Stannis's role in the death of King Robert Baratheon

[The hairy bear]

38 minutes ago, Sullen said:

They would be hostages in everything but name, just like Theon.

Theon is precisely the opposite situation. Is only an hostage in name, as he's treated as a member of the family and given a lot of freedom.

38 minutes ago, Sullen said:

If Eddard was legally named Regent (and he was) and Eddard acts before Cersei, then there is little she can do.

Eddard would need some kind of collaboration from the royal family. Cersei and her children would be expected at Joffrey's coronation, and other official acts. The only option would be to have them confined in their rooms as prisoners, but then Eddard would be seen acting as an usurper. Eddard's situation would be very precarious: Joffrey would be of age shortly, and if he was murdered the blame would go on him.

Meanwhile Cersei can bribe men to help her and his children escape, she can denounce Robert's will as a forgery, or she can spread rumours that Robert has been murdered by Eddard.

38 minutes ago, Sullen said:

As I said, Tywin is tied up in the Riverlands, and the host he'll potentially move South won't be enough to take the city, not to mention that Cersei and her children are currently hostages.

Raising an army is a matter of weeks, if not months, and Harrenhal is closer to King's Landing than Highgarden. I don't see why an army of twenty thousand can't take a city surmised in internal power struggles.

And the capture of Jaime showed us that Tywin is not someone that can be stopped by holding hostages. He also knows that sooner or later Cersei and the kids are doomed if he leaves them in the hands of the likes of Renly or Littlefinger. So his best chances would be hurrying to besiege the Red Keep and offer the captors the possibility of taking the black in exchange of their lives.

38 minutes ago, Sullen said:

 Joffrey's rotten behaviour mostly comes from having his mother coddle him and not having any authority figure whatsoever, which wouldn't be the case in the situation where Eddard installs himself as regent.

Joffrey could no longer be controlled by his mother or by Robert. What makes you thing that Eddard could make him behave? In a situation where Eddard imprisons Cersei and tries to limit Joffrey's desires of absolute power, there's no why he'd react cooperatively.

 

[A Man Has Said]

On 4/6/2016 at 3:22 PM, khal drogon said:

No he didn't spend a year building an army. Only after Robert's death he started building it and that includes a navy and it is not easier to build. And we hear this in the books from multiple sources. 

Stannis is not dumb enough to write letters before Robert's death. 

He wrote those letters after 5 months because he needed an army before declaring himself as King. 

So this is what I think Stannis did.

1) After Jon Arryn's death he went to Dragonstone because he wished Robert would name him Hand. He understood that Robert wouldn't go North if not to name Eddard as Hand. So he left KL away from Robert. I don't think he was afraid of Lannister poisoning him. That doesn't make sense.

2) He didn't care about Robert and he knew he was in danger but he didn't try to help him. He didn't wish to do his duty to him which according to him will get only slights in return. 

3) He knew the Lannisters will kill him and install Joffery as king with the Lannister strength behind him. So he started building a Navy to attack KL and when he was in a better position he sent those letters. 

Your timing's way off, mate. The first we hear of Stannis amassing an army is from Arya's point of view, when she gets lost in the passageways beneath the Red Keep and overhears Varys telling Illyrio that Stannis is gathering swords. Robert is still very much alive at that point. 

Varys, by the way, is depicted as the most knowledgeable character in the novels, and he is very unlikely to be misinforming his ally Illyrio. This pretty much rules out any idea that this is a false narration. 

[James Arryn]

On April 18, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Lord Varys said:

1) Being Lord Protector didn't mean the same thing back in Yorkist England than it (may) mean in Westeros. Lord Protector doesn't make you the sole regent at this time, and after the coronation of Edward V the Lord Protector would have been dismissed and there would have been a proper regency government set up of the same type England had had during the (long) minority of Henry VI.

2) But that wouldn't have lasted all that long considering Edward V's age, and Henry VI being able to actually declare himself when he was fit to take the government on the kingdom in his own hands.

