Jump to content

It really sucks to be Stannis


Valens

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

Stannis, having no idea how well supplied Storm's End was, quite clearly states that

Estermont will favor settling down to starve them out, as Tyrell and Redwyne once tried with me. That might take a year, but old mules are patient.

There is no addendum from Stannis about supplies, he just makes it clear that a year is how long it should take. 

Penrose is holding down Storm's End after the end of a Summer. 

Stannis is holding down Storm's End at the tail end of a winter. 

There are easy conclusions to draw from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sullen said:

He planned on murdering Edric.

Jaime and Theon have punished rapists as well.

Joffrey promoted on merit as well, in fact, until Stannis turns entirely to Davos for support, he's probably the King the most guilty of nepotism in the series.

His life is endangered after Cersei and Joffrey had Eddard executed.

Keep in mind Renly's point of view here, he thinks Eddard simply tried to take control of the regency, as he was supposed to do, he doesn't know Eddard tried to dethrone Joffrey. From where he's standing, the Lannisters are killing as many of the people in power as possible to consolidate the maximum amount of power. Houses Tully and Stark already fell victim to their schemes, it's no stretch to think that he was next. He rebels, and as long as you rebel against tyranny, you'd be a fool not to crown yourself as well. (Not to mention that the crown was probably one of the conditions to get Tyrell on his side)

It's not ambition or self-interest that pushed Renly's hand in my opinion, it's self-preservation, which is appropriately enough completely in line with his other two plots during AGoT. (Replace Cersei by Marge, and secure Eddard's regency)

Not to be condescending, but theories that propose that Renly knew about the incest are without a fault always based in Stannis apologia. (Or come from people who can't differentiate the books with the show)

Renly was smart, yes, but the bastardy of the children was not evident, unlike what the show would have us believe (where everyone and their mums are aware of it) it took both Eddard, Jon, and Stannis a considerable amount of time before figuring it by themselves. Besides, had Renly known about the incest, he would have certainly used it to his advantage in his first plan to marry Margery to Robert, it would have given him the perfect opportunity to do so. Renly was bold and was well-liked by Robert, he would not have the same reticence to bring it up to him, especially if he had proof.

He didn't murder Edric. He could have had he wanted to, but didn't. Point moot. 

It's still the exception. 

Joffry promoted on merit? Even if we accept that it was him who independently made the decisions and not others like Tywin or Cersei, how is promoting Littlefinger or Slynt, both corrupt to the bone, promotion based on merit? Also he dropped Slynt like a hot potato. 

Doesn't give him a claim. When a peasant from the Riverlands is endagered by Robb Stark's troops he can't call himself King in the North. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sullen said:

"Despite it all"

If one strives to do good as much as possible, would one not be righteous even despite his repeated moral failings?

I wouldn't be surprised if GRRM held the same opinion of Jaime, or of Tyrion, in fact, or Theon as well, and certainly of Dany.

Righteous- (of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous.

 

None of those people you listed would fit that definition except Daenerys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

Do you have a quote indicating that Stannis has no idea how well supplied Storm's End is? Why should his lords not tell him when it was quite clearly known in Renly's camp that it was "well supplied"?  Why should he think the most important castle of the Stormlands was only partially supplied when they were going to war (and had the time to prepare)? 

Which of Stannis's lords would have knowledge of the stores at Storm's End? Wasn't the fact the Stormlords were sworn to and supporting Renly one of Stannis's biggest gripes? Before Renly's murder, Stannis's forces was made up of sellswords, lords sworn to Dragonstone, and Florents; the Stormlords who joined him did so only after Renly's death. 

1 hour ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Penrose is holding down Storm's End after the end of a Summer. 

Stannis is holding down Storm's End at the tail end of a winter. 

There are easy conclusions to draw from this.

