why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

[Universal Sword Donor]

9 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

Sigh...Are we still talking about this?

In a nutshell, why does no one acknowledge that Stannis did exactly what Renly did -- he just did it better.  His hawk flew higher, so where is the love for his antisocial genius in toppling his brother in one fell swoop?

'Eating the peach' is a symbol for fratricide and usurpation and all those 'glorious' Promethean activities, in which we revel in the egoistic ecstasy of the 'win win win' at all costs, including to the detriment of our filial and more generally prosocial relations.  Like Robert, Renly was prepared to do it; he taunted Stannis to try it -- are you man enough to take a bite of this peach brother, before it's too late and the darkness closes on you (like, say, tomorrow on the battlefield when I'm gonna finish you off, so stew on that...) -- so Stannis, baited, did.  What are we arguing about the merits of the meritocracy for?  Renly was prepared to kill his brother, yet we're still arguing about his position in the popularity stakes, and how his charisma somehow excuses his behavior.  Renly failed to stick by the rules, and paid for it.  That's the risk of overstepping your purview and flouting social norms -- sometimes it backfires.

Renly definitely paid for raising an army to defend himself. He also wasn't planning on attacking Stannis until Stannis attacked him. If Renly had indeed succeeded there is no way he could have or would have given up the throne to Stannis, but as we've pointed out jumping one spot or 4 hardly matters.

[John Doe]

16 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Renly definitely paid for raising an army to defend himself. He also wasn't planning on attacking Stannis until Stannis attacked him. If Renly had indeed succeeded there is no way he could have or would have given up the throne to Stannis, but as we've pointed out jumping one spot or 4 hardly matters.

He raised an army to usurp the throne and butcher his own brother. Good thing the rightful king punished him for that. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 minutes ago, John Doe said:

He raised an army to usurp the throne and butcher his own brother. Good thing the rightful king punished him for that. 

I'd love to see where it's even implied he raised his army to butcher his own brother. Words out of his own mouth expect the silent Stannis to ally with his cause:

“I have twice that number here,” Renly said, “and this is only part of my strength. Mace Tyrell remains at Highgarden with another ten thousand, I have a strong garrison holding Storm’s End, and soon enough the Dornishmen will join me with all their power. And never forget my brother Stannis, who holds Dragonstone and commands the lords of the narrow sea.”

It would be rather baffling to lump Stannis, a purported enemy, in with his current allies and expectant allies, no?

[Ser Loras The Gay]

4 minutes ago, John Doe said:

He raised an army to usurp the throne and butcher his own brother. Good thing the rightful king punished him for that. 

Three things:
1) Renly was trying to usurp the throne, plain and simple.
2) He never intented to kill his brother, his brother was stubborn and was in his way. He didn't raise an army with the INTENT of killing his brother, fuck off.
3) It doens't matter who was right, but who had the best claim. Renly had the bigger army, Stannis had a good motive. Stannis couldn't prove, but he has the motive right. Renly had support and a bigger army. Let's stop discussing this. Please.

[John Doe]

5 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Stannis' claim is better IF and only IF the three children on the throne are proven illegitimate. He can't. Ergo it isn't. So yes he doesn't put together a good claim for kingship based on Robb's word, as I said.

Again, difference between self defense vs I did because I could. Stannis provides a narrative that makes him king, Renly doesn't. If you believe Stannis, he is the rightful king, if you don't, Joffrey is. However, Renly never even comes close to being king. Renly is in no scenario king.

Your defense that he tried to steal the throne from four people rather than just one is incredibly weak and doesn't make any sense as a defense, or his death any less justified. 

 

5 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

The claim in incredibly weak. It being true does not make it any stronger as it sounds suspicious and opportunistic with Stannis offering no evidence to the realm nor did he offer this information to the his brother the King while he was alive. 

 

Quote

Again, difference between self defense vs I did because I could.

