Baratheon Princes

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, direpupy said:

The Dunk and Egg stories astablish in the hedge knight that al royal person's should be adressed as Your Grace that it does not Always happen does not change that.

As to how people informally  refer to Stannis and Renly that depends on how they present themselves as prince or as lord.

Yes they should by al rights be princes, but you get refered to by your most important title there prince title is just them neing of royal blood, there Lord title is simular to a ducal title in the middle ages a peerage and thus there most important title.

Well, we can only judge the styling stuff on the basis how often it is used in the text. I know that 'Your Grace' goes to all the princes in THK, but how binding is that during the days of Robert Baratheon? We don't know. But I'd agree that it is indeed very odd that neither Stannis nor Renly get the style 'Your Grace' despite being the king's brothers.

The best explanation for all this is that Renly and Stannis were late additions during the writing process of AGoT, resulting in neither of them being flashed out all that much in that book. Renly is basically just a featured extra until he approaches Ned with his idea and crowns himself in the end.

2 hours ago, miguelangel23 said:

But they're always part of house targaryen, summerhall and dragonstone were part of the royal house until robert made dragonstone a different house, prince of summerhall and prince of dragonstone were tittles given to th youger and older sibling from the royal family that were actually in the line of succession

Well, Maekar certainly was setting a 'princely cadet branch' in THK, the Targaryens of Summerhall. Had he died as Prince of Summerhall, the castle presumably would have gone to his eldest son, Prince Daeron.

It is the same with Stannis and Renly, really. They have seats of their own to give to their heirs but they are still also in the line of succession to the Iron Throne, just as Maekar and his sons were.

[direpupy]

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The best explanation for all this is that Renly and Stannis were late additions during the writing process of AGoT, resulting in neither of them being flashed out all that much in that book. Renly is basically just a features extra until he approaches Ned with his idea and crowns himself in the end.

This is probably wat happened GRRM probably just did not give it that much thought at the time.

[SeanF]

On reflection, I'd suggest a Princely title implies that the domain in question belongs  to the Crown, and is bestowed on a member of the   royal family, before reverting to the Crown on his death, or his becoming King..  Hence, the Prince of Dragonstone bestows the next Crown Prince, once he becomes King.  A lordship is independent of the Crown.

Thus, Renly's and Stannis' heirs will succeed Lords of Dragonstone, regardless of whether Renly or Stannis becomes King.

[Lord Varys]

10 minutes ago, SeanF said:

On reflection, I'd suggest a Princely title implies that the domain in question belongs  to the Crown, and is bestowed on a member of the   royal family, before reverting to the Crown on his death, or his becoming King..  Hence, the Prince of Dragonstone bestows the next Crown Prince, once he becomes King.  A lordship is independent of the Crown.

Thus, Renly's and Stannis' heirs will succeed Lords of Dragonstone, regardless of whether Renly or Stannis becomes King.

We actually don't know if Robert had granted both Dragonstone or Storm's End only to his brothers individually, or whether their children would be able to inherit those seats from their respective fathers. Yes, that's the usual take on it, but there is no confirmation that this is the case.

The Prince of Dragonstone is a special case, and no king is actually forced to name his chosen heir the Prince of Dragonstone or give him that domain to rule it independently in his own right. Many kings who didn't have or name a Prince of Dragonstone or whose heir was still a minor effectively ruled Dragonstone directly.

But Summerhall was clearly new seat of its own, and Prince Daeron was the heir to Summerhall while his father held that castle. In fact, Daeron himself became Prince of Summerhall when Aerys I named Maekar Prince of Dragonstone after Aelor's death, and eventually preferred to be styled Prince of Summerhall instead of Prince of Dragonstone even after he became Prince of Dragonstone after Maekar I had ascended the Iron Throne.

[Winter Rose Crown]

The title of Prince/princess has always confused me. The southern lords who fight with stannis at the wall all call Val a princess because her sister was a queen. So it is obviously expected that the brother/sister of a King/queen be called Prince(ss). Why else would they assume she was a princess?

