Jump to content

why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake


Recommended Posts

@Darkstream

 

But this isn't the full story, and Robert is quite aware that Jofrey is lying. Yet, instead of dealing with the situation in a fair and diplomatic manner, he cowers and folds to Cercei's demands, and escalates the tensions between the two parties

He doesn’t know if Joffrey was lying or not he wasn’t there. He asked for Sansa’s opinion, Arya’s sister and she lies. What do you expect him to do? Cersei is queen and therefore outranks Ned. Ned on the other hand is warden of the North and they are in the North which means that he could have them all killed if he wanted to. The death of a direwolf is a small price to pay to settle the scores. After all who the feck adopt a direwolf as a child’s pet? Ned might as well have them adopt a lion or jaguar while at it.

Both serious offences, and again, instead of dealing with the situation as is his responsibility and duty, he does nothing, and expects that the tensions between these two parties are just going to go away, instead of escalating as they did.

It was out of his hands. Cat kidnaps Tyrion while in her father lands, then vanishes in thin air, only to appear at the Vale (her sister’s lands). Jamie assaults Ned and then vanishes in the Westerlands. Please understand that GOT is built around the medieval setup. Communication is terribly slow, there’s no GPS and bannermen/smallfolk tend to be more loyal to their noble lord then some Baratheon usurper.

The show portrays that very well, when Cat meets Tyrion in the tavern and a Frey takes Cat Stark side (I don’t know if the books back that up). The Frey may hate the Tullys and viceversa but that was their Lady’s order which was directed against a frigging foreigner who is supposed to have tried to kill her child.  If Robert himself was there he would have ended up arrested just the same.

 Same thing would have happened if Robert popped in daddy in law’s military camp searching for missing Jamie. Do you seriously believe that the Lannister army would turn against the Great Tywin Lannister and in favour of this usurper? Not in a million years.

Outside the crownlands Robert is NOTHING. He needs the support of his Wardens and LPs to rule. With Hoster dying and the Vale in the hands of a scared boy, Robert was not in a position to antagonise Tywin. Doing so would look as if Robert was trying to find a way out from paying his debt to the Lannisters which would irk the Tyrells and the Iron Bank. Robert made that pretty clear to Ned but he refused to listen.

This is not true. If you take a close look at the time line of events, Cercei's plan had already been implemented, and Robert was already victim to the boar attack before Ned had approached Cercei.

I’ll have to check about that but I doubt it’s the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Ha, defensive much. If in fact that was what I was trying to do, it clearly would be working. And believe me, if that were my desire, I could do a hell of a better job than that.

I told you, I'm just giving you a hard time; I was fucking around with you. You have no idea what my opinions on the Targaryens are, or the Baratheons for that matter. You want to come on this thread and attempt to derail it with the same old, tired, irrelevant argument that that is used to derail dozens of threads, fine, don't cry foul if you get a facetious response.

Fyi, usually when someone replies with 'indeed', that means they are agreeing with you.

And the real reason your precious Targ is not the rightful heir, is because her family lost it by rights of conquest. The same method they used to gain it.

Oh I can say with confidence that I absolutely know your opinion on the targaryens I've watched you on several threads criticizing them and saying nothing positive about them, I know a targaryen hater when I see one and I know that you hate them

And for the record I'm not trying to derail this thread, that is not my style.....at all, if I wanted to I would've approached it at a different angle than this. 

For someone to lose the throne by rights of conquest the defeated party has to acknowledge defeat and the overlordship of the new conqueror, but the targs did not do that instead they fled and tried to build their own forces and recover what was rightfully theirs. The situations of Aegon I and Robert were entirely different, usually when aegon defeats an enemy they either get killed or bend the knee and acknowledge him as their liege, I don't remember any targ doing such obeisance to the Baratheon usurpers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Darkstream

 

Well there were plenty of competent people during Robert’s rebellion who were able to hold the Storm’s end. Yet, Robert chose Stannis, who was relatively inexperienced at the time. Why was the case? The answer is simple. Storm’s end is the Baratheon ancestral home. The last thing Robert needed was someone who would barter Storm’s end for a pardon and its Lordship. Stannis would have never done that. As a Baratheon, Stannis future was tied with that of his brother. If the Baratheon get kicked out then all Baratheons get kicked out.