3) And as I've brought up once already here the English Parliament had never the right to assess the existence or validity of a marriage or a precontract. Those were churchly matters, and subsequently Richard would actually have been forced to go to the Pope to declare the marriage of his brother the late king posthumously invalid.

I'm pretty sure Richard III is also guilty of murdering his nephews. He controlled access to them, and he never punished anyone for the crime (which he could have done easily because he had Buckingham and others executed not long thereafter). If you go back to the deposition and murder of Richard II and the usurpation of Henry IV you'll find that actually murdering a king and publicly presenting his corpse doesn't necessarily help you convince your subjects in a medieval setting (where people scarcely travel and news travel via rumors) that this is really so. Therefore Richard III might have thought it best to never comment on the fate of the princes at all. That made it more difficult for both impostors, people trying to free them, and his own public image (he was not seen as the murderer of his young royal nephews). It didn't help all that much, but then - this guy was doomed from the start. You don't ascend a throne over the corpses of your nephews and enjoy a happy reign. At least not in Renaissance times.

Renly isn't a nice guy. He smiles, he japes, but he has no problems murdering or killing people. And he despises both Joffrey and Cersei. He has no reason to want to spare their lives, and sparing it would be dangerous. Just as Richard III's bastard-solution wasn't exactly bulletproof, sparing the lives of Cersei and her children would be risky, too.

If Renly's plan with Ned had succeeded I think they would have followed Littlefinger's suggestion. They would have ruled in Joff's name until they had dealt with Stannis and Tywin, either killing them or breaking their power. With Renly conveniently only having Joff, Tommen, and (possibly) Myrcella between him and the throne they would then have murdered them. Either via an accident or starvation/murder behind closed doors. By that time Renly and Littlefinger would also have had dealt with Ned - either by convincing him to step down, murdering him, too, or recruiting them to their cause.

And who knows what Renly actually planned that night. He offered Ned a hundred swords - would those swords have been used in the securing of Maegor's Holdfast? If so, is anyone willing to wager money that none of Renly's swords would have harmed either Cersei or her children during that attack? We can presume that Cersei's men-at-arms and the Kingsguard would have tried to protect the royal family, so it would have been rather easy to kill them all of them all and present it as an accident.

The Wall is a very bad idea to get rid of princes in the age of twelve and seven/eight, by the way. The Faith would be a better option, but neither of that would work as long as Tywin Lannister still controlled the West. The man would rise to defend the rights of his grandchildren - something he couldn't do all that easily if all of them were dead...

Forgive me for answering this way, haven't mastered the new quote function.

1) Can't agree, really. The position was mostly defined as a concentrated regency, bestowing on one person all the powers normally held by a regency council. In fact it was unusual that Edward didn't choose a council, and often seen as significant give the already apparent divides between the Woodevilles and others. That Hastings wasn't even accorded a role speaks to how much authority Edward wanted Richard to excercise. The only more limited version was Richard of York's, but that was hammered out as a concession to stop a civil war, not voluntarily appointed.

2) Again, I disagree. Most minorities prior to that went upwards of 20, 21 often being cited as the age of maturity. Edward IV was much younger, of course, but that didn't come about from a minority, but was won on the battlefield in an already exiting state of war, and with a sitting king still actually crowned.

3) We might disagree on Parliament's ability re: the plight troth, but legally that's unimportant because that only leads to the 'why' for the 'what', the latter being declaring Richard King, which they unquestionably had the power and precedent to do, w/e their reasons. They had done as much with Edward IV himself, remember...and their not doing so presented his father being crowned.

 

more later

[Lord Varys]

@James Arryn

First, I'm not expert on all that, having not read many books on the Wars of the Roses and English history in general, so I should say I'm not really an expert on all that.