 

But by the same token, Jaime, tyrion, renly, and stannis aren't princes, either. Robert didn't like his brothers and may have intentionally slighted them in that way and cersei would have done so with tyrion, and maybe Jaime being in the KG forbade him from being called Prince.

[Lord Varys]

4 minutes ago, Winter Rose Crown said:

The title of Prince/princess has always confused me. The southern lords who fight with stannis at the wall all call Val a princess because her sister was a queen. So it is obviously expected that the brother/sister of a King/queen be called Prince(ss). Why else would they assume she was a princess?

 

But by the same token, Jaime, tyrion, renly, and stannis aren't princes, either. Robert didn't like his brothers and may have intentionally slighted them in that way and cersei would have done so with tyrion, and maybe Jaime being in the KG forbade him from being called Prince.

Val is just a princess because everyone thinks she is hot, really. And perhaps because they think she must be 'wildling royalty' because her sister was married to Mance...?

[FuzzyJAM]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no real difference between Stannis/Renly and Robb and Bran? Robb certainly has time to marry and father heirs as nobody thinks he'll die soon, just as Robert has after his coronation. Before Robert married Cersei and had a son by her Stannis was Robert's heir presumptive, a fact that should be reflected in some fashion.

Disagree for two reasons.  

(1) Robert's life was fairly safe when he took the throne.  As I understand it, he didn't fight in his war any more.  He doesn't need to designate immediate heirs because there is little likelihood he will die before creating his own (and he knows he's fertile, of course).  This directly contrasts with Robb, who is crowned in the middle of a war and is regularly fighting throughout his kingship.  Robb knows there's a strong possibility he will never create heirs: this is most borne out by his [attempted] legitimisation of Jon.

(2) The Stark's independence claim was rather different.  It's important for there to be an heir to the position of KitN - if Robert lost his throne, the position of the IT would presumably continue, but for Robb to die without an heir?  It's entirely possible that KitN would cease to be, therefore clear succession is important.  In conjunction, the key point is that a Stark is king, whereas Robert's Rebellion was about getting rid of the old regime and putting Robert (not just "a Baratheon") in their place.  If Robert dies in a rebellion, well, that sucks, but then it's time to re-evaluate what's going to happen, because nobody (except Ned perhaps) would immediately want Stannis as king (as we see!)  Whereas it's very clear that, if Robb dies with no children, Bran and then Rickon and then [maybe] Jon and then [maybe] Sansa and then Arya are preferred.  There is a great loyalty to Starks as kings, not so much to Baratheons.  

 

Re: Val

She's a princess because it's convenient if she's seen as a princess.  I don't think anybody is really stupid enough to seriously think she's a princess in any logical sense.

[purple-eyes]

Val is not princess. 

People just call that for her beauty I guess. 

Nobody call dalla as queen. 

And even dalla is indeed a queen, queen's sister is not princess. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, FuzzyJAM said:

Disagree for two reasons.  

(1) Robert's life was fairly safe when he took the throne.  As I understand it, he didn't fight in his war any more.  He doesn't need to designate immediate heirs because there is little likelihood he will die before creating his own (and he knows he's fertile, of course).  This directly contrasts with Robb, who is crowned in the middle of a war and is regularly fighting throughout his kingship.  Robb knows there's a strong possibility he will never create heirs: this is most borne out by his [attempted] legitimisation of Jon.

(2) The Stark's independence claim was rather different.  It's important for there to be an heir to the position of KitN - if Robert lost his throne, the position of the IT would presumably continue, but for Robb to die without an heir?  It's entirely possible that KitN would cease to be, therefore clear succession is important.  In conjunction, the key point is that a Stark is king, whereas Robert's Rebellion was about getting rid of the old regime and putting Robert (not just "a Baratheon") in their place.  If Robert dies in a rebellion, well, that sucks, but then it's time to re-evaluate what's going to happen, because nobody (except Ned perhaps) would immediately want Stannis as king (as we see!)  Whereas it's very clear that, if Robb dies with no children, Bran and then Rickon and then [maybe] Jon and then [maybe] Sansa and then Arya are preferred.  There is a great loyalty to Starks as kings, not so much to Baratheons.  