Now Dragonstone is the Targ’s answer to the Baratheon’s Storm’s end. Robert needed somebody there whose not only an expert of resisting sieges but whose also extremely loyal to the Baratheon cause (cause if they lose, all Baratheons would suffer the consequences of it).  That tells only part of the Story. Robert’s claim to the throne comes from his weak but still relevant Targ lineage. The Targs had traditionally sent their heir there to make his bones. By sending Stannis there, Robert showed continuity and gave a business as usual message to all his bannermen.

Also note that while I support the idea of Robert sending Stannis to Dragonstone out of sound military reasons I am not denying that Robert kept Stannis as Lord of Dragonstone as some sort of slight (I’d call it punishment in response of Stannis’s decision to marry a nobody whose family claims posed a danger to a now powerful ally). There’s evidence to that, with Robert gatecrashing Stannis wedding and sleeping with a Florent with an equal standing to Selyse. There’s too many co-incidences in there to be ignored.

So in few words, Robert gave Stannis, Dragonstone out of sound military reasons. He kept him there rather than giving him the Stormlands (as he should have done when Joffrey was of a decent age) not to further antagonise the Tyrells by further rewarding a brother who dared marry within a Tyrell rival family after they nearly starved him to death.  Its no co-incidence that Lord Renly had worked so hard to build a great relationship with the Tyrells.

We can debate about Robert for ages, but his military prowess and diplomatic abilities can’t be debated. The man was able to defeat bigger forces then his on battle and turn enemies into friends soon after that. From a purely military view Robert’s plan made sense. He kept his most trusted general in dragonstone which was the Targ’s prime target of attack and he gave Renly the tools to cuddle the Tyrells whom, I repeat, were former Targ loyalists and could raise a 60k-100k army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Oh I can say with confidence that I absolutely know your opinion on the targaryens I've watched you on several threads criticizing them and saying nothing positive about them, I know a targaryen hater when I see one and I know that you hate them

 

Oh really? Please do direct me to these posts, I would love to see them. You obviously aren't thinking of the right person. Or perhaps you're confusing Targs with d$d? I do hate me them two with quite a passion, but I assure you, I don't hate any GRRM created characters, or families.

Quote

And for the record I'm not trying to derail this thread, that is not my style.....at all, if I wanted to I would've approached it at a different angle than this. 

That's exactly what you've done. Your argument is off topic, and clearly not the point of this discussion. It's quite obvious that your are extremely bias, and can't handle seeing a discussion about the rightful heir that doesn't involve Dany.

As I am just feeding into your bs, this will be my last response to you. Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Yucef Menaerys

 

I hate to barge into someone else arguments. However, as a person, who can’t give a toss to neither Baratheons family nor Targeryans family, I feel I can give a non baised opinion about it.

I applaud the Targeryan for conquering Westeros. Critics might say that they exploited Westeros division or their lack of knowledge in terms of dealing with dragons as the sole reason for their success and they do have a point. However, that doesn’t deny the Targs ability to conquer a a vast piece of land using a ridiculously small army + their vision in imagining that a land ravaged by centuries of war and hatred could become 1 prosperous nation.

While I do understand Robert’s rebellion (surely you can’t expect him to remove his head to make Aerys happy), I still believe that this problem could and should have been dealt in a less dramatic way, possibly with Robert taking the role of protector of the kingdom and Viserys being appointed as a puppet king (the equivalent of Joffrey with Tywin). Nevertheless, the fact that Westeros didn’t disintegrated into a group of independent states, soon after that, is clear testament that Aegon’s vision was the correct one.

