why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

[Coolbeard the Exile]

13 hours ago, Renly's Banana said:

I like the way ya think, kid. Renly WAS the true steel!! 

He should have killed Stannis and claimed the throne for himself. That's right of conquest, beeyotch. Bobby B style. Stannis was unfit to lead on the grounds that nobody liked him and he's a mentally unhinged sad clown attached to an invasive religious movement. He would have been another unpopular, problematic and harsh king a la Maegor that would do more harm than good. He also would have been fighting a massive Faith uprising along with the Iron Islands and possibly the North. Varys would also slit his throat in his sleep.

BUT ALSO Renly was cute and Stannis smells like doodoo so my argument is solid

No Renly is bright and shiny but not that worth in the end. Stannis is the true Steel.

He should not have betrayed and killed his older brother and king. 

Stannis though not well liked was not unfit to lead. Tywin always considerd Stannis his most dangerous opponent. He is not a mindless sad clown attached to an invasive religious movement. It is well known that he is very sceptical about it but how can he look away when it is a religion that works. He would not be a la Maegor. He would reunite Westeros and prepare for the Other which is something no OTHER "no pun intended" had any idea about. He would not be fighting another massive faith uprising. Any king would have the Iron Born rebel but Stannis wouldn't have the north rebel. Robb knows that his father died because his father stood up for Stannis right to the Throne. Maybe Varys would try.

Your arguments are weak. Stannis is the Mannis.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

13 hours ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

Because he believed he was the Azor ahai, destined to save the world. His ego was boosted 1000 times because Melisandre made him believe this. He'd never concede to a gay youger brother. He wasn't the destined one. He knew he didn't have the men, the fleet or the gold necessary to win the war, but Melisandre made him believe that with her by his side he could do everything. And let's be honest. She made the renly death possible. 

He is sceptical about the whole religion thing but how can he look away when it is real???

His ego was never boosted. He was the rightful king and the other kings went against his right to the Throne. I don't think the fact that Loras was gay troubled him much he loved his brother but his brother betrayed him. Melissandre didn't make him believe in anything else but the religion and the Others. Stannis would have fought for the Throne even if Melissandre never came to him. Melissandre had Renly assasinated.

[Adam Yozza]

Erm, because it was actually Renly's duty to follow Stannis. Stannis was his elder brother and the rightful King. Bran couldn't be Lord of Winterfell before Robb, Renly can't be King before Stannis.

If Renly did his duty and joined Stannis, the Stormlords and Stannis fleet could have attacked KL early in WO5K before the chain or the wildfire could be completed, which is what really saved the city in canon. Furthermore, the Tyrell's might follow Renly anyway. Stannis offers to make Renly is heir until he has a son of his own (which we all know is unlikely to happen) and so the Tyrell's would probably have their blood on the Throne at some point anyway.

If there was no division between Stannis and Renly, then Robb wouldn't have had to debate the matter with his bannermen and they'd have just pledged to Stannis before GreatJon could give his awesome but ultimately hopeless King in the North speech.

Against a Baratheon-Tully-Stark-Tyrell alliance the Lannister's would have crumbled.

[Coolbeard the Exile]

6 hours ago, 1000th Lord Commander said:

I think where some of the sympathy for Stannis comes is the fact that he is right. Ceresi's children ARE Jamie's bastards, Renly IS his younger brother. He may be unlikeable and follow a weird religion, but he has always served faithfully, and has never renounced his claim to the throne. Under modern day rules of succession, Stannis would be king.

There's some middle child syndrome at play here as well. He has lived his whole life in Robert's shadow. Now Renly expects Stannis to let him take the throne?

Being disrespected is a much bigger deal in Westeros.

[Trigger Warning]

Renly owes Stannis allegiance because Stannis is the true heir, not because Stannis is the older brother. Renly doesn't know that however, Renly is a lord paramount, Stannis followed Robert as his elder because he was just a knight in Robert's household at Storm's End, yes a brother but with no title of his own. So for people that say that Renly should have supported Stannis purely on the basis of him being his older brother let's throw in a  scenario. 

If Stannis simply rebelled Renly and had no intention of rebelling should Renly as a lord senior to Stannis betray his king and support his brother that he owes no fealty to just because he's his older brother? Nope. The only way Stannis can justify demanding Renly's support is if he provides proof of the incest, otherwise he's just another claimant or he could have you know, let his younger and vastly more powerful and connected brother in on his plans and suspicions from the start. 

Renly felt he was in danger and the best and simplest way to protect his own life and block Lannister hegemony was to claim the throne,  I don't particularly blame him for that. The funny thing is I don't really think Renly has many fans, he's barely in the books really but to Stannis fans he's basically the anti christ which is why I end up defending him a lot in threads despite Stannis being a character I enjoy more. 

And even with all that Stannis doesn't even declare himself until Renly is already crowned and on the march with a ridiculously huge army. 
 

[Coolbeard the Exile]

6 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

A large part of the people who think that way are just Stannis-fanboys (for some completely unfathomable reason) so in their case at least it's not quite rational.

To them he's the "Truly Just King Who Cared^tm" and no matter if he uses black magic to murder his younger brother, deploys sacrifices to further his goals, hints at getting rid of Gilly and her baby because he won't suffer "such abominations" in his presence or starts a bloody and costly war, killing thousands for some uncomfortable chair (while knowing that the Others will be a problem) for them he stays the most awesome and righteous and caring and witty "Truly Just King Who Cared^tm"

Stannis fanboy here, i need to defend my man and rightful king Stannis the Mannis of house Baratheon here. 

I don't know that Stannis is the most caring individual clearly he is not. 

Black magic was justified because his younger brother tried to become king himself and kill Stannis. The sacrifises are not Stannis best side but clearly they have power and Stannis is the rightful king who by right should be on the iron throne. You need to realize that they are in a diffrent place were things are diffrent. Stannis is a product of his time and enviorment and allthough it is terrible to kill a mother and her child because "abomination" but i dont think that was what he intended. He intended to send the away i think. You need to take into account that he is a medieval king and you can't watch the books and judge characters completely through a modern liberal 20th century lens.

Again Stannis is no bitch. The Iron Throne is his. He is not gonna step aside to some usurper. No other king knows about the others so if Stannis priority  was to defeat the others uniting Westeros as quickly as possible under a man with that information would be the thing to do to defend humanity.

Stannis is awesome. And you know it. It is not too late to join the Rightful king. Stannis will pardon you

 

[devilish]

16 hours ago, Renly was the true steel said:

ill never understand why people think Renly "doing his duties as younger brother" would be a good idea the Tyrells would be gone and still reck them on the blackwater and stannis stubborn fool that he is wouldn't even try to reach terms with Robb (which Davos and Cresson urged him to)

meanwhile if Stannis concedes to Renly they can all take kingslanding together beat back Tywin end the war much faster 

exactly

[Trigger Warning]

2 hours ago, black_hart said:

With Renly supporting his elder brother dutifully, the war might not even happen. Eddard Stark was about to declare Stannis king and fails in good part due to his own mistakes and Sansa's loose tongue, but the chance to act is wasted partly because Renly would not fall in line and only move to benefit himself. Stannis' later inflexibility toward Robb would not even matter. Whether the Tyrells would go against a Stannis-Renly-Stark-Tully (Riverlands already under attack) combination is far from obvious. They may dislike it, but such a coalition would have been much more formidable than what they faced in the given story.

(Though of course there would be no story, if we get a Stannis succession, Eddard Stark alive as Hand of King and Arya taking lessons with Syrio Forel, Bran dating Shireen whatever ...)

 

Renly: "Ned, strike now so we can control the king and you can be regent."

Ned: "Nope"

Renly: "Well I don't want to die here so I guess I'll go" 

Ned: (Dies)

How is Renly urging Ned to strike so that Ned can take the regency only benefiting himself? The exact scenario you described is what might have happened if Ned listened to Renly. Ned being honourable in a moment when decisive action was needed is what got him killed, not Renly. 

[Magnus9]

Because the Westerosi monarchy is based on primogeniture.

[Lord Corlys Velaryon]

The grossly inaccurate pro-Renly & anti-Stannis comments in this thread gave me the sudden fever that left me bedridden in 126AC. Those utterly correct anti-Renly & pro-Stannis points are what healed me from it.

[Good Guy Garlan]

1 hour ago, Adam Yozza said:

Erm, because it was actually Renly's duty to follow Stannis. Stannis was his elder brother and the rightful King. Bran couldn't be Lord of Winterfell before Robb, Renly can't be King before Stannis.

If Renly did his duty and joined Stannis, the Stormlords and Stannis fleet could have attacked KL early in WO5K before the chain or the wildfire could be completed, which is what really saved the city in canon. Furthermore, the Tyrell's might follow Renly anyway. Stannis offers to make Renly is heir until he has a son of his own (which we all know is unlikely to happen) and so the Tyrell's would probably have their blood on the Throne at some point anyway.

If there was no division between Stannis and Renly, then Robb wouldn't have had to debate the matter with his bannermen and they'd have just pledged to Stannis before GreatJon could give his awesome but ultimately hopeless King in the North speech.

Against a Baratheon-Tully-Stark-Tyrell alliance the Lannister's would have crumbled.

This. Not to mention that it's highly unlikely that the Tyrells would've joined the Lannisters while Renly had Loras (AKA, Mace's favorite son) at his side as a potential (implicit?) hostage. 

[The Bastards Giant Friend]

Stannis knows that Robert had no true born children. That leaves Stannis as Roberts heir.
Much like Ned, Stannis grew up never expecting to be the head of his house. Let alone the king of the seven kingdoms. Much like Ned, Stannis has a strong sense of duty and honor. Because Joffery is not legitimate Stannis feels duty bound to renounce him and claim the throne. There is nobody else, with the exception of one of Roberts bastards or maybe a Targ (but Baratheons are past the point of no return as it stands with Targs in ACOK), who might have a claim.
Renly should not be doing anything beyond supporting his brothers claim. He could broach the idea that if Stannis named him his heir (until Stannis could have a boy) then Renly would marry Marg and bring the Tyrells to their side. But Stannis isn't compelled to meet anybody's demands. The king doesn't have to concern himself with the opinions of sheep. If they get out of line they are forfeiting their life. He punishes traitors and does some harsh things, but always for a greater goal and never fanatically. He answers the call of the nights watch and aids them in their time of need. He displays compassion and self doubt, and he respects honorable men regardless of their loyalty. It's hard to say he is an evil man unless you pull from the show.
You could argue that he is misguided, depending on what moralities you support in the story, but it is hard to argue against the legitimacy of his claim. 
The argument that his stubbornness costs thousands of lives isn't really fair, if you acknowledge that his claim is reasonable. This is a little melodramatic, but imagine if the world had capitulated to the nazis because fighting would have cost lives. And it is unfair to say that Stannis would burn/kill/destroy the septs and godswoods throughout the kingdoms once he had the throne and peace. As it has been noted, he acknowledges his doubts about religion but recognizes the power Mel has. He won't need to feed her power once his own is secure. 

[Good Guy Garlan]

5 minutes ago, The Bastards Giant Friend said:

Stannis knows that Robert had no true born children. That leaves Stannis as Roberts heir.
Much like Ned, Stannis grew up never expecting to be the head of his house. Let alone the king of the seven kingdoms. Much like Ned, Stannis has a strong sense of duty and honor. Because Joffery is not legitimate Stannis feels duty bound to renounce him and claim the throne. There is nobody else, with the exception of one of Roberts bastards or maybe a Targ (but Baratheons are past the point of no return as it stands with Targs in ACOK), who might have a claim.
Renly should not be doing anything beyond supporting his brothers claim. He could broach the idea that if Stannis named him his heir (until Stannis could have a boy) then Renly would marry Marg and bring the Tyrells to their side. But Stannis isn't compelled to meet anybody's demands. The king doesn't have to concern himself with the opinions of sheep. If they get out of line they are forfeiting their life. He punishes traitors and does some harsh things, but always for a greater goal and never fanatically. He answers the call of the nights watch and aids them in their time of need. He displays compassion and self doubt, and he respects honorable men regardless of their loyalty. It's hard to say he is an evil man unless you pull from the show.
You could argue that he is misguided, depending on what moralities you support in the story, but it is hard to argue against the legitimacy of his claim. 
The argument that his stubbornness costs thousands of lives isn't really fair, if you acknowledge that his claim is reasonable. This is a little melodramatic, but imagine if the world had capitulated to the nazis because fighting would have cost lives. And it is unfair to say that Stannis would burn/kill/destroy the septs and godswoods throughout the kingdoms once he had the throne and peace. As it has been noted, he acknowledges his doubts about religion but recognizes the power Mel has. He won't need to feed her power once his own is secure. 

Not quite, I think that's a misconception. Stannis might say he's just doing his duty but in truth he actively wants the throne. He wants to be worshipped and respected as Robert was. And he only cares about duty insofar as he expects others to do their duty to him. Like, since he supported Robert during the war, he expects Renly to show him the same loyalty. 

[ravenous reader]

Basically, Robert and Renly thought they didn't need to play by the rules -- even the rules in their own family.

Stannis tried to play by the rules and was never rewarded for it (e.g. Renly got Storms End, Ned was made Hand).  So in the end, Stannis just followed the example of his other more carefree, charismatic brothers by giving up on the rules.  Why is anyone shocked that it worked in his favor?  

Renly taunted him, daring him to eat that 'peach', never thinking Stannis would be like him and actually reach for it --

But Stannis did eat that peach -- like a true Baratheon.

So, the moral of the story and the question we need to ask ourselves:

Does society need rules of engagement?  Do families need rules governing the individual members' expectations of each other? 

Many of the arguments on this thread maintain that Renly was the better politician, the more strategic thinker than either Stannis or Ned; and use that as justification for his usurpation of what was by rights his brother's position.  But in the end, he was killed because he didn't know how to diplomatically converse with his elder brother.  Humiliating Stannis constituted a grave and reckless political error.  

[The Bastards Giant Friend]

10 minutes ago, Good Guy Garlan said:

Not quite, I think that's a misconception. Stannis might say he's just doing his duty but in truth he actively wants the throne. He wants to be worshipped and respected as Robert was. And he only cares about duty insofar as he expects others to do their duty to him. Like, since he supported Robert during the war, he expects Renly to show him the same loyalty. 

Was Stannis trying to depose his brother during Roberts 15 year reign? I don't see any evidence of that. He worked with Jon Arryn to prove the parentage of Cersei's children, but that does not imply he would have tried to claim the throne from Robert.

Stannis supported Robert out of duty and honor. Imagine if he stayed loyal to the Targs, he would have stood to claim Storms End if they won and the Tyrells would have been free to aid at kings landing or even the trident. He sacrificed personal gain for family duty. Of course he expects the same from Renly, it's the right thing to do.

I am not even a huge Stannis fan, I do not believe he is the end game of this story. But he is just in his actions and I do not see any sound logic in the idea that he should have ceded to Renly.

[The Bear Who Knocks]

because a feudal society relys on a mostly simple and consistent succession line of Oldest-Youngest?

[Whitering]

14 hours ago, Byfort of Corfe said:

Oh sure, he believes it and Melisandre believes it and that's the tragedy.  The false Messiahs will always believe it.  And therein lies the tragedy.  Stannis would have probably been a horrible King.  He's a fanatic.  He believes in a religion that burns the non-believers.  A Stannis reign wouldn't end well. 

He doesn't burn non believers...geeshh, and he would never force the realm to turn to any particular god, he doesn't even do that with his own army.

Still, it is a tragedy, but he knows this already, he has seen himself burning in the fires, he is willing to pay that price to save the world, but he's probably the Night King or something.

[Renly's Banana]

3 hours ago, Coolbeard the Exile said:

No Renly is bright and shiny but not that worth in the end. Stannis is the true Steel.

He should not have betrayed and killed his older brother and king. 

Stannis though not well liked was not unfit to lead. Tywin always considerd Stannis his most dangerous opponent. He is not a mindless sad clown attached to an invasive religious movement. It is well known that he is very sceptical about it but how can he look away when it is a religion that works. He would not be a la Maegor. He would reunite Westeros and prepare for the Other which is something no OTHER "no pun intended" had any idea about. He would not be fighting another massive faith uprising. Any king would have the Iron Born rebel but Stannis wouldn't have the north rebel. Robb knows that his father died because his father stood up for Stannis right to the Throne. Maybe Varys would try.

Your arguments are weak. Stannis is the Mannis.

Renly.. never.. killed Robert? 

You keep denying all my claims but not offering much. Stannis is unyielding and rigid. He's a very good war-time soldier and a terrible peace-time ruler. He most certainly WOULD have a religious revolt on his hands, with riots worse than the ones Joffrey caused. If his Florent stooges continue to push Melisandre's religion there would be blood in the streets. I would also love to see all the Lords' reactions to being told "give me your armies, we're gonna go fight ice demons in the north." I'm sure everyone will follow him blindly and not revolt in the slightest. As for the Ironborn and Northerners.. they would still rebel. Stannis is a stranger with a foreign religion that threatens the old gods; why should any northern lord care about him? Robb doesn't even know the man. 

But also I heard that his wife slept with Patchface and cucks him. How shameful. NOT A KING I'D FOLLOW! SAD!!!

2 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

The grossly inaccurate pro-Renly & anti-Stannis comments in this thread gave me the sudden fever that left me bedridden in 126AC. Those utterly correct anti-Renly & pro-Stannis points are what healed me from it.

Go back to bed you gangrenous old sea dog. You know nothing of the Ways of the Peach™
but your son does

[Darkstream]

20 hours ago, Renly was the true steel said:

meanwhile if Stannis concedes to Renly they can all take kingslanding together beat back Tywin end the war much faster 

Meanwhile, if Renly doesn't commit treason against the rightful heir, his own blood at that, and does the lawful, dutyful and honorable thing, the same result can be accomplished. 

19 hours ago, Renly was the true steel said:

i know im asking why so many readers think stannis was in the right here when he was basically risking the lives of thousands for his right to a throne he doesn't even want and doesn't have support to take it

I'm not even sure why this is a question that needs to be answered. They don't think he was in the right, they know he was in the right. The better question to ask would be, why do so many readers have the distorted view that he was in the wrong?

18 hours ago, Renly's Banana said:

BUT ALSO Renly was cute and Stannis smells like doodoo so my argument is solid

Damn, how am I suppose to challenge this...I got nothing.   

16 hours ago, Byfort of Corfe said:

Oh sure, he believes it and Melisandre believes it and that's the tragedy.  The false Messiahs will always believe it.  And therein lies the tragedy.  Stannis would have probably been a horrible King.  He's a fanatic.  He believes in a religion that burns the non-believers.  A Stannis reign wouldn't end well. 

Well this is just a completely false statement.

11 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

A large part of the people who think that way are just Stannis-fanboys (for some completely unfathomable reason) so in their case at least it's not quite rational.

As opposed to the Renly-fanboys who ignore the text to come up with the opposite assessment.

I see, if people don't agree with you, or have different characters that they are fans of, it's unfathomable.

Quote

To them he's the "Truly Just King Who Cared^tm" and no matter if he uses black magic to murder his younger brother, deploys sacrifices to further his goals, hints at getting rid of Gilly and her baby because he won't suffer "such abominations" in his presence or starts a bloody and costly war, killing thousands for some uncomfortable chair (while knowing that the Others will be a problem) for them he stays the most awesome and righteous and caring and witty "Truly Just King Who Cared^tm"

Stannis was the rightful heir, who cares what method he used to murder execute his younger brother a traitorous usurper?

---

And for the record, Renly was one of my favorite characters from GoT, that doesn't change the facts.

[Darkstream]

4 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

 But in the end, he was killed because he didn't know how to diplomatically converse with his elder brother.  Humiliating Stannis constituted a grave and reckless political error.  

Hammer...Nail...Right on the head!

This is an excellent point that I have never seen brought up before.