 

Re: Val

She's a princess because it's convenient if she's seen as a princess.  I don't think anybody is really stupid enough to seriously think she's a princess in any logical sense.

Well, Stannis already was Robert's heir presumptive when he was still Lord of Storm's End and also after he had claimed the throne during the war (around the Trident), so in a sense Robert is as much a 'warrior king' as Robb is. Robert certainly had no need to designate Stannis as his heir because he already was heir presumptive. But he still did designate him as his heir by giving Dragonstone to him - I think it is pretty obvious that the entire Realm thought that the man the king gave Dragonstone was to be his successor should he die without an heir of his own body. The idea that people just forgot the symbolic meaning Dragonstone had for the entirety of the Targaryen reign is very unlikely, even if we keep in mind that Stannis was never styled 'the Prince of Dragonstone'.

Stannis would have been Robert's natural heir during his first years - for lack of good rivals if not for love/popularity. Renly was to young to be a threat to his claim, and the Lannisters wouldn't have had any claimants of their own if Cersei hadn't given any children to Robert (yet). Granted, one assumes that the lords would have risen against Stannis and Viserys III would have celebrated his triumphant return to the Iron Throne.

The idea that Robb issued some special decrees or stuff like that granting Bran and Rickon the style of princes - which would be necessary if we assume that they got those titles to ensure the succession of the new Kings in the North and the Riverlands - isn't backed by the text. Bran and Rickon are just addressed as princes, just as Shireen (and Theon) became a prince(ss) when her father crowned himself. One assumes therefore that at least in the North and the Riverlands it is quite normal to address a sibling of the king as 'prince(ss)'. This especially glaring in connection to Arya who is referred to as princess in the Riverlands, most notably by her betrothed, young Elmar Frey.

One really assumes Robb had better things to do than to grant his disappeared sister (who soon after his proclamation was presumed dead anyway) the title of princess during some legal act. It is much more likely that people just began referring to her (and Bran/Rickon) as princes(esses) because that's how you refer to the siblings of the king.

[purple-eyes]

It is also strange that nobody called asha princess. Or prince euron. Prince victarion. 

And did anybody call rhaego as prince rhaego? 

And if oberyn has a true born child, will he or she be prince or princess? 

 

[FuzzyJAM]

I wasn't talking about what was going on legally.  You're very right, it's inconceivable that there was any decree about who should be called what.  I was talking about the psychological reasons for why it's extremely important for the North to refer to the Starks as princes and princesses while there isn't much drive to refer to the Baratheons (or others) as such, i.e. emphasise security of succession, emphasise legitimacy of crown, emphasise "reclaiming" of Stark/Northern heritage, etc.  It seems unlikely to me that these ideas never impacted the title usage, whether consciously or not.  

[Lord Varys]

17 minutes ago, FuzzyJAM said:

I wasn't talking about what was going on legally.  You're very right, it's inconceivable that there was any decree about who should be called what.  I was talking about the psychological reasons for why it's extremely important for the North to refer to the Starks as princes and princesses while there isn't much drive to refer to the Baratheons (or others) as such, i.e. emphasise security of succession, emphasise legitimacy of crown, emphasise "reclaiming" of Stark/Northern heritage, etc.  It seems unlikely to me that these ideas never impacted the title usage, whether consciously or not.  

But Stannis and Renly were Robert's only heirs when he was crowned and anointed, and he wasn't even married at that point. Surely the Baratheon succession wouldn't have been a complete non issue back then. Especially in light of Robert's lifestyle (hunting, participating in the melee, etc.). And Robert certainly would have made it clear that Stannis and Renly were in line to the throne when he gave them their lordships.

If things in the North just happened - i.e. if everybody just began calling Bran and Rickon 'prince' because Robb had been proclaimed king during some war council in the Riverlands, then I really see no reason why not the exact same thing should have happened to Stannis and Renly after Robert's own (battle) coronation.