There’s no denying that Robert’s claim to the throne was weak and that a new and dangerous way of succession took over after that. After that the Targeryan dynasty was nearly wiped out any person with a drop of Targeryan blood in his system and an enormous army could rebel and claim the throne. That makes Stannis claim to the throne look silly. His own brother became king because he was the most popular man on the block then why wouldn’t Renly do the same after his death? TBF, its hardly the Baratheon fault for that either. As said before, Robert’s rebellion was legitimate and its not the Baratheon’s fault that Tywin’s shrewdly wiped away Cersei’s competition (Rhaenys) as queen scaring the Targs away from Westeros.

Having said that, let’s not overbloat the Targeryans achievements too much, shall we? They won Westeros thanks to dragons and for most of the time they kept it that way because of them. A wise conqueror would have made sure that the prime property (ie Westerlands and possibly a big chunk of the Reach) would end under his direct control. After all the Gardeners were gone, the Lannisters were defeated and both regions were desperate to stop the war. Unfortunately for the Targs, Aegon never felt the need to have a plan B just in case Dragons stopped functioning (if it was for him KL didn’t had walls + the KG would have never existed either), opting instead for some craphole near to Dragonstone instead. That left the Targs incredibly vulnerable when dragons became extinct. After the dragons died, the Targs found it very difficult to adapt to new circumstances. They kept intermarrying with one another (which made sense in a bid to keep the dragon riding secrets within the family but not now) instead of focusing in marrying within the biggest families in Westeros.

Both decisions proved costly. During Robert’s rebellion The Lannisters stayed neutral only to backstab the king afterwards while Mace spent most of his time pissing at some empty fortress walls. Imagine how the war would have turned if Rhaegar and Selmy had complete control over the majority of both forces.

 To conclude, the Baratheon dynasty lasted for a ridiculously short period of time. However they couldn't rely on dragons and they weren't in any position to shape the Kingdom as they wanted in the way Aegon could. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 

@devilish

Here, check out this post by Sweetsunray. She has broken down the time line.

 

Well I find sweetsunray post a bit controversial. If that's the case

a- Cersei might not have been trying to kill Robert at all. Lets face it, Lancel had the motive (ie he's been insulted for days/months/years), the weapon (ie he's the king's cupbearer) and the opportunity to kill Robert with or without the queen's help + he's a Lannister (ie a spiteful creature whose loaded and who likes to remind others that they likes to remind others that they do like to pay debts)

b- Cersei might have planned to kill Robert beforehand before Ned gave her the news. The next question to that comes natural. Why? Robert and Cersei's marriage was over long before that. Yet, the king's life was never under threat. Could it be that the queen was afriad that Ned might eventually convince Robert to take drastic actions against the Lannisters? In that case, the Starks clumbsy diplomatic actions (ie their direwolf assaulting Joffrey, Cat kidnapping Tyrion and take him to the Vale etc) could potentially trigger Cersei's paranoia way before Ned dropped the mother of all threats. 

Come to think of it, there was a plan backed by Renly to replace Cersei with Margaery, something the Lannisters might have been aware of but discarded as unimportant. Robert never showed any interest in sleeping with a Tyrell let alone make her queen. However would that change, if lets say, Lyanna's own niece is made available?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, devilish said:

Well I find sweetsunray post a bit controversial. If that's the case

Well I'm not sure what you find controversial about Sweetsunray's post, it's just a strait forward timeline. Perhaps you mean the implications are controversial?

Quote

b- Cersei might have planned to kill Robert beforehand before Ned gave her the news. The next question to that comes natural. Why? Robert and Cersei's marriage was over long before that. Yet, the king's life was never under threat. Could it be that the queen was afriad that Ned might eventually convince Robert to take drastic actions against the Lannisters? In that case, the Starks clumbsy diplomatic actions (ie their direwolf assaulting Joffrey, Cat kidnapping Tyrion and take him to the Vale etc) could potentially trigger Cersei's paranoia way before Ned dropped the mother of all threats. 