The white ravens had only recently been sent out, and in the North, where winter arrives first and stays longest, they had just begun ramping up the stores. Renly's idea of warring was feasting and tourneying his way across the Stormlands and Reach. While I do not think the Storm's End cupboard was bare, it seems doubtful it would have been fully stocked, especially since the Lannister army was occupied in the Riverlands and Westerlands and Renly considered Stannis as little more than a joke.

1 hour ago, John Doe said:

He didn't murder Edric. He could have had he wanted to, but didn't. Point moot. 

It's still the exception. 

Joffry promoted on merit? Even if we accept that it was him who independently made the decisions and not others like Tywin or Cersei, how is promoting Littlefinger or Slynt, both corrupt to the bone, promotion based on merit? Also he dropped Slynt like a hot potato. 

Doesn't give him a claim. When a peasant from the Riverlands is endagered by Robb Stark's troops he can't call himself King in the North. 

 

Technically Stannis did not murder either Renly or Ser Cortnay, but that does not absolve him of the guilt of their deaths. You are correct that Edric Storm was not murdered, but he is not a moot point. Davos, who arguably knows Stannis best, feared so strongly for Edric's life he risked committing an act which could be considered treasonous and sent the boy away. The information that we have regarding Edric, Stannis, and Melisandre indicates that if Edric had remained on Dragonstone, he would have been the next sacrifice to the Lord of Light. The fact he still lives has nothing to do with Stannis, and everything to do with Davos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Righteous- (of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous.

 

None of those people you listed would fit that definition except Daenerys.

lel people thinking they know better than Grrm am I right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John Doe said:

Do you have a quote indicating that Stannis has no idea how well supplied Storm's End is? Why should his lords not tell him when it was quite clearly known in Renly's camp that it was "well supplied"?  Why should he think the most important castle of the Stormlands was only partially supplied when they were going to war (and had the time to prepare)? 

No, and nor should I have to find one. I am going by Stannis' own words. If you want to claim that he did not mean the words he said then the burden of proof is on you, not me.

 

5 hours ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Penrose is holding down Storm's End after the end of a Summer. 

Stannis is holding down Storm's End at the tail end of a winter. 

There are easy conclusions to draw from this.

You mean grasping at straws?

And Renly would have needed to feed his huge army, he would have needed to use some of those supplies this is also an easy conclusion to draw from this.

 

5 hours ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

Righteous- (of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous.

 

Might want to get a better dictionary.

Full Definition of righteous

  1. 1 :  acting in accord with divine or moral law :  free from guilt or sin

  2. 2 a :  morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision> b :  arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality <righteous indignation>

 

And Stannis is consistently shows righteous indignation. With how he was not given the Handship, with how he was not given Storm's End, with how he was not made King, with how other Lords preferred his brothers.

Being righteous does not mean you are doing right (though it can), but that you believe that you are right and are justified in your actions. Stannis has done some awful shit but he has convinced himself that he did it for the right reasons.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The context of that quote makes GRRM's meaning obvious. Despite whatever else he's done Stannis understands that the Others are the priority, and he's righteous (i.e. correct, good, moral) for putting the fight against them ahead of anything else. It has absolutely nothing to do with how he feels he's been treated by Robert, Renly, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

You mean grasping at straws?

And Renly would have needed to feed his huge army, he would have needed to use some of those supplies this is also an easy conclusion to draw from this.

 

Might want to get a better dictionary.

Full Definition of righteous

  1. 1 :  acting in accord with divine or moral law :  free from guilt or sin

  2. 2 a :  morally right or justifiable <a righteous decision> b :  arising from an outraged sense of justice or morality <righteous indignation>

 

And Stannis is consistently shows righteous indignation. With how he was not given the Handship, with how he was not given Storm's End, with how he was not made King, with how other Lords preferred his brothers.

Being righteous does not mean you are doing right (though it can), but that you believe that you are right and are justified in your actions. Stannis has done some awful shit but he has convinced himself that he did it for the right reasons.