Especially since pretty much the same happens to Shireen, who only is styled 'princess' after her father has proclaimed himself king.

A formal dispensation of titles and honors extending even to members of the royal family (as it is done in the British monarchy - you are made 'Prince of Wales' by decree, and there very elaborate rules who can bear what title due to his/her gender and how closely he/she is related to the monarch) clearly isn't the practice in Westeros - and especially not in the North. I mean, one assumes that the ancient Kings of Winter and the Kings in the North had some sort of coronation ritual at Winterfell, but Robb never went through that due to the fact that he never even set foot on Northern soil during his 'reign'. If he never came around doing that, there is also no reason to believe that he had given specific orders how to style his brothers back home. Hell, not even Catelyn got some fancy title as mother of the king.

[FuzzyJAM]

I'm not suggesting Robb told anyone what to call anyone.  We don't really know the specifics of who's saying what title except for Luwin.  I'm only trying to explain why it's important to emphasise titles for Bran and Rickon for those who support the Northern/Stark cause.

I really think Robert's case is different to Robb's, as I've tried to show.  The war really wasn't centred around or even about a Baratheon king taking the throne, nobody particularly cared for Robert's heirs or wanted to ensure their succession should he fail.  Robert's rebellion was about vengeance and removing the Mad King [and Targaryens in general], and Robert was the best replacement because he was good at rallying men and he had the strongest legal claim of the rebels.  Stannis or Renly or Baratheons in general don't really matter all that much.  Starks do matter to the cause, however.  That, coupled with the North's history of Stark kingship and a few other things I've mentioned, explain it.  But I'm really just repeating myself here and I guess you just disagree.  Fair enough.  

For Shireen, again, I think that's different to Robert.  Stannis's fight is very much about succession and dynasty, Robert's Rebellion wasn't.  Stannis is at war and knows there's a good chance he'll die, Robert didn't - yeah, Robert hunted, but he was competent in his youth, and even as an fat drunken fool people were trying to assassinate he was able to kill his massive boar before going down.  Stannis and Selyse are all about proper titles.  Heck, if you want to get into it, perhaps Stannis is pissed that he never got called a prince and Robert mocked him when he tried to insist - who's to say?  At any rate, I think there are a lot of reasons for why it's more important for Shireen to be a princess than Stannis to be a prince.  I mean, at the very least, there's that you can't please a girl better than by calling her princess, right?!  

Spoiler

For the record, I suspect the real reason nobody calls Stannis and Renly "prince" is because George made a slight mistake and/or felt that them being "Lords" fit more with the character and tone he was trying to create.  I doubt it was, at least originally, a thought out in-world explanation.  But reasons after the fact are interesting, and I don't think it's totally inexplicable that some titles are emphasised more than others.  

 

[Winter Rose Crown]

On 2/2/2016 at 9:24 PM, purple-eyes said:

It is also strange that nobody called asha princess. Or prince euron. Prince victarion. 

And did anybody call rhaego as prince rhaego? 

And if oberyn has a true born child, will he or she be prince or princess? 

 

I'm almost certain they did. The on called himself a prince.

 

They did call dalla queen, they said she was mance's queen. 

 

Lord doesn't necessarily get used in place of prince. Theon calls himself prince of winter fell and rules it as a lord (however briefly). Prince of dorne is also used in place of lord paramount.

[purple-eyes]

6 minutes ago, Winter Rose Crown said:

I'm almost certain they did. The on called himself a prince.

 

They did call dalla queen, they said she was mance's queen. 

 

Lord doesn't necessarily get used in place of prince. Theon calls himself prince of winter fell and rules it as a lord (however briefly). Prince of dorne is also used in place of lord paramount.

I think Dalla should be called as queen since Mance is king beyond the wall.

But Val can not become a princess just because she is sister of Dalla.

Mance's daughter should be princess. if he has one.