1. You might be right that Edward IV wanted his brother to rule in his son's name until the boy came of age, but he did not intend for him to usurp the crown, no? I've sympathy for Richard insofar as he was in a shitty situation having to decide whether to pursue the power or fear that the Woodvilles would deal with him the same way they had dealt with his elder brother Clarence. However, I'm pretty sure that when he entered the race he must have been early on aware of the fact that he would have to kill his brother's sons and take the crown himself or risk losing everything like so many unfortunate regents in English history. Declaring his brother's children bastards wouldn't do for long - not as long as people preferring Edward V to Richard III were still running around. Not to mention that this whole rumors of Richard III later trying to marry Elizabeth York makes little sense if the man actually believed she was a bastard or had no legal claim to the throne.

As to the title 'Lord Protector':

As far as I know that one had been previously restricted to military and ceremonial matters. That was at least the case during the minority of Henry VI which would have been the most recent precedent. England had a regency council during the minority of Henry VI. Richard of York's term as Lord Protector would most likely not be a precedent for a minority regency considering that this was indeed an emergency matter as well as a situation in which a grown-up king was incapacitated.

2. Henry VI declared himself of age at the age of sixteen. That's a historical fact. I know that things were different during earlier minorities but the chance is not that bad that Edward V would have done something similar if had been given the chance. Chances are that he would have remained positively inclined to his mother and his mother's family rather than to the evil uncle who actually had already executed his maternal uncle.

3. Well, the pretext matters if you care about keeping your crown. Whatever Parliament did can presumably made undone if the members realize the militia is gone or another king is there - and Henry Tudor had his wife declared legitimate again, did he not? Using such a flimsy pretext as declaring the king's sons illegitimate on the basis of a precontract with a woman who was long dead and which nobody ever mentioned during the reign of Edward IV? Not very likely at all. I guess this whole thing could only work because nobody cared all that much about Elizabeth Woodville (and Europe didn't care all that much what the Englishmen did to each other on their island). But Henry VIII's issues with Catherine of Aragon show how difficult it is to annul a marriage if your wife happens to be a member of the most powerful royal dynasty in the known world. Henry VIII would never have dared (or would have been laughed out of Parliament) had he tried to use that institution to get rid of his wife with a similar precontract story.

[Stag_legion]

8 hours ago, The hairy bear said:

Theon is precisely the opposite situation. Is only an hostage in name, as he's treated as a member of the family and given a lot of freedom.

Eddard would need some kind of collaboration from the royal family. Cersei and her children would be expected at Joffrey's coronation, and other official acts. The only option would be to have them confined in their rooms as prisoners, but then Eddard would be seen acting as an usurper. Eddard's situation would be very precarious: Joffrey would be of age shortly, and if he was murdered the blame would go on him.

Meanwhile Cersei can bribe men to help her and his children escape, she can denounce Robert's will as a forgery, or she can spread rumours that Robert has been murdered by Eddard.

Raising an army is a matter of weeks, if not months, and Harrenhal is closer to King's Landing than Highgarden. I don't see why an army of twenty thousand can't take a city surmised in internal power struggles.

And the capture of Jaime showed us that Tywin is not someone that can be stopped by holding hostages. He also knows that sooner or later Cersei and the kids are doomed if he leaves them in the hands of the likes of Renly or Littlefinger. So his best chances would be hurrying to besiege the Red Keep and offer the captors the possibility of taking the black in exchange of their lives.

Joffrey could no longer be controlled by his mother or by Robert. What makes you thing that Eddard could make him behave? In a situation where Eddard imprisons Cersei and tries to limit Joffrey's desires of absolute power, there's no why he'd react cooperatively.

 

If Ned had put cersei and her kids under house arrest and publicly declared for Stannis, Stannis would definitely be able to reach kingslanding with at least 2000-3000 troops before Tywin could reach the city.

And although stannis isn't a popular figure, he definitely carries a lot of legitimacy, and him being in control of Dragonstone and Kingslanding, cersei and her kids would pretty much guarantee that most of the realm would see him as the new King and Tywin would be seen as a rebel.

[Fisch]

On 4/19/2016 at 10:18 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

War and the suffering or (hundreds of) thousands of peasants is just an unfortunate consequence of satisfying Ned's honor.