I don't see option a being very likely, so I'm going to have to go with b. However, what I'm sure won't come as a surprise to you, I cannot agree with the bolded.

I would suspect that the business with Jon Arryn and Stannis, and even Bran perhaps, is what spooked her.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Well I'm not sure what you find controversial about Sweetsunray's post, it's just a strait forward timeline. Perhaps you mean the implications are controversial?

I don't see option a being very likely, so I'm going to have to go with b. However, what I'm sure won't come as a surprise to you, I cannot agree with the bolded.

I would suspect that the business with Jon Arryn and Stannis, and even Bran perhaps, is what spooked her.

 

The timeline provided by sweetsunray does not take in consideration the trauma those involved had at the time.  A family member of mine died in an accident few years ago. Despite most of my family were there almost immediately, we still argue on what exactly happened, how long it took and how.. I assure you that its an extremely stressful period were people can easily make mistakes or rely on false memories that may even last a lifetime,. 

 The bolded part was meant to be seen from Cersei's eyes. As readers, we know what happened. However as a paranoic mother who see enemies everywhere and was extremely protective towards her son, the direwolf attack must have been interpreted as an attempt to have the crown prince killed. The events that happened afterwards (not only the Starks hostility towards the Lannisters but also Robert's bro love to Ned and how he stormed Winterfell to visit Lyanna's tomb) might have enforced her twisted thinking. Lets face it, it doesn't take alot to spook Cersei up.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, devilish said:

The timeline provided by sweetsunray does not take in consideration the trauma those involved had at the time.  A family member of mine died in an accident few years ago. Despite most of my family were there almost immediately, we still argue on what exactly happened, how long it took and how.. I assure you that its an extremely stressful period were people can easily make mistakes or rely on false memories that may even last a lifetime,. 

While I fully acknowledge that this is often the case with individuals dealing with trauma and stressful situations, we have to keep in mind that this is a work of literature, and allthough GRRM is very meticulous with the details, he is not going to always account for such things. I find it unlikely that he has deliberately skewed Renly's statement of how long it took them to get back.

Also, in these cases, it would be more common for one to perceive time incorrectly by the minutes or hours - especially right around the time of the of the incident happening - but to mis-remember how long a two day trip took to the extent that is going to have any effect on the time line in relation to this discussion isn't very probable.

And let's say we do account for some inaccuracies in the story we are given, the sequence of events happening are close enough to each other that it's really not going to make a difference. For instance, let's say it only took a day for them to get back instead of two days. Cercei still has to send out this message, and have it find and reach Lancel, and then have him implement this plan, all within less than a day. And let me remind you of a comment you yourself just recently made.

Quote

Please understand that GOT is built around the medieval setup. Communication is terribly slow,

I think it is fairly safe to assume that there is no way Cercei could have put her plan in effect after the conversation with Ned.

Quote

 The bolded part was meant to be seen from Cersei's eyes. 

Ah ok, my mistake. I can accept that then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Oh really? Please do direct me to these posts, I would love to see them. You obviously aren't thinking of the right person. Or perhaps you're confusing Targs with d$d? I do hate me them two with quite a passion, but I assure you, I don't hate any GRRM created characters, or families.

Ah, I completely mistook you for another user whom I knew to be biased against the targs.That was an oversight on my part, your profile pictures looked similar and I thought it was him.

Sorry for the bother and I apologize if I caused any offence. Peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Yucef Menaerys said:

Ah, I completely mistook you for another user whom I knew to be biased against the targs.That was an oversight on my part, your profile pictures looked similar and I thought it was him.

Sorry for the bother and I apologize if I caused any offence. Peace

Thank you, I appreciate the apology. Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Well you're the one that claimed that Cersei was thinking about something that she wasn't. There is a reason that GRRM uses italics to note what are the actual thoughts of the characters.

What a ludicrous claim. You think that the point of that passage - which doesn't mention a single thing about who murdered Arryn - is suppose to make us think that Cercei had not implied to Pycelle that she wanted Arryn dead? What a joke!! Do you know the insurmountable amount of verified facts that I could deny, just on the basis that a character doesn't think about it?

Tell me, what was the point in GRRM having Pycelle say what he did, if it wasn't to inform the readers that Cercei wanted Arryn dead, and that she interfered with his recovery?

And to be honest, not only is this an inappropriate thread to be having this debate, but I really couldn't care less if Pycelle's statement is proof or not to implicate Cercei in Arryn's death. It's heavily implied that this is the case, and it really has no bearing on anything at all. The whole point of me bringing it up was to demonstrate the fact that Robert was clueless to all the scheming and corruption happening right under his nose; whether it be Cercei or Littlefinger really doesn't make a difference.

The point is having Pycelle show that Cersei wanted him dead but didn't order it. Pretty much what the quote says. We also learn that Stannis thinks Cersei murdered Jon Arryn. Her own POV says she wanted him gone/dead/murdered/whatever. Don't think GRRM would plant two definite seeds like that just prove the thought wrong. Normally he does the opposite (eg Tyrion and Jaime with Joff's order to kill Bran or Jaime and Loras both coming to believe Brienne didn't murder Renly).

Robert might have been clueless how to handle the scheming or corruption well, but he was absolutely aware of the scheming and the corruption, if not the entire scope of either or both. We get that from both his mouth and Stannis' mouth.

“Two men who were prepared to come forward died suddenly on their rounds.” Stannis narrowed his eyes. “Do not trifle with me, my lord. I saw the proof Jon Arryn laid before the small council. If I had been king you would have lost more than your office, I promise you, but Robert shrugged away your little lapses. ‘They all steal,’ I recall him saying. ‘Better a thief we know than one we don’t, the next man might be worse.’ Lord Petyr’s words in my brother’s mouth, I’ll warrant. Littlefinger had a nose for gold, and I’m certain he arranged matters so the crown profited as much from your corruption as you did yourself.”

- Stannis

“And the people … there is no end of them. I sit on that damnable iron chair and listen to them complain until my mind is numb and my ass is raw. They all want something, money or land or justice. The lies they tell … and my lords and ladies are no better. I am surrounded by flatterers and fools. It can drive a man to madness, Ned. Half of them don’t dare tell me the truth, and the other half can’t find it.”

- Robert

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

The point is having Pycelle show that Cersei wanted him dead but didn't order it. Pretty much what the quote says.

Jesus man!! Are we still having this argument? Yes, obviously she didn't order it. That's why Pycelle had to deduce this from the look she gave him. Really, what's your point? What are you getting at? Does it matter? She had a part to play in it. She wanted him dead, and that is the reason Pycelle let him die...Just as we should do with this discussion.

Quote

Robert might have been clueless how to handle the scheming or corruption well, but he was absolutely aware of the scheming and the corruption, if not the entire scope of either or both. We get that from both his mouth and Stannis' mouth.

Yes, as per my quote:.  

'Robert is clueless and/or dismisive of all of this.'

Or are you trying to say he was aware of everything? 'Cause if you are, you would be wrong. Perhaps on some level he had some suspicion of certain things, but he certainly didn't know everything.

And he wasn't really clueless on how to handle it. He was dismisive of most of it, and really didn't give two F*cks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Jesus man!! Are we still having this argument? Yes, obviously she didn't order it. That's why Pycelle had to deduce this from the look she gave him. Really, what's your point? What are you getting at? Does it matter? She had a part to play in it. She wanted him dead, and that is the reason Pycelle let him die...Just as we should do with this discussion.

Yes, as per my quote:.  

'Robert is clueless and/or dismisive of all of this.'

Or are you trying to say he was aware of everything? 'Cause if you are, you would be wrong. Perhaps on some level he had some suspicion of certain things, but he certainly didn't know everything.

