that booty?


Recommended Posts

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*

Totally. I mean, this all started off as a thread about Stannis having sex with Selyse, but of course became Stannis vs Renly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we first met Stannis we see a man with a black/white notion of justice. A lot of things he should have done, he didn't because it would mean he needed to compromise and he's not a man who would do those things. That's why he lost: because he was very much alone.



But when the story progress and his character grows (you know, 'development', they call it), he starts to lose that rigid mind and learned to make concessions, because he knows, that by not doing it, he cannot win. That doesn't mean he has lost his stubborn temper, but he does compromises. Otherwise, he would be going to the North and simply demand things. Jon then advices him what to do and Stannis, being smart as he is, knows that he should dance at the Northerners' tune so they would dance at his own: dance together. The fact he has outgrew (not completely, though) his "everybody has to do what I say because I am the King" attitude means that this is a trait that was NEGATIVE and he is evolving into something better and more POSITIVE. Defending that in Stannis is not understanding his character: we're not supposed to celebrate Stannis being stubborn and practically blind at criticism because that character does not exist anymore.



I would also advice not to discuss the books with people who understand them literally. It's like running against a wall and expect it won't hurt when you crash.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Wasn't Maekar behind Baelor in the line of succession? When he killed him he moved up and eventually took the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also the idea that Penrose should have given Storms End to Joffrey doesn't hold water because Renly and Penrose were both in open rebellion against him. I somehow doubt that Renly named his bastard "nephew" his heir.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact he has outgrew (not completely, though) his "everybody has to do what I say because I am the King" attitude means that this is a trait that was NEGATIVE and he is evolving into something better and more POSITIVE. Defending that in Stannis is not understanding his character: we're not supposed to celebrate Stannis being stubborn and practically blind at criticism because that character does not exist anymore.

:agree: Oh thank god.

Wasn't Maekar behind Baelor in the line of succession? When he killed him he moved up and eventually took the throne.

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.

Also the idea that Penrose should have given Storms End to Joffrey doesn't hold water because Renly and Penrose were both in open rebellion against him. I somehow doubt that Renly named his bastard "nephew" his heir.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis and Maekar have different situations.



Maekar and Baelor were in good terms, despite Maekar resented his brother. They also fought together and there is no indication Maekar was belittled by his older brother. It was also not Baelor's fault that his kids were better knights: Looks like Maekar simply allowed Aerion to go and do as he liked.



Robert, Stannis and Renly never got along. Stannis also felt Robert treated him bad (why wouldn't he? Didn't he deflower Selyse's cousin not only during their wedding feast but on his own bed?) and Robert didn't have that much appreciation for his brother. Idem for Renly: he openly mocked him.



Everybody saw that Maekar and Baelor had to fight due to what happened in the Tourney of Ashford. They both chose their sides. Maekar had to fight for his son, because it was his fucking son. Baelor chose to fight against him. Anyone could have seen this as Baelor going against his family, but being Baelor Baelor, they realised it was the honourable thing to do. And the doubt was created because they knew Maekar resented Baelor. We know Maekar never wanted to do it but there were witnesses who could testify Maekar was not behind the Combat nor could have he foreseen Baelor joining. It was all a messed created by Maekar' idiot sons.



Both Renly and Stannis rebelled against the Iron Throne, and then, Renly defied Stannis. I like Renly and I think he could have been a great King, but the true is that after Robert's death, Renly owed Stannis fealty as his older brother and liege. Cat got it right: they both were acting childish by fighting each other when they were meant to do it together to defeat the Lannisters.



Renly had every intention of attacking Stannis and Stannis had every right to defend himself from being killed. This meant war. And war meant death. What Stannis did was what Tywin believed the Red Wedding died. Yes, Stannis killed his brother but no other men died (except those who Loras killed). Of course, the strangeness of the situation cause the Tyrells to go and join someone else. But many men did join Stannis and he accepted them. What he did was right? debatable.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


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 Baelous r's death at all.
Killing a traitor for, well, traison is the same. The normal rules of murder don't apply. Plus, as has already been stated, Penrose was in open rebellion to begin with, so stating Joff should have been the heir instead of Stanns (which he shouldn't, because Stannis is by law and right the king) would be a bit hypocritical.