I have no idea why people wanted to call Val princess. For her beauty and her relationship with Mance and Dalla?

 

[Liz Stark-Targaryen]

OP has a great point, and I believe has identified a legitimate inconsistency in ASOIAF canon. I have read the defenses here by those who are arguing that canon is correct to have styled them as lords, and find them a bit lacking.

Stannis and Renly were princes in all but name. It is fascinating that canon doesn't treat them as such internally, and it makes me wonder about the origin of the Baratheons in GRRM's writing process over time, as his original outline doesn't reflect their storylines as much.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Liz Stark-Targaryen said:

OP has a great point, and I believe has identified a legitimate inconsistency in ASOIAF canon. I have read the defenses here by those who are arguing that canon is correct to have styled them as lords, and find them a bit lacking.

Stannis and Renly were princes in all but name. It is fascinating that canon doesn't treat them as such internally, and it makes me wonder about the origin of the Baratheons in GRRM's writing process over time, as his original outline doesn't reflect their storylines as much.

The original outline clearly seemed to establish the Lannisters as a kind of usurping future royal dynasty. Nowhere are there so many hints to 'the royalty' or future royalty of the Lannisters as in the early chapters of AGoT. Robert's brothers really appear like a much later thought, especially Stannis who clearly is set up as this mysterious, possibly dangerous guy, who is going to play a role later in the series, and who happens to know a lot of stuff.

That suggests that George's preliminary view on succession/kingship in Westeros wasn't exactly the same as it is now. Back then he most likely thought might makes right most of the time, eventually resulting in 'Evil Jaime' becoming king because he can, without having so much as a drop of royal blood. The original concept really seems to have been the queen's family stealing all the power. A fact that is very much supported by the overall lack of Baratheon vassals/cronies/retainers, etc. in AGoT. This extends even into ACoK where Renly has basically no clue that he and Stannis are the great-grandsons of King Aegon V through their paternal grandmother Princess Rhaelle. Instead he speaks about some distant (and right now effectively non-existing) matches between Targaryen and Baratheon.

But when George finally came to ASoS and overall Lannister domination then there is pretty much nothing left of the idea that Tywin or Jaime could actually usurp the Iron Throne in their own right. Simply because the concept of kingship doesn't allow that.

Renly is pretty much a featured extra in AGoT, and that becomes especially apparent in the early chapters. I mean, Tyrion, Cersei, and the children accompany Robert to Winterfell, but Renly just stays at home? For what reason, exactly? Yeah, somebody has to rule the Realm, etc., but Pycelle, Varys, and Littlefinger can do that. Stannis was pissed about Robert deciding to name Ned Hand, of course, he would not have wanted to go to Winterfell, and immediately left KL after Robert himself had left the capital.

But Renly is a sly and scheming guy. If he wanted to be Hand himself - and there is little reason to assume that he did not want such an amount of power for himself - then it would have been smart to accompany Robert to Winterfell to make sure Eddard Stark refuses Robert's offer and/or convinces Robert to offer Renly the office of the Hand in his stead.

The Baratheons seem to have begun as a variation of the Yorks during the Wars of the Roses, and they, too, weren't princes (Stannis' story certainly is partially influenced by Richard III, which is most evident in the way Lannister propaganda portrays him). But at the end of the process the Baratheons aren't some royal cadet branch whose ancestors was one of the elder sons of some long-reigning king in the last century, but actually the closest cousins of the king they deposed, and that makes them much closer related to the Targaryen royal family than anyone else.

Granted, Robert, Stannis, and Renly weren't born royal princes. But they were as close to that rank as you could possibly be without being a son or grandson of the king himself. And then Stannis and Renly's elder brother become king himself, mostly due to their relation to the Targaryens. The idea that this would not also have an effect on Renly and Stannis' ranks and titles just doesn't make any sense at all. Just to make the royal family and the Baratheon dynasty appear strong and potent one would assume that Robert would grant his brothers the titles of princes. Especially since we know he was overly generous, and by the time of his coronation unmarried and childless.