And he wasn't really clueless on how to handle it. He was dismisive of most of it, and really didn't give two F*cks.

There is a huge difference in being actively involved in someone's death and someone killing someone because they think you want it. One is a crime. The other is not. Pretty huge distinction.

I hadn't seen the part where you said dismissive. I was responding to your quote of mine, not your response to devilish. I doubt he knew the specifics. He just saw himself in a shitty spot, surrounded by people he didn't trust, with a Targaryen threat across the narrow sea and without any friends. I'd say dismissive for sure but definitely not clueless. It's not really paranoia if everyone is out to get you, and he was getting set up on half a dozen fronts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Darkstream said:

And the real reason your precious Targ is not the rightful heir, is because her family lost it by rights of conquest. The same method they used to gain it.

One could say the same about Renly vs. Stannis.  The real reason precious Renly is not the rightful heir, is because he lost it by rights of conquest (to Stannis, who had the ace up his sleeve, 'the red hawk').  The same method Renly used to gain it, following their elder brother Robert's example.

Once social relations degenerate to a simple equation of 'might makes right,' then anything goes.  Isn't that's what's being argued here?

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Jesus man!! Are we still having this argument? Yes, obviously she didn't order it. That's why Pycelle had to deduce this from the look she gave him. Really, what's your point? What are you getting at? Does it matter? She had a part to play in it. She wanted him dead, and that is the reason Pycelle let him die...Just as we should do with this discussion.

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 26, 2017 at 2:53 AM, devilish said:

@Darkstream

He doesn’t know if Joffrey was lying or not he wasn’t there.

He knew.

Game of Thrones - Eddard VII

"I am sorry for your girl, Ned. Truly. About the wolf, I mean. My son was lying, I'd stake my soul on it. My son … you love your children, don't you?"

A Game of Thrones - Eddard VII 

"Have you forgotten how wild you were at his age?"

"It would not trouble me if the boy was wild, Ned. You don't know him as I do." He sighed and shook his head.

Quote

It was out of his hands. Cat kidnaps Tyrion while in her father lands, then vanishes in thin air, only to appear at the Vale (her sister’s lands). Jamie assaults Ned and then vanishes in the Westerlands. 

He's the King, It's not out of his hands. Jaimie had several of Ned's men murdered, and assaulted the hand of the King; Extremely serious crimes. He could have sent out a royal decree calling for the arrest of Jaimie - If not for his head.

And I'm aware of why he couldn't do that, but that shouldn't be a problem for a King who has made several strategic allies through his commendable diplomatic savvy.

Quote

The show portrays that very well, when Cat meets Tyrion in the tavern and a Frey takes Cat Stark side (I don’t know if the books back that up). The Frey may hate the Tullys and viceversa but that was their Lady’s order which was directed against a frigging foreigner who is supposed to have tried to kill her child.  If Robert himself was there he would have ended up arrested just the same.

Just so I'm sure I understand you correctly, 'cause it seems to me that I'm missing something here. Are you saying that Robert, the King...Robert, would have been arrested by the Frey's, on Cat's orders?!? I'm sure I must be reading this incorrectly.

Quote

 Same thing would have happened if Robert popped in daddy in law’s military camp searching for missing Jamie. Do you seriously believe that the Lannister army would turn against the Great Tywin Lannister and in favour of this usurper? Not in a million years.

Outside the crownlands Robert is NOTHING. He needs the support of his Wardens and LPs to rule. With Hoster dying and the Vale in the hands of a scared boy, Robert was not in a position to antagonise Tywin. Doing so would look as if Robert was trying to find a way out from paying his debt to the Lannisters which would irk the Tyrells and the Iron Bank. Robert made that pretty clear to Ned but he refused to listen.