 

If Renly had the foresight to put in a large garrison at Storm's End then he would've definitely loaded the place with food. Besides Renly's army is mostly made up of Reachlords and he's been spending most of his time in the Reach. It's likely he's taking food from the Reach. He's not going to be taking food out of Storm's End. 

 

Anyways as the poster above me said, it's beyond obvious from the context of GRRM's quote that he's not referring to his feelings about Robert and Renly. You're grasping at straws here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, The Drunkard said:

The context of that quote makes GRRM's meaning obvious. Despite whatever else he's done Stannis understands that the Others are the priority, and he's righteous (i.e. correct, good, moral) for putting the fight against them ahead of anything else. It has absolutely nothing to do with how he feels he's been treated by Robert, Renly, etc.

 

And yet another quote from GRRM shows exactly that Stannis' actions are determined with how he feels he's been treated.

 

Q: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?

GRRM: 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.

 

Had Robert 'treated' Stannis better he may have acted to save his brother. He didn't and Robert died as a a result while Stannis failed to do his duty.

 

Anyone can be righteous, it does not make them moral, correct or good.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That interview has nothing to do with the one where GRRM names Stannis righteous for understanding that the Others are the real issue. While you may very well disagree with GRRM, he considers Stannis righteous (i.e. correct, good, moral) for that realization.

Suggesting that he means "righteously indignant" or w/e because of his relationship with his brothers is plainly false, given 1) GRRM never calls him indignant, 2) Robert, Renly, etc are never mentioned 3) GRRM wasn't discussing how Stannis feels he's been treated, but how Stannis reacted to learning about the Others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, The Drunkard said:

That interview has nothing to do with the one where GRRM names Stannis righteous for understanding that the Others are the real issue. While you may very well disagree with GRRM, he considers Stannis righteous (i.e. correct, good, moral) for that realization.

lol at no point does he call Stannis' actions correct, good moral. No idea why you feel the need to add those brackets as if GRRM himself said them.

GRRM seem quiet clear, Stannis is righteous in his beliefs. He truly thinks that he is a just man. That does not make him correct, good or moral and at no point has GRRM called Stannis' actions such.

34 minutes ago, The Drunkard said:

Suggesting that he means "righteously indignant" or w/e because of his relationship with his brothers is plainly false, given 1) GRRM never calls him indignant, 2) Robert, Renly, etc are never mentioned 3) GRRM wasn't discussing how Stannis feels he's been treated, but how Stannis reacted to learning about the Others.

lol if we were to only judge Stannis on that one interview he made for the TV show audience then you might be correct. But we don't. We have a wealth of information from the books and GRRM himself on Stannis. Wanting to ignore everything else we know about Stannis is, frankly, silly.

And righteous also means indignant. That is what Stannis is and that is what I took from that interview.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a better straw to grasp at with the comment "righteous despite it all" is not righteous but despite it all. Despite murdering one brother, and letting another be murdered partly due to his inaction (and burning people; and considering sacking a lord's domain for little good reason; being super bitter from not getting the fanciest toys from his brother; and being generally a fairly unpleasant person), he is in his heart, according to GRRM, a righteous man. The "despite it all" does weigh very heavily on him though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Sullen said:

1. If you take everything the character says at face value, but it would be quite foolish to do so. All evidence points to him being in denial after committing kinslaying.

Meaning he is still an unwitting participant in Renly's death. Being partially responsible occurring to Stannis after the fact and leading to denial (which I agree with) does not mean he was a willing participant.

Quote

2. If you call leaving a massive hostile host at your back unchecked, delegating to imbeciles/green boys, and failing to properly scout the surroundings sound, then yeah, sure. I don't think so though.

I was only referring to the assault on King's Landing itself. However, I recall Stannis being completely blinded due to Tyrion's clansman... similar to how Robb blinded Jaime with the Blackfish and his men.