6 hours ago, khal drogon said:

Renly did provide an argument. He will get rid of the Lannisters and he had the most power to do so. He tried to do it Robert's way. That is unpopular rulers, more personal popularity, less claim to the throne. He tried to usurp the same way Robert usurped the throne.

This is not a claim. Robert was made king by the seven kingdoms kneeling to him and acknowledging him as such. Renly only had the Reach and the Stormlands and four other kings to beat before he could even dream of being crowned in such a fashion. 

Also, Robert did justify his claim by his relation to the old ruling dynasty, and the circumstances of his rebellion were drastically different. Everyone talking about Renly's claim said that he had no claim, not acknowledging this as a reader doesn't make his attempt at taking the throne justified. 

[John Doe]

1 minute ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

Three things:
1) Renly was trying to usurp the throne, plain and simple.
2) He never intented to kill his brother, his brother was stubborn and was in his way. He didn't raise an army with the INTENT of killing his brother, fuck off.
3) It doens't matter who was right, but who had the best claim. Renly had the bigger army, Stannis had a good motive. Stannis couldn't prove, but he has the motive right. Renly had support and a bigger army. Let's stop discussing this. Please.

1) Exactly, so he had his death coming. 

2) Well, he did raise the army with the intent to kill his notoriously unyielding, law-obsessed brother unless he gave up his rights in favor of Renly, so there's that.  

3) I agree with you completely, but there's somehow still a debate concerning who had a good claim when it's literally spelled out in the books that he had none aside from his army.

2 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I'd love to see where it's even implied he raised his army to butcher his own brother. Words out of his own mouth expect the silent Stannis to ally with his cause:

“I have twice that number here,” Renly said, “and this is only part of my strength. Mace Tyrell remains at Highgarden with another ten thousand, I have a strong garrison holding Storm’s End, and soon enough the Dornishmen will join me with all their power. And never forget my brother Stannis, who holds Dragonstone and commands the lords of the narrow sea.”

It would be rather baffling to lump Stannis, a purported enemy, in with his current allies and expectant allies, no?

Words of his own mouth aren't worth much when we see him lying about his strenght in the same book. But sure he expected him to side with him. That's why every other lord expected word from Stannis instead of from Renly, and that's why renly said this: 

 

Quote

"My brother has not changed," their young king told them as Brienne unfastened his cloak and lifted the gold-and-jade crown from his brow. "Castles and courtesies will not appease him, he must have blood. Well, I am of a mind to grant his wish."

and while Stannis has a reputation like this: 

Quote

"And if he yields?" Lord Tarly asked.

"Yields?" Lord Rowan laughed.

If you think Renly was taken aback by all of this, he must have been stupid. And it doesn't fit what he's saying about his brother anyway,

[Lord Varys]

49 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Except Stannis is correct, and doing what he believes is lawful and right. Renly is knowingly and willfully committing a deplorable crime. That is far from EXACTLY THE SAME THING.

Stannis has no proof that Cersei's children aren't Robert's. And even if he did - that's not his fucking business. He could talk to Robert about his suspicions, but only the king has a right to judge the queen or the members of his family. Since Stannis the Coward failed to actually talk to his royal brother (just as Eddard the Coward did) he should have kept his fucking mouth and done homage to King Joffrey like a proper little uncle.

Joff was still the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne upon King Robert's death and it is not up to Stannis or anyone to challenge that. Just as Benjen Stark has no right to come down from the Wall and question the parentage of Catelyn's children in the wake of Ned's death.

If and as long the king acknowledges the children of the queen as his own children they are his own children, regardless who the hell actually fathered them.

Stannis has a better reasoning and perhaps even a better motivation to claim the throne than Renly but he is still a thankless, ambitious, little traitor. Cersei was Robert's queen. And Cersei's children are Robert's children even if he didn't father them. And what does Stannis want to do them all? He wants to kill them.