The thing about your argument here is that you are not making a case for someone who has made intelligent and advantageous alliances through his supposed diplomatic skills. What you are describing is someone who has been used, taken advantage of, and is now a powerless puppet of those whom he made these diplomatic relations with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-4-26 at 5:14 PM, Darkstream said:

While I fully acknowledge that this is often the case with individuals dealing with trauma and stressful situations, we have to keep in mind that this is a work of literature, and allthough GRRM is very meticulous with the details, he is not going to always account for such things. I find it unlikely that he has deliberately skewed Renly's statement of how long it took them to get back.

Also, in these cases, it would be more common for one to perceive time incorrectly by the minutes or hours - especially right around the time of the of the incident happening - but to mis-remember how long a two day trip took to the extent that is going to have any effect on the time line in relation to this discussion isn't very probable.

And let's say we do account for some inaccuracies in the story we are given, the sequence of events happening are close enough to each other that it's really not going to make a difference. For instance, let's say it only took a day for them to get back instead of two days. Cercei still has to send out this message, and have it find and reach Lancel, and then have him implement this plan, all within less than a day. And let me remind you of a comment you yourself just recently made.

I think it is fairly safe to assume that there is no way Cercei could have put her plan in effect after the conversation with Ned.

Ah ok, my mistake. I can accept that then.

GRRM is meticulous in portraying his story as realistic as possible. It was an intense period of time at court. The King was dying, 2 of the strongest houses in Westeros was at each other’s neck and the whole political framework was going to implode. Renly’s future was going to be decided in the next few hours.  The right actions/words could see him being crowned as king with the Tyrells and the Stark at his side. On the other hand the wrong actions/words could see him dead. I doubt that Renly could care less at the exact time his brother was hurt.


Irrespective of that argument, there’s no denying that the Lannisters were behind Robert’s death and what caused it, were not Robert’s actions but the Starks. Robert had lived with Cersei for more than a decade and no Lannister had ever tried to kill him before. I also find it difficult to blame him for Cersei’s or Joffrey’s actions.


A-    Cersei had been a destructive force long before she met Robert and remained so after the stag died. Prior to her marriage she screwed the Lannisters dynasty by convincing Jamie to join the KG. After  Robert’s death her hatred towards Tyrion ended up pitting the two lions with some brains against one another which caused Tywin’s death and Tyrion’s exile. That was not all, she turned her sights against Margaery which caused great damage between the lions and the rose + she armed the faith of the 7. You can’t blame Robert for not being able to succeed were Tywin, Tommen, Tyrion and the Tyrells had failed.


B-    There’s no denying that Joffrey was a horrible king and Robert was absent through his entire upbringing. However it’s also true that Renly, Myrcella and Tommen were raised under Robert’s tutelage and all of them turned out to be good kids.  Not to forget that GRRM has a special antipathy towards the product of incest and had shown that time and time again with Targs and the Lannisters (Tywin married his first cousin)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, devilish said:

Not to forget that GRRM has a special antipathy towards the product of incest and had shown that time and time again with Targs and the Lannisters (Tywin married his first cousin)

GRRM has a special antipathy to Danaerys, the daughter of  King Aerys II Targaryen and his sister-wife, Queen Rhaella?

If you mean towards her brother, Viserys of the House Targaryen, the Third of His Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm aka The Beggar King, I could go along with that.

Indeed, Lord Tywin married his cousin Johanna Lannister. How do you see this antipathy played out with Tyrion Lannister, their son?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Prof. Cecily said:

GRRM has a special antipathy to Danaerys, the daughter of  King Aerys II Targaryen and his sister-wife, Queen Rhaella?

If you mean towards her brother, Viserys of the House Targaryen, the Third of His Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm aka The Beggar King, I could go along with that.

Indeed, Lord Tywin married his cousin Johanna Lannister. How do you see this antipathy played out with Tyrion Lannister, their son?

GRRM had stressed time and time again that products of incest = problems. These problems are manifested either through physical 'defects' (Tyrion or Maelys) or mental disturbance (often paranoia) He did that with a number of Targ children (including Aerys) with Joanna's siblings (Cersei) and with Jamie/Cersei offspring (Joffrey).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...