You could put it like that...or, why not say that war was a consequence of following the laws of succession? Or that war would've followed even if Ned had ignored the law and sullied his honor? And, since neither Cersei or Stannis is likely to agree to the Grand Council idea you threw out, why not say that there isn't a war-free option to choose from?

To the topic at-hand: from what we know of Stannis in the books, I think that, if there was a part of him that wanted Robert out of the way so that he could claim the throne (and there probably was), it wasn't a part that Stannis would consciously acknowledge, or even necessarily be fully aware of.

I think he's being completely honest when he says that he didn't think Robert would believe him about Cersei's children. If Stannis is going to take flak in this thread for not being a better sibling to Renly, then Robert deserves the same flak, if not more of it, for how he dealt with Stannis. Stannis was not only Robert's younger brother, but he proved himself a loyal and more than capable follower in two wars and years on the Small Council, yet Robert seems to have shown very little appreciation for it. He almost takes Stannis for granted. And when he was generous - and he was - Robert was thoughtless about it. From what we see in the books and from what GRRM has said, Dragonstone wasn't presented to Stannis as an acknowledgement that he was Robert's heir until Cersei had a child, or a great responsibility that was being entrusted to a valued man; it was just tossed off. If you add to all this Stannis's poor relationship with Renly, and his knowledge that Renly had political schemes and intrigues of his own in the works, then it shouldn't be a surprise that Stannis genuinely felt that he couldn't confide in either brother.

Stannis's retreat to Dragonstone seems a combination of a temper tantrum and caution against meeting the same fate as Jon Arryn. Refusing to answer messages, by any means, is also cautious; he knows about some of the spies and traitors in King's Landing at least, and he may not know if he can trust Ned Stark. And if that caution meant that more and more days passed with Robert unaware of the bastards in his house and surrounded by enemies...well, again, I don't know that Stannis would ever admit to thinking that, or totally realize it himself. I still say his behavior around Renly's death points to willful ignorance; he may have known that Renly was in for trouble at the very least with Mel's magic, but he denied himself the details of what would happen. In the case of Robert, he's even further removed from the cause of death.

We don't know much about this part of the story, so there's lots of room for guesswork. Perhaps Stannis felt that Robert had already dug his own grave, and it was just a question of timing. Or maybe he told himself that all his preparations - the navy, the sellsails, sending for a fire priestess - were just insurance, that he would try to tell Robert when he was ready and that all his forces were a defense in case Robert (or Cersei in his ear) didn't believe him and took the accusations badly. Unless Stannis talks this over with someone in TWoW, or gets a POV, or someone asks GRRM about this in an interview or at a convention, we won't know.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

43 minutes ago, Fisch said:

You could put it like that...or, why not say that war was a consequence of following the laws of succession? Or that war would've followed even if Ned had ignored the law and sullied his honor?

Because at the time Ned did not know that. Stannis had shown little intention of going to war and even if he had he would command a couple of thousand of men against the might of the Crown. It would be a very minor battle with little actual consequence.

If Ned assumed that there would be war regardless he either would have told Littlefinger or thought it so the reader would know. Instead he makes it clear that his honour demands it.

 

[Fisch]

2 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Because at the time Ned did not know that. Stannis had shown little intention of going to war and even if he had he would command a couple of thousand of men against the might of the Crown. It would be a very minor battle with little actual consequence.

If Ned assumed that there would be war regardless he either would have told Littlefinger or thought it so the reader would know. Instead he makes it clear that his honour demands it.

 

Ned knows that Stannis was with Jon Arryn in his investigations of Robert's bastards, he knows that Stannis left shortly after Jon's death, and he speculates/suspects that Stannis's departure was connected to all this. One needn't be a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that Stannis knew.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

34 minutes ago, Fisch said:

Ned knows that Stannis was with Jon Arryn in his investigations of Robert's bastards, he knows that Stannis left shortly after Jon's death, and he speculates/suspects that Stannis's departure was connected to all this. One needn't be a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that Stannis knew.

Yet Stannis had said nothing in the nine months between Arryns and Roberts death.