Quote

3. No, Theon taking Winterfell did less than Stannis sending the Tyrells in Lannister arms, mate.

It pushed Roose into going full turncoat and it was the catalyst for Robb giving in and then marrying Jeyne. Honestly, Robb's cause never died with the Tyrell/Lannister alliance. In spite of his title, North and its independence was always the primary goal. If not for the Red Wedding, Robb would have returned North. From there on, the Lannisters/Tyrells could do nothing but decimate the Riverlands further, throw men at Moat Cailin, or launch doomed amphibious invasions. Not to mention the fact that Robb could replenish army's numbers. The Lannister/Tyrell alliance was significant, but it did not kill Robb's cause as the fall of Winterfell did.

Quote

Winterfell-Riverrun-Storm's End-Highgarden never had time to happen, as Stannis murdered the only person that could have served as its basis.

Seriously? Renly was the only person that could have served for its basis? So if Renly bent the knee and fully endorsed his brother all of the Storm lords and Reach lords would have returned home and Robb suddenly becomes deaf to any suggestion of an alliance when it's Stannis in question as oppose to Renly? Really? If anything Robb would have been more willing to bend the knee to Stannis.

I agree that Stannis contributed to the botching of that possible power bloc, but let's not try to hide the responsibility Renly also bears. Christ, we could even shoulder responsibility onto Loras. Both Baratheon brothers were as inflexible as each other and both bear responsibility for botching that possible alliance.

Quote

Calling the Tyrell/Lannister alliance "illusive" is extremely disingenuous as well, it was quite apparent that once Renly was gone, Joffrey was the one the Tyrells would go to.

"illusive" referred to this Winterfell/Riverrun-Highgarden coalition the original poster referenced. I was poking at the fact he presented a tangible power bloc that Stannis shattered when no such power bloc existed.

Quote

4. Because Stannis has a duty to protect the Realm, hasn't he? By slaying the quickest option to peace, he prolonged the war and indirectly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

To protect it as king because that's what the law decrees. Inflexible sense of duty and all... and again, a quarrel with Stannis pursuing his right is therefore a broader quarrel with the entire Westerosi mindset and system.

And Renly also didn't botch a possible peace option by refusing to bend the knee? Again, many people are responsible for unwittingly prolonging the war, not only Stannis. I would be more forthcoming in agreeing with you if not for the double standard where only Stannis's feet are held to the fire.

Quote

5. He's the main factor that led to House Baratheon's doom, and you seem to rob him of as much agency as possible at every turn. He willingly abandoned Robert, he willingly killed Renly, he willingly started a war he could not hope to win, ensuring his daughter's prospects are less than optimal, and he even played around with the idea to sacrifice his innocent bastard nephew.

I outright stated that abandoning Robert was hypocritical, the wrong choice, and that Stannis failed Robert in doing so, so I am not robbing him of agency in that regard. Again, I dispute that Stannis knowingly killed Renly and only suspected that himself of being partially responsible after the fact. As for entering a war he could not hope to win... yes, from our perspective. From his perspective, divine powers were on his side, thus the situation takes on a different light entirely. Again, we have the luxury of being spectators and often make the mistake of applying the conclusions we drawn from that luxury to other characters. I recall a good post somewhere discussing how Stannis is actually rather restrained with his use of the Red God comparative to the likes of Tywin and Renly.

As for playing around with sacrificing his nephew... you make it sound so black-white and indicative of an evil streak. That debate Stannis and Davos had in A Storm of Swords highlights how complex the issue was. I view Stannis toying with the idea in the same light as abandoning Robert; wrong, but not a decision I can lend sympathy to given the rational. In other words, absolutely not indicative of some dastardly nature.

Quote

He burned the Gods of his people, which led to him losing support, and to the unjust execution of the honourable Lord Sunglass.

If this was prompted by my comment stating he was unwittingly carrying out a revolution of sorts, I am referring to a interpretation that Stannis is essentially divorcing monarchy from divine power.