Renly doesn't want to kill Stannis, at least not at first (but he has no issues with that once Stannis decides to press the issue), but he sure as hell was prepared to kill Cersei - his sister-in-law - as well as Robert's children, his nephews and niece. There is no way 'King Renly' could have ruled without killing Cersei's children. He was an open usurper. He may have been able to keep Stannis alive since nobody liked him and very few people would have declared for him but Stannis may have been forced to join the NW in the wake of a victorious Renly. Even if Stannis had done homage to Renly as his king he was still Renly's older brother and just as the people would have remembered that Maester Aemon was Egg's older brother the people who may have issues with 'King Renly' may have remembered that the man had an older brother who had a better claim to the throne.

But Renly is more honest than Stannis. He blatantly says he wants to be king because he wants to be king. Stannis lies about that. No man would act the way he does if he didn't want to be king. If you don't want to be you just ABDICATE. Or don't even CLAIM THE THRONE IN THE FIRST PLACE, using some rumors you can't prove as pretext (nobody was offering the crown to Stannis, he could have just stayed on Dragonstone, doing nothing). Stannis knows nobody likes him. Stannis knows nobody wants him as king. Yet still he insists that he is king, that he must be king because 'of the law'. Right. The same 'law' that made his brother Robert king, I take it?

No man would use evil sorcery and foul murder to gain a crown he doesn't want to wear. Stannis sure as hell complains all the time but he still wants to be king. Else he would do something else.

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

When Jon Aryn was murdered, in the interest of self preservation, fearing that his own life was in danger, he fled to Dragonstone knowing that without proof, his dear brother would ignore and belittle his accusations as rumors that served his own interests.

That is crap. Stannis wasn't afraid of Cersei or 'the Lannisters'. He isn't afraid of Tywin, he isn't afraid of Ramsay, he isn't afraid of death. The man wasn't even twenty yet and watched men starve to death at Storm's End. He wasn't afraid of some blond woman.

He was pissed that his drunk of a brother (whom he envied for his social skills and prowess on the battlefield) decided to make his best buddy Ned (a rival for Robert's affection in Stannis' own youth, the reason why he also doesn't like Ned) his new Hand rather than him.

Stannis was the fucking servant of his royal brother. The man raised him high, made him a great lord of the Realm, gave him the ancient seat of the Targaryens, formerly held by the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne, when Stannis would have held nothing in his own right whatsoever. He was a second son, destined to be nothing but a knight in the service of his brother.

Stannis had a duty to his brother. Just as a soldier has the duty to go to his superior and report to him some bad news Stannis had the duty to speak to Robert about his suspicions regarding Cersei, her children, and Jaime. Instead he did nothing. Stannis, a man who professes he always does his duty and abide the law, etc. delivered his royal brother to his enemies.

That is treason by omission. Stannis himself would take the head of any man who learned that Selyse committed adultery and *forgot* to tell him about that as quickly as possible. He demands that people be honest to him at all times. Yet Stannis was never honest to Robert.

Granted, he may have been right that Robert would not listen to him. But that wasn't Stannis call to make. A soldier goes to his commanding officer and tells him the truth as he sees it. He does not presume to interpret said truth for his commanding officer.

If Stannis was a good and honorable man he would have gone to Robert and he would have told him about his suspicions. He would also have told him about his suspicions about the death of Jon Arryn and the fact that he thought Robert's own life was in danger.

But Stannis has very little of Davos in him.

[John Doe]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

(..)

You sound incredibly biased. Perhaps some sound arguments would help the discussion more?

[Darkstream]

1 hour ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You guys keep claiming that Renly failed in his duty to his rightful king. If Renly feels his rightful king isn't Stannis but rather Joffrey, then you guys are claiming Stannis was, which you are and have been.

Regardless of Stannis' ill conceived course of action while on Dragonstone, he presented his findings and accusations to Renly during their parlay - of which Renly was already aware of.

I'm aware of the circumstances, and the practicality of Renly standing down at this point, but that doesn't change the fact that from this point on, Renly did fail in his duty to the rightful King.

Quote

None of us is taking this argument from the reader's perspective. We are taking it from the in-world perspective.

Either way, Stannis' claim is still stronger than Renly's, regardless if anyone believes Stannis' accusations or not.

And if your arguing the perception of in world views, neither of them had any claim whatsoever.

[Ser Loras The Gay]

3 minutes ago, John Doe said:

2) Well, he did raise the army with the intent to kill his notoriously unyielding, law-obsessed brother unless he gave up his rights in favor of Renly, so there's that.  

3) I agree with you completely, but there's somehow still a debate concerning who had a good claim when it's literally spelled out in the books that he had none aside from his army.

We're arguing semantics. When you say claim I read "most chance to successed". And I still not agree with your statement. He didn't raise the army with THAT INTENT. But the consequence of having an army and the stubborness of his brother is that he has to kill him. Those are not the same thing. One states that he's cold hearted mother fucker and wants to kill his brother without good reason and the other states that everything could be fine if Stannis had agreed with Renly to form an alliance and step down, mostly because Renly had the most numbers even not having the best claim. Simply as that.

[John Doe]

Just now, Ser Loras The Gay said:

We're arguing semantics. When you say claim I read "most chance to successed". And I still not agree with your statement. He didn't raise the army with THAT INTENT. But the consequence of having an army and the stubborness of his brother is that he has to kill him. Those are not the same thing. One states that he's cold hearted mother fucker and wants to kill his brother without good reason and the other states that everything could be fine if Stannis had agreed with Renly to form an alliance and step down, mostly because Renly had the most numbers even not having the best claim. Simply as that.

Yes, but that's like me expecting you to hand me all your possessions in exchange for friendship as long as I have enough other friends threatening you if you don't. This is basically the situation Renly put Stannis in. It's not unreasonable of you to defend yourself against my actions in this scenario.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, John Doe said:

You sound incredibly biased. Perhaps some sound arguments would help the discussion more?

Honestly you read what I wrote in detail and thought about it in, what, two minutes? I'm impressed.

I like Stannis, but I know he is a prick and an ass who is capable and willing to murder his entire family to get what he (allegedly) doesn't want, not to mention a man who let his brother die.

[Bernie Mac]

12 minutes ago, John Doe said:

He raised an army to usurp the throne and butcher his own brother. Good thing the rightful king punished him for that. 

He raised an army to usurp the throne, not to butcher his brother. Stannis had attacked his lands, was raising up Renly's forests to build siege weapons against Renly. Stannis was the attacker and Renly even charitably was willing to let Stannis have Storm's End. 

Stannis wanted a fight, Renly, despite overwhelmingly outpowering his older brother, wanted a peaceful resolution. 

 

7 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Everyone around Renly said he had no claim, not acknowledging this as a reader doesn't make his attempt at taking the throne justified. 

Who around Renly says that? 

Of course Renly has a claim, it is behind his nephews and brother but there is still a claim. That is the  reason why Mace is supporting him, because he has a claim to the Throne

 

2 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Regardless of Stannis' ill conceived course of action while on Dragonstone, he presented his findings and accusations to Renly during their parlay -

No, he did not. He claimed that he was King and their nephes were bastards. Nothing more. 

2 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 

 

 

of which Renly was already aware of.

Of Stannis' letter? Yes, he was aware of the tale Stannis was telling the realm.He was also aware of the story of Patchface cuckolding Stannis. One is as believable as the other. 

2 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

I'm aware of the circumstances, and the practicality of Renly standing down at this point, but that doesn't change the fact that from this point on, Renly did fail in his duty to the rightful King.

Yes. In his mind he failed in his duty to Joffrey, not Stannis. 

 

[Ser Loras The Gay]

3 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Yes, but that's like me expecting you to hand me all your possessions in exchange for friendship as long as I have enough other friends threatening you if you don't. This is basically the situation Renly put Stannis in. It's not unreasonable of you to defend yourself against my actions in this scenario.