When we first met Stannis we see a man with a black/white notion of justice. A lot of things he should have done, he didn't because it would mean he needed to compromise and he's not a man who would do those things. That's why he lost: because he was very much alone.
But when the story progress and his character grows (you know, 'development', they call it), he starts to lose that rigid mind and learned to make concessions, because he knows, that by not doing it, he cannot win. That doesn't mean he has lost his stubborn temper, but he does compromises. Otherwise, he would be going to the North and simply demand things. Jon then advices him what to do and Stannis, being smart as he is, knows that he should dance at the Northerners' tune so they would dance at his own: dance together. The fact he has outgrew (not completely, though) his "everybody has to do what I say because I am the King" attitude means that this is a trait that was NEGATIVE and he is evolving into something better and more POSITIVE. Defending that in Stannis is not understanding his character: we're not supposed to celebrate Stannis being stubborn and practically blind at criticism because that character does not exist anymore.
I would also advice not to discuss the books with people who understand them literally. It's like running against a wall and expect it won't hurt when you crash.
Agreed, except for the "we're not supposed" part. Also, taking the books literally is better than inventing stuff, which some people do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, except for the "we're not supposed" part. Also, taking the books literally is better than inventing stuff, which some people do.

If you consider the subtext as "invented stuff" just because it's not pointed out in the text literally, I suggest you to retake Literary Analysis 101 once more, if you ever did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is literally why GRRM created Edric Storm and spirited him away to Essos. He's one royal decree away from being named Edric Baratheon, Lord of Storm's End, and the line of Storm Lords will get an instant jumpstart.

Hmm what about Gendry ?. And doesn't he have a bastard daughter in the vale called mya stone who in theory could have a son that would have baratheon ancestors !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm what about Gendry ?. And doesn't he have a bastard daughter in the vale called mya stone who in theory could have a son that would have baratheon ancestors !!

Gendry doesn't have a noble mother. Nor, so far as we know, does Mya. Edric has noble blood on both sides; Baratheon from Robert and Florent from Delena

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Killing a traitor for, well, traison is the same. The normal rules of murder don't apply. Plus, as has already been stated, Penrose was in open rebellion to begin with, so stating Joff should have been the heir instead of Stanns (which he shouldn't, because Stannis is by law and right the king) would be a bit hypocritical.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Still he was justified when doing it, because Storms End was his. You might find how he did it despicable, but that's another matter entirely. Of course you can invent a law that makes him not Renlys heir, while also not taking into account he was a traitor because Stannis assasinated him, and disregard that he was king and therefore Storms end was his anyway after there was no posible heir left, but that's very far fetched.

If you consider the subtext as "invented stuff" just because it's not pointed out in the text literally, I suggest you to retake Literary Analysis 101 once more, if you ever did.
No, I don't. Inventing stuff is what I call inventing stuff, for example saying Tywin wanted to have Tyrion killed at the Green Fork.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still he was justified when doing it, because Storms End was his. You might find how he did it despicable, but that's another matter entirely. Of course you can invent a law that makes him not Renlys heir, while also not taking into account he was a traitor because Stannis assasinated him, and disregard that he was king and therefore Storms end was his anyway after there was no posible heir left, but that's very far fetched.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

In what way is Edric an heir?He's a bastard, not legitimised by anyone, he is heir to nothing. Your point about Margaery is valid but Penrose does not use that excuse, his reasoning, clear in the raven he sent to KL was, I haven't seen Renly's body so Renly is not dead. No reference to Stannis not being Renly's heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edric is a bastard in case you forgot.Also I'm not debating on whether Penrose was justified in his actions or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edric is a bastard in case you forgot.Also I'm not debating on whether Penrose was justified in his actions or not.

You do know that it's really easy to legitimize bastards, right? Edric is literally one pen stroke away from being Stannis' heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and? It doesn't contradict my point.

When you say that there is no possible heir so Stannis gets the castle no matter what, that disregards Edric as a possible heir. Edric would probably be the best legal choice since he didn't murder anyone, and connsidering Stannis' lack of sons would probably be the next Bartheon king after Stannis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say that there is no possible heir so Stannis gets the castle no matter what, that disregards Edric as a possible heir. Edric would probably be the best legal choice since he didn't murder anyone, and connsidering Stannis' lack of sons would probably be the next Bartheon king after Stannis.

Okay, this is true. But Edric is only a possible heir if he's legitimised, not before that. And at the point Stannis confronts Penrose, Edric is not a legitimised bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...