As for Sunglass... I thought Stannis had no part in that whatsoever?

Quote

Now I don't think him turning his backs on the Gods was particularly evil, but it sure is dumb as far as Westerosi politics are concerned.

Because as far as Stannis is concerned, he's in a pact with the Red God and has divine support. I would hazard a guess that most people under the impression that they have divine power on their side would view that as something superseding politics.

Quote

Highly? All the evidence except his own words point to him being aware of the scheme, and characters lie.

Need evidence to sway me to this perspective. My view is that Stannis suspected going to Storm's End would entail the Red God intervening and that he suspected he may be responsible for Renly's death after the fact, but not that he was aware in advance and willingly involved.

Quote

You fall into a victimhood complex here, Renly is isn't "never lambasted for acting amorally", in fact he's probably more criticized/vilified than Stannis is in that aspect, but oh well. Stannis is criticized because he crowned himself after Renly for one, Renly didn't know he would have to deal with Stannis when he crowned himself (he even expected Stannis to be an ally, as he tells Catelyn) while Stannis clearly knew he would have to go through Renly to take the Throne. Renly also had more support than Stannis, and therefore a better shot at defeating the Lannister forces, without mentioning that his claim derived from a break in the feudal contract by Joffrey/Cersei rather than in something seen as a ridiculous self-serving rumour.

Forgive the lack of a disclaimer clarifying that was from a purely anecdotal perspective.

Of course Stannis is going to crown himself after Renly; he found out about Robert's death after Renly.

So I am wrong for supposedly taking what characters say at face value yet it's fine for you to do the same thing? Renly saying that he expected Stannis to be an ally came across to me as a way to further deflect any blame/scorn he may receive (and rightfully so I must add) for knowingly screwing over his brother in my mind. I struggle to believe Renly raised the banners without some inkling Stannis would react in the way he did. Even Robb-someone oblivious to the incest-clearly sees how wrong Renly declaring is.

They still would have had a good shot at defeating the Lannisters if Renly actually bent the knee. Again, I hold both Baratheons responsible. I think it's a terrible oversimplification to shovel the blame onto one brother almost exclusively.

Quote

As far as Renly is concerned, he's usurping Joffrey, not Stannis, and with a very valid reason.

Yes, I agree that it's justified in Renly's mind.

Yet even when he does find out, he refuses to bend the knee. Renly and Stannis were as inflexible as each other when it came to matter if kingship.

Quote

That's in the show only.

Very well.

Quote

Renly doesn't discover the twincest until he is already crowned, and a bit after he's attacked by Stannis. Whether Renly fled before Robert died or not is unknown, but it seems he was the very last person to see Robert alive, considering he heads towards to tower where Robert lay dying after Eddard refused his proposal, and Robert died shortly after having seen Eddard.

It's not demonization of the character, it's recognizing him for the flawed, layered character he is instead of whitewashing his every action and praising him at every occasion.

Nor am I whitewashing the character. I can sympathize with the logic behind Stannis's decisions but I have held his feet to the fire over abandoning Robert, dabbling in black magic, and shattering the possible alliance (the only difference with that last one is that I also hold Renly's feet to the fire).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Humble Maester said:

I think a better straw to grasp at with the comment "righteous despite it all" is not righteous but despite it all. Despite murdering one brother, and letting another be murdered partly due to his inaction (and burning people; and considering sacking a lord's domain for little good reason; being super bitter from not getting the fanciest toys from his brother; and being generally a fairly unpleasant person), he is in his heart, according to GRRM, a righteous man. The "despite it all" does weigh very heavily on him though.

Is there a name for that tactic? Trivializing a person's grievance to a such a degree to give the impression that it's hollow, silly, etc. is a tactic used so often that it probably has a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Red Helm said:

Is there a name for that tactic? Trivializing a person's grievance to a such a degree to give the impression that it's hollow, silly, etc. is a tactic used so often that it probably has a name.

Well we know from GRRM that Robert gave both his brothers what he gave out of generosity, and there is an excellent case to be made why Stannis would had absolutely been the wrong man to hold Storm's End (considering Stannis is bitter and rigid, while Renly was a man who easily inspired loyalty and friendship).

But I guess the strongest argument against the whole "Stannis had a legitimate grievance" is that Robert had no duty to give either of his brothers squat, yet he made both of them some of the strongest Lords in the realm. And still all Stannis can do about getting a fancy island-castle and a bunch of vassals is moan.

Also, I do not know if this "tactic" has a name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

dancinggoalpost.jpg

Good, moral, justified, etc, are all synonyms for righteous. Indignant is not. (fyi, "righteous indignation" is an example of how righteous can be used in a phrase; it's not something with the same meaning)

It's clear what GRRM meant: Stannis understands that the real issue lies north of the Wall, and for that he is a righteous man rather than just another variation of some controversial historic figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Humble Maester said:

Well we know from GRRM that Robert gave both his brothers what he gave out of generosity, and there is an excellent case to be made why Stannis would had absolutely been the wrong man to hold Storm's End (considering Stannis is bitter and rigid, while Renly was a man who easily inspired loyalty and friendship).

I'm skeptical on hanging onto the author's every passing comment really or something like The World of Ice and Fire.

Stannis became bitter over the course of 15 years. I recall nothing suggesting he was embittered 15 years before the start of our story. This case of yours only works with the bitter, old Stannis, not the young Stannis. A case can be made for the younger Stannis fresh from the Siege of Storm's End.

Quote

But I guess the strongest argument against the whole "Stannis had a legitimate grievance" is that Robert had no duty to give either of his brothers squat, yet he made both of them some of the strongest Lords in the realm. And still all Stannis can do about getting a fancy island-castle and a bunch of vassals is moan.

The impression I always got from the books was that once Robert ascended to the Iron Throne the law/custom dictates that something like Storm's End passes to the next person in line. Why else have characters reference how Storm's End was Stannis's right? If his grievance is so hollow then why in the world did George R. R. Martin stress it so much with multiple characters recognising the grievance as legitimate and recognising Storm's End as his right? If his grievance is so hollow then why has no one in the series ever came close (at least to my memory) actually disparaging Stannis's bitterness as so? Do you think it's a coincidence George R. R. Martin had Stannis start out as the weakest of the kings?

Also, you seem to be ascribing a status to Dragonstone not consistent with that of the books; I can only ever recall it as being referenced as meager and mean, poor and dour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Red Helm said:

I'm skeptical on hanging onto the author's every passing comment really or something like The World of Ice and Fire.

We only have so many sources on some of these matters, and we do have a SSM in which Martin states quite clearly that giving his brothers those titles was an act of [paraphrasing] "careless generosity". If we have no other sources on Robert's motivations, as we are not there when Robert makes the decision, we need to rely on secondary sources.

We know that in-books Cersei seems to think it was a snub and that Stannis was extremely bitter about it. But we also know that Cersei is a bit of an idiot, and Stannis may be bitter at matters that were not meant as an insult. That's just how Stannis is. And then we know that the author himself, when asked, told us that the motivation was generosity.

Quote

Stannis became bitter over the course of 15 years. I recall nothing suggesting he was embittered 15 years before the start of our story. This case of yours only works with the bitter, old Stannis, not the young Stannis. A case can be made for the younger Stannis fresh from the Siege of Storm's End.

Well we don't know if Stannis was embittered 15 years ago, do we? Though I concede the point that it's very possible he grew more and more bitter as time went by due to actions that he perceived as slights. There was of course giving Renly the better title (which was a good call, in my opinion, considering Stannis would rather had hanged all those traitorous lords), then giving Stannis a wife (though from a good family) that he didn't get along with, and then of course the fiasco on the wedding night. Also Stannis did not get the role of Hand, which he totally super-duper deserved.

I can understand why Stannis became bitter but it doesn't mean that I agree that he should had. He got great honours and lands for his services, after all.

Quote

The impression I always got from the books was that once Robert ascended to the Iron Throne the law/custom dictates that something like Storm's End passes to the next person in line.

Well this is incorrect. Once again, GRRM in the same SSM in which he talked about Robert's motivation stated that "Robert could just as lawfully retained both castles for his sons, and made Joffrey the Prince of Dragonstone and Tommen the Lord of Storm's End." The Crownlands, Stormlands and the Dragonstone were Roberts to keep or give, and he generously gave them to his brothers. As stated by the author. Debating this, in all seriousness, is a bit of a moot effort.

Also one should remember that Tommen has the double-role as King of Westeros and heir to Westerlands as the books stand (and Cersei is the non-regnant Queen of Westeros and the ruling Lady of Westerlands simultaneously.)

 

Quote

Why else have characters reference how Storm's End was Stannis's right? If his grievance is so hollow then why in the world did George R. R. Martin stress it so much with multiple characters recognising the grievance as legitimate and recognising Storm's End as his right?

I am sorry, I am drawing a blank here. Who exactly says that Storm's End was Stannis' by right? I am asking sincerely as I do not recall this, and I unfortunately don't have everything in the books memorized.

 

Quote

If his grievance is so hollow then why has no one in the series ever came close (at least to my memory) actually disparaging Stannis's bitterness as so? Do you think it's a coincidence George R. R. Martin had Stannis start out as the weakest of the kings?

I am sure the people in the series, as do I, see Stannis' point (as I already stated I understood his grievance, while not agreeing with it). The fact that Stannis was bitter about him, as the elder sibling, getting the worse fief is understandable from his point of view, even if there was a plethora of good reasons for things happening as they did. Though, to be fair, pretty much all the conversations we see Stannis have were with people who were his inferiors and underlings, and those would not hassle Stannis about his negative feelings vis-a-vis Stormlands.

I actually did a rudimentary search with A Search of Ice and Fire and the only referenceI could come up with relating to Storm's End and Stannis' right to it was the debate between Renly and Stannis, in which both of them pretty much offer Storms' End to the other. Stannis complains that the castle is actually his, and Renly just ignores Stannis' offer stating he's pretty much going to be king in any case.

I am not sure what you are referring to as Stannis starting out as the weakest contender, though.

 

Quote

Also, you seem to be ascribing a status to Dragonstone not consistent with that of the books; I can only ever recall it as being referenced as meager and mean, poor and dour.

Well, meager, mean, poor and dour by Stannis at least. Still it was one of the former seats of the previous royalty with a number of noteworthy vassals (for example Celtigars and Velaryons). At a time Dragonstone and the islands used to be one of the most affluent regions in Westeros due to trade, though I do concede that it was far from its peak. Still its a lordship comparable to almost any second tier lord in the seven kingdoms (say Mallister or Karstark or the likes). It's not obviously as great as getting the Stormlands, but considering neither of the brothers were supposed to get anything, I wouldn't complain personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, thelittledragonthatcould said:

No, and nor should I have to find one. I am going by Stannis' own words. If you want to claim that he did not mean the words he said then the burden of proof is on you, not me

Are you kidding? I provided proof that Penrose had more supplies than Stannis had, I provided proof that this was known in Renly's camp (you know, the place where most of Stannis lords were too, who would definitely have told him) and nothing Stannis said contradicts that. You're talking nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Eden-Mackenzie said:

Which of Stannis's lords would have knowledge of the stores at Storm's End? Wasn't the fact the Stormlords were sworn to and supporting Renly one of Stannis's biggest gripes? Before Renly's murder, Stannis's forces was made up of sellswords, lords sworn to Dragonstone, and Florents; the Stormlords who joined him did so only after Renly's death. 

When Stannis said Penrose might hold out they had already joined Stannis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...