You're exxagerating the situation, but yeah. The situation was bad. But it was bad for either side. If Renly decided to go along with Stannis plan he loses all his support (because they married the wrong guy with their daughter, Margaery). And he loses the chance of being king. So it's essencially a zero sum game for them.

[John Doe]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Honestly you read what I wrote in detail and thought about it in, what, two minutes? I'm impressed.

I like Stannis, but I know he is a prick and an ass who is capable and willing to murder his entire family to get what he (allegedly) doesn't want, not to mention a man who let his brother die.

That's because your points (with some I agree, with some I disagree) don't really adress the debate of who was justified in their conflict, Renly or Stannis, which is as I understand the central question of this thread.  No matter how convincing you find the evidence of Robert's children being bastards, that does not justify Renly crowning himself before him. 

 

11 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

He raised an army to usurp the throne, not to butcher his brother. Stannis had attacked his lands, was raising up Renly's forests to build siege weapons against Renly. Stannis was the attacker and Renly even charitably was willing to let Stannis have Storm's End. 

Stannis wanted a fight, Renly, despite overwhelmingly outpowering his older brother, wanted a peaceful resolution. 

 

Who around Renly says that? 

Of course Renly has a claim, it is behind his nephews and brother but there is still a claim. That is the  reason why Mace is supporting him, because he has a claim to the Throne

 

Renly had tried to take his brother's crown, so he was the attacker in practice.

Also, I edited, I meant people actually discussing his claim. Olenna did it, and Robb dismissed it repeatedly: 

 

Quote

"Ser Edmure told me. I am sorry, Mother … for Lord Hoster and for you. Yet first we must meet. We've had word from the south. Renly Baratheon has claimed his brother's crown."

 

 

[John Doe]

3 minutes ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

You're exxagerating the situation, but yeah. The situation was bad. But it was bad for either side. If Renly decided to go along with Stannis plan he loses all his support (because they married the wrong guy with their daughter, Margaery). And he loses the chance of being king. So it's essencially a zero sum game for them.

I understand the dilemma Renly had. I just want to challenge OP's notion that this was Stannis mistake, because Renly was the one to violate his rights first(since no matter whether you accept Joffrey as being first in line or not, Stannis comes before Renly), not the other way around. Renly threw the first stone, both could have avoided the resulting conflict several times, yet they didn't and Stannis won, it's as simple as that.

[Darkstream]

14 minutes ago, John Doe said:

You sound incredibly biased. 

 

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Honestly you read what I wrote in detail and thought about it in, what, two minutes? I'm impressed.

Heh, I haven't read his looong ass comments yet, and have come to the same conclusion.

Your reputation has preceded you Lord Varys.

[Darkstream]

23 minutes ago, Ser Loras The Gay said:

We're arguing semantics. When you say claim I read "most chance to successed".

You say semantics, I say blatant disregard for the meaning of 'claim'.

Quote

 

 But the consequence of having an army and the stubborness of his brother is that he has to kill him. 

The same can be said the other way around, just substitute 'army' with 'red witch of Rahloo.'

[John Doe]

Oh, and just for reference so that I don't have to repost them all the time, all quotes concerning the legitimacy of Renly's claim: 

 

Quote

"Ser Edmure told me. I am sorry, Mother … for Lord Hoster and for you. Yet first we must meet. We've had word from the south. Renly Baratheon has claimed his brother's crown."

"Renly?" she said, shocked. "I had thought, surely it would be Lord Stannis …"

 

Quote

hat is what we shall win if we join with King Renly. What does Lord Stannis have against that, that we should cast it all aside?"

"The right," said Robb stubbornly. Catelyn thought he sounded eerily like his father as he said it.

 

Quote

"It's treason, I warned them, Robert has two sons, and Renly has an older brother, how can he possibly have any claim to that ugly iron chair?

 

[Ser Loras The Gay]

5 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

You say semantics, I say blatant disregard for the meaning of 'claim'.

Change all the times we used the word claim to whatever you want, who fucking cares, the context provides the meaning. Jesus christ.