And as I said, and you seem to have ignored, Stannis has control of a few thousand men. He does not have the strength to start an actual war like Tywin, the Reach Lords and Balon would if Stannis was crowned.

Ned does not make the case that war would happen no matter who he crowned. He states that his honour demands it. I am only going what the POV Ned says in this conversation.

 

 

[The Drunkard]

On 4/20/2016 at 10:26 PM, Sullen said:

Tyrell rebelled against Joffrey along with Renly after Eddard was fucked up by the Lannisters, that obviously doesn't happen with Renly's plan, and arguably with Littlefinger's plan as well, considering that Cersei and all sort of influence Renly sensed as dangerous to himself has been ousted from King's Landing.

Balon only rebels because the Realm is fragmented, which isn't as much the case if Eddard goes with either Renly or Littlefinger.

Swap Tyrell for Tywin, in that case. My point being: Littlefinger's argument that crowning Stannis would lead to war is disingenuous. There was going to be a major war regardless (and he wanted a major war), he was only trying to avoid the ascension of someone who sees through him. He can and did ride the Lannisters to greater power, but his best outcome under a Stannis regime is a permanent retirement from KL. 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

42 minutes ago, The Drunkard said:

Swap Tyrell for Tywin, in that case. My point being: Littlefinger's argument that crowning Stannis would lead to war is disingenuous.

It is really not. Littlefinger gives a pretty long speech and it is all true

"Hear me out. (1)Stannis is no friend of yours, (2)nor of mine. (3)Even his brothers can scarcely stomach him. (4)The man is iron, hard and unyielding. (5)He'll give us a new Hand and a new council, for a certainty. (6)No doubt he'll thank you for handing him the crown, but he won't love you for it. (7)And his ascent will mean war. (8)Stannis cannot rest easy on the throne until Cersei and her bastards are dead. (9)Do you think Lord Tywin will sit idly while his daughter's head is measured for a spike? (10)Casterly Rock will rise, and not alone. (11)Robert found it in him to pardon men who served King Aerys, so long as they did him fealty. (12)Stannis is less forgiving. (13)He will not have forgotten the siege of Storm's End, (14)and the Lords Tyrell and Redwyne dare not. (15)Every man who fought beneath the dragon banner or rose with Balon Greyjoy will have good cause to fear. (16)Seat Stannis on the Iron Throne and I promise you, the realm will bleed."

Which parts do you think are untrue?

 

42 minutes ago, The Drunkard said:

There was going to be a major war regardless (and he wanted a major war),

Possibly. My take on Littlefingers offer was he wanted to have Ned stoop down to his level and tried to make as tempting an offer as possible.

But the fact remains that had Ned listened to Littlefinger then a major war could have been averted. Maybe all battle as Stannis was not powerful enough to act without Renly and the North also rebelling.

42 minutes ago, The Drunkard said:

 

he was only trying to avoid the ascension of someone who sees through him.

They can all see through him.

 

[The Drunkard]

Disingenuous doesn't mean false (parts of it are misleading, but I'm not going to pick it apart). His argument was insincere as there was no course of action that wouldn't have led to a major war, and Littlefinger knew that (hoped for it, even). His suggestion to Ned isn't based on a desire to avert war, but to avert a war unfavourable to him.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

43 minutes ago, The Drunkard said:

Disingenuous doesn't mean false (parts of it are misleading, but I'm not going to pick it apart). His argument was insincere as there was no course of action that wouldn't have led to a major war, and Littlefinger knew that (hoped for it, even). His suggestion to Ned isn't based on a desire to avert war, but to avert a war unfavourable to him.

Littlefinger could not have known that. Had Ned took his advice war could have been averted. Had Ned took Cersei's advice in the Throne Room war could have been averted. Had the Tyrells not rebelled war could have been averted. Had Cat been at Winterfel as Ned was arrested war could have been averted.

War was not a certainty at that point. And as intelligent as Littlefinger is he would not have known that it was a certainty.

Out of interest which parts do you think are misleading?

And no, Littlefinger was not being disingenuous, crowning Stannis would have lead to war. He was not misleading Ned when he told him that.

[The Drunkard]

16 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Littlefinger could not have known that. Had Ned took his advice war could have been averted. Had Ned took Cersei's advice in the Throne Room war could have been averted. Had the Tyrells not rebelled war could have been averted. Had Cat been at Winterfel as Ned was arrested war could have been averted.

War was not a certainty at that point. And as intelligent as Littlefinger is he would not have known that it was a certainty.

Out of interest which parts do you think are misleading?

And no, Littlefinger was not being disingenuous, crowning Stannis would have lead to war. He was not misleading Ned when he told him that.

Well, suffice it to say I disagree. I believe war was inevitable by that stage and that Littlefinger knew it too.

[Fisch]

21 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

But the fact remains that had Ned listened to Littlefinger then a major war could have been averted. Maybe all battle as Stannis was not powerful enough to act without Renly and the North also rebelling.

Tywin didn't appear to have your lack of concern about the threat and power of Stannis.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

Okay GRRM answered on why Stannis did nothing:

 

Why did Stannis sit silently on Dragonstone for months when he had reason to believe that Robert may have been in danger after Jon Arryn was murdered?

Stannis did not have a strong enough base of power but more importantly Robert and Stannis were just not close enough. They did not get along so Stannis may not have been considering the threat to Robert as much as he would have if they had been close.

 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

10 minutes ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Okay GRRM answered on why Stannis did nothing:

 

Why did Stannis sit silently on Dragonstone for months when he had reason to believe that Robert may have been in danger after Jon Arryn was murdered?

Stannis did not have a strong enough base of power but more importantly Robert and Stannis were just not close enough. They did not get along so Stannis may not have been considering the threat to Robert as much as he would have if they had been close.

 

That is pretty damning against 'dutiful' Stannis. If only he liked his king _his brother_ more he would have acted.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

21 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

That is pretty damning against 'dutiful' Stannis. If only he liked his king _his brother_ more he would have acted.

Really? I saw it as the opposite as he overlooked how much danger Robert was in because he let his resentment cloud his judgement.

At the very least this is also damning evidence for people who think Stannis let Robert die because he wanted the throne.

[Lord Varys]

George speculated on the reasons in the quote above, he didn't outright state it was such and such.

The question George should be asked is why the hell Stannis Baratheon made no attempt whatsoever to inform anyone at court outside Cersei's circles (i.e. Robert himself, Renly, Barristan Selmy, Eddard Stark, etc.) of his suspicion that

- Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen weren't Robert Baratheon's children but fathered by Jaime Lannister.

- Jon Arryn had investigated this matter with and - in Stannis' opinion - had been poisoned by the command of Queen Cersei.

I mean, keep in mind that Eddard Stark wrote multiple letters to Stannis on Dragonstone. All the man had needed to do was to reply and/or send a messenger to court to meet with Lord Eddard (Davos, for example).

That is the real mystery. Remember, Stannis later claims the throne on the grounds that he is the rightful heir - but anyone can write letters and spread baseless rumors after the king is dead. If Stannis wanted to uphold the law of succession and prevent a bastard with not a single drop of royal blood in his veins to ascend to the Iron Throne he should have talked while Robert was still alive and able to change the succession.

The way things stand there is no difference between 'Stannis, the evil greedy uncle' and 'Stannis, the guy who only wants to do the right thing'.

Stannis doesn't need military strength for this thing. Only access to court and king which he had as the king's brother.

[Fisch]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis doesn't need military strength for this thing. Only access to court and king which he had as the king's brother.

He doesn't need a power base to say anything, I grant. But if you accuse the queen of cuckolding the king with her brother and getting three bastards by him, and that queen is the daughter of a LP and Warden of the West, and you suspect that Jon Arryn was poisoned for this knowledge (and, therefore, that there are spies in the court who know things you tell people even outside of Cersei's circle), then you might want strong power behind what you say, in case the news gets into the wrong hands or isn't taken well.

And I don't see a reason not to take Martin's quote as the real deal vis a vis Stannis's feelings.