why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

[John Doe]

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I never said the Tyrells and the Reach and the Stormlords ever stood with Viserys III. But there are a lot of Targaryen loyalists there, still, as there might be elsewhere in the Realm. They will come out of the woodworks now that Prince Aegon has come. The Stormlords will stand with Connington and Aegon, not Stannis or Tommen.

I know that quote, but that is more about Dany's trust in Viserys and Illyrio. It is pretty clear that there still are many Targaryen loyalists in Westeros, in part because they were always on their side, in part because Robert, Joff/Tommen, Stannis, and Renly just sucked as kings. Nobody is looking for them to lead them out of the chaos. They want a real king. A Targaryen.

Maybe there a lot of Targaryen supporters, maybe not, but the burden of proof is on you since you made the claim that there are, and Illyrio whispering in Visys' ear does not really count as strong evidence. Now that the realm has seen years of war and every capable man in Tommen's vicinity has been taken out, of course people are going to follow the good-looking, adult Targaryen prince, but that says more about the desperate situation of the kingdom than about their loyalty to a specific dynasty. And it says very little about who would have supported a Targaryen takeover before the wotfk. The fact that Viserys and Illyrio went to such great lengths to destabilize the Baratheon rule implies that there wouldn't have been that much Targaryen support.

Quote

I'm not denying that people usually don't think the right of primogeniture is important as a principle. But it is nowhere stated that it is a binding law. In fact, for all we know it is just an unwritten custom that the eldest son usually inherits. There are very few written binding laws that bind the elite of Westeros, and there are no laws whatsoever that restrict or regulate the power of the king. He can do everything he can get away with, and the things he cannot do he cannot do because they are forbidden by law but because he lacks the power to see them through.

How often do you need it stated for it to become binding law? We hear multiple characters say that a younger sons follows the older son, that's how Westerosi inheritance works in general. There are few written laws we encounter in the series, but custom is no less important. Heck, show me a written law saying that Westeros is a monarchy. That there isn't a written law doesn't mean that it's not the case legally. That's not how feudalim works. 

 

Again, why would the Karstarks make such an effort if these were not the accpted rules? And why would everyone talking about Renly's claim admit that Stannis has a stronger one if primogeniture wasn't important?

Also, prove your claim that a king can do what he wants to when his role of protector of the realm is even in his title and it is generally accepted that he has a duty towards his subjects. You claim that Robert's rebellion is illegal, so you have to point the law out that makes it illegal, not the other way around. 

Quote

Only traitors follow their liege lord when he commits treason. Renly committed treason, so it was also treason of the Stormlords to support him, just as Mace Tyrell and all the Reach lords in Renly's army committed treason against both Robert and Joffrey when they declared for Renly.

No, Frey even admits that he has sworn oaths to his liege and oaths to his king, both oaths are equally important. Jaime even talks about the dilemma of contradicting oaths in ACOK. Of course Frey was sort of treasonous by trying to get the best deal for himself rather than trying to do "what's right"; but legally, it's a grey area still.

Quote

People in Westeros don't follow their liege lord in general. Quite a few Riverlords, Vale lords, and Stormlanders did support their rightful king during Robert's Rebellion.

In general, they do, those who don't are the exception rather than the rule.

Quote

No, Wyman Manderly actually knows that Bran is alive. He knows as much about him as he knows about Rickon. Rickon may have gone to Skagos but he could also have died there or on the voyage there. Manderly doesn't know that, just as he doesn't know what happened to Bran after Wex lost him. However, he still speaks of the younger Stark son as his liege lord. Read the text. He does not think the cripple is his liege lord.

He does not know where Bran is. That's the difference. He accepts Rickon as his liege because he can reach him in the same way nobody would make Gerion Lannister or the lord of Casterly Rock, as he cannot be found either. Nobody makes lost people their lord, that wouldn't work.

Quote

As other people are pointing out there would have been no regent necessary if Robert had known or believed his children weren't his children. But then he would have ruled on his succession, not Ned or anyone else, and the chances are not that bad that he would have named Renly his heir in such a scenario, not Stannis. He didn't like Stannis, but Renly looked like him and would have had the best chance to help Ned against the Lannisters.

That does not make Joffry's claim any better. Ned had the knowledge and the authority to out Joffry, he was illegally imprisoned. 

Quote

In addition, it is quite clear that the Small Council has to confirm the appointment of the Lord Regent and Protector. Ned was not the regent when Cersei had him imprisoned. The Small Council had not yet confirmed him in his office. That the Small Council can fire and appoint regents is seen in AFfC when Pycelle and Swyft take the regency from Cersei to offer it to Ser Kevan. And now that Kevan is dead the Small Council will name a new Lord Regent, most likely Mace Tyrell.

Is that so? Where does it say that the Small Council has more authority than the king's own will? Please provide a quote. 

Quote

Be that as it may, as Hand Ned certainly had the right to settle a disputed succession. Until a new king was crowned Ned was speaking with the King's Voice there, as does any Hand when the king dies.

However, Ned was still a traitor to his dying friend and king. He forged his last will by changing 'until my son Joffrey comes of age' to 'my heir'. Robert wanted Joffrey to succeed him. Faking the king's last will is treason just as not telling Robert the truth about Cersei and his children is treason by omission, too.

The time to settle the succession would have been when Ned paid his friend and king his last visit. He should have told Robert the truth and then the two friends should have made a plan how to proceed in Robert's absence. If Robert himself had informed key people at his court about his intentions, and given them commands things might have turned out well. Perhaps. If Cersei hadn't acted first.

That Ned changed a word it does not make Cersei ignoring the will any more right though. 

Quote

Robert himself is afraid of Viserys III because he knows he is a usurper. He knows this. He does not think he is 'the rightful king', and neither do the people in his kingdom. People know how he became king.

Show me a quote to prove your point. Where did he say that he was a usurper? Where is the popular sentiment that he is a usurper expressed?

Quote

The fact that Viserys III sucked as person and did live in poverty in exile doesn't mean people wouldn't have welcomed his return. People also repeatedly declared for various Blackfyre pretenders most of which would also not exactly have lived all that prosperous lives in exile, especially not Daemon's grandsons.

This is about the claim, not about the person. And a Targaryen has not just a better claim but also a magical royal name as well as those special royal looks they had. The Targaryens are special as a dynasty, not just because they were kings. And people know that. Any direct male descendant of Aegon the Conqueror would look better than a Baratheon dude.

Who tried to get him back? Heck, he wasn't only ignored for Robert's entire reign,even after Robert's death, who actually considered the Targaryen children across the Narrow Sea even an option? The fact is, Renly and Stannis were considered alternatives to Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella, the Targaryens weren't,The only lord who even seemed to consider them was Doran, and he still made no move to actually help the Targaryens and instead betrothed his son to Myrcella.

 

So it seems the Baratheons were considered viable successors when the Targaryens weren't. 

[Bernie Mac]

20 minutes ago, John Doe said:

 

Is that so? Where does it say that the Small Council has more authority than the king's own will? Please provide a quote. 

That information comes from Ned. 

The need for deceit was a bitter taste in his mouth, but Ned knew he must tread softly here, must keep his counsel and play the game until he was firmly established as regent. There would be time enough to deal with the succession when Arya and Sansa were safely back in Winterfell, and Lord Stannis had returned to King's Landing with all his power.

"I would ask this council to confirm me as Lord Protector, as Robert wished," Ned said, watching their faces, wondering what thoughts hid behind Pycelle's half-closed eyes, Littlefinger's lazy half-smile, and the nervous flutter of Varys's fingers.

His falsified document from the King means nothing without the confirmation from the Small Council

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

There might and there might not be a lot of Targaryen supporters, but the burden of proof is on you since you made the claim that there are, and Illyrio whispering in Varys' ear does not really count as strong evidence.

I never cited that. I pointed out the hints we have for Targaryen sympathies in the books from Dorne to the Wall. The people of Crackclaw Point, the talk of the whores in White Harbor, the toast to Dany's health in Oldtown, the mummer play of the arrogant lions and the dragon from the egg in KL in AFfC, Mathis Rowan's disgust at the discussion of the murders of Aegon and Rhaenys, the Reach's lasting support for Aerys II during the Rebellion, Doran Martell's schemes, a Riverlander peasant idealizing the good old times of King Aerys.

People don't idealized the Beggar King in his exile but they are also not happy with the Baratheon regime, either. Viserys III and Dany would have to fight for their throne, of course, but if they came with an army a lot of people would join them, that's pretty evident.

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Now that the realm has seen years of war and every capable man in Tommen's vicinity has been taken out, of course people are going to follow the good-looking, adult Targaryen prince, but that says more about the desperate situation of the kingdom than about their loyalty to a specific dynasty. And it says very little about who would have supported a Targaryen takeover before the wotfk.

We cannot answer that question but quite a few of the example I gave you above have nothing to do with the War of the Five Kings. It did not affect Dorne, Crackclaw Point, White Harbor, Oldtown, etc.

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

How often do you need it stated for it to become binding law? We hear multiple characters say that a younger sons follows the older son, that's how Westerosi inheritance works in general. There are few written laws we encounter in the series, but custom is no less important. Heck, show me a written law saying that Westeros is a monarchy. That there isn't a written law doesn't mean that it's not the case legally. That's not how feudalim works. 

The point is that primitive societies like feudalism have no written and binding laws. They have a primitive understanding of laws in general. Laws regulate the lives of the lower classes, and they are interpreted by their betters. The lords and kings decide what's done in such societies, not other people who interpret or make law. You use experts to invent or twists precedents to suit your ends, they are not made so that your rule or power is limited or restricted.

Primogeniture certainly is a strong principle but there are no hints that it is principle that is binding in any scenario. And Robert's usurpation dealt a major blow to the entire concept, at least on the royal level. Else the Reach lords and the Stormlords would not have followed Renly in the first place. Robert Baratheon was Lord of Storm's End, too, once, and the king of the Stormlanders, too. It is very odd that the Stormlords went along with Renly's claim in light of the fact that King Robert had two sons. That is, unless we assume they didn't give all that much about the right of primogeniture.

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Again, why would the Karstarks make such an effort if these were not the accpted rules? And why would everyone talking about Renly's claim admit that Stannis has a stronger one if primogeniture wasn't important?

Because people want to look good and cause themselves as little trouble as they can? That is the reason why Arnolf wanted to marry Alys to Cregan.

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Also, prove your claim that a king can do what he wants to when his role of protector of the realm is even in his title and it is generally accepted that he has a duty towards his subjects. You claim that Robert's rebellion is illegal, so you have to point the law out that makes it illegal, not the other way around. 

The king would decide what kind of protection his realm needs, no? He would even decide what 'realm' and 'protection' means. Nothing indicates that anything in Westeros limits the power of the king. Everything is done in the name of the king.

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

No, Frey even admits that he has sworn oaths to his liege and oaths to his king, both oaths are equally important. Jaime even talks about the dilemma of contradicting oaths in ACOK. Of course Frey was sort of treasonous by trying to get the best deal for himself rather than trying to do "what's right"; but legally, it's a grey area still.

That makes no sense. The king is the one in charge, the one who rules over everyone. If there is a conflict of vows a vow to the king always takes precedence because the king is the only who can actually create lords (and attaint them). A lordly liege of another lord holds his title and lands as a fief from the Crown. If the king takes Winterfell from the Starks and gives it to the Boltons he has every right to do so.

Lords are not little kings who rule over the lands the real king has given them in their own right. They do so in the name of the king, and if they displease the king they can be removed. And any vassals they might have have no right or duty to continue to obey and follow such traitors unless they don't want to become traitors themselves.

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

In general, they do, those who don't are the exception rather than the rule.

During the Dance of the Dragons and the Blackfyre rebellions many houses did what they wanted to do, not what they liege lords wanted them to do.

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

He does not know where Bran is. That's the difference. He accepts Rickon as his liege because he can reach him in the same way nobody would make Gerion Lannister or the lord of Casterly Rock, as he cannot be found either. Nobody makes lost people their lord, that wouldn't work.

No, Manderly knows Bran is alive, too, and he has no reason to believe he is dead. He has not yet confirmed that Rickon is still alive (or found him) yet he still speaks of the younger boy as his liege lord. Do you actually read the books?

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

That does not make Joffry's claim any better. Ned had the knowledge and the authority to out Joffry, he was illegally imprisoned. 

He had so, as Hand. But not as regent. He wasn't yet regent when he tried to remove Joffrey. And he could only be regent if Joffrey actually was king since an adult Baratheon would not need a regent so Ned would take and accept the office of the regent under false pretenses.

But be that as it may, Ned actually did betray his dying friend and king on the man's deathbed. Robert Baratheon clearly wanted Joffrey Baratheon to succeed him, and since Ned did not have the guts to tell the truth to Robert he also had no right to forge his will or depose Joffrey. King Robert's wish was that Ned serve his son and heir Joffrey as Hand, Lord Regent, and Protector. And Ned did betray his friend and king Robert in that. He died a traitor to Robert.

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Is that so? Where does it say that the Small Council has more authority than the king's own will? Please provide a quote. 

I suggest you reread the entire chapter where Ned is imprisoned. Ned calls the Small Council to his chambers to have them confirm him as Lord Regent and Protector (which they actually refuse to do). That means he wasn't yet Lord Regent and Protector before he was confirmed in that office. The Small Council has to be asked about that, apparently.

And later the Small Council (Pycelle and Swyft) also take the Regency from Cersei and offer it to Kevan who accepts it. If they didn't have the authority to do so they couldn't have done so. Cersei would have remained the Queen Regent, never mind that she was also imprisoned.

8 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Show me a quote to prove your point. Where did he say that he was a usurper? Where is the popular sentiment that he is a usurper expressed?

Robert himself tells us this repeatedly in AGoT. There are those in the Seven Kingdoms who still call me usurper. Now, he doesn't call himself usurper, true, but he is very much afraid of Viserys III, Drogo, and Dany's and Drogo's child. And the only reason for that is that he knows that the Targaryen claim - even the claim of a child of Dany and Drogo - is much stronger than his own or the claims of his children or brothers.

[sweetsunray]

On 21/5/2017 at 1:52 PM, John Doe said:

Even Varys and Illyrio didn't really give a shit about him, or even his sister, until she turned out to be able to hatch dragon eggs. 

While I nod at plenty of your arguments, I have to correct you however on Illyrio. That man is so misunderstood.

Jon Connington's Lost Lord chapter in aDwD provides independent evidence that Illyrio actually wanted Viserys to get the support of a Dothraki army and join up with the Golden Company to reclaim the Iron Throne. JonCon' words to Lemore spell out that Illyrio didn't expect Viserys to die so young. Tristan Flowers confirms later in the chapter that the original plan was for Viserys to get an army of 50k Dothraki and for the GC to join them once they were heading west. And since Illyrio also refers to Viserys as "the king" in aDwD to Tyrion, he didn't just want to use Viserys as a temporary prop for Aegon either. So, when Belwas claims to Dany that Illyrio (the sentimental one) wept when he learned of the death of Viserys he wasn't just weepong for his plans with Aegon, and when Illyrio tried to convince Viserys to stay in his palace and wait until Drogo would return, that was no reverse-psychology trick. It was genuine. True though about him not caring much for Dany initially, not until she hatches dragons. That we have from the horse's mouth to Tyrion too.

Jorah seems to raise good points about Illyrio from aCoK on, but the truth is that Jorah is the selfish guy who sold out on Viserys, broke his sworn allegiance to him (not saying he didn't have good reasons for it), and is the one who wants Dany all for himself. Just as he's a lying sack of bleep about the Starks and his lost Lordship. Jorah turns out to be quite wrong about Illyrio (and Barristan) on many accounts, based on the plans that the Golden Company and JonCon were told with regards to Viserys.

Turns out that Illyrio was the one man who ever truly backed and believed in Viserys.

[Bernie Mac]

12 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

 

Turns out that Illyrio was the one man who ever truly backed and believed in Viserys.

Or it is more possible that he was hoping that Viserys would invade with a foreign army and weaken Westeros so when his boy Aegon it would be easy pickings. 

 

[sweetsunray]

Just now, Bernie Mac said:

Or it is more possible that he was hoping that Viserys would invade with a foreign army and weaken Westeros so when his boy Aegon it would be easy pickings. 

 

Civil war was to weaken Westeros, not a foreign army. And he still calls Viserys "the king" and was still going to use the Golden Company to join Viserys. It is however most likely that he wished to reveal to Viserys he had found or discovered his nephew was alive too. After Viserys's death the plan was for Dany to help accept Aegon being real, which implies that Viserys was originally meant to take Aegon along and declare him legit, but apparently not "king" since Illyrio calls Viserys the king. JonCon himself, who was raising Aegon himself for years, knows about the contract with the GC for years, makes clear that Illyrio did not expect Viserys to die young. I'm starting to think that Illyrio had some vision of getting a "triarch" installed or something, rather than one "monarch" alone. Hence the 3 dragon eggs he gave to Dany.

[Darkstream]

On 2017-5-21 at 2:13 PM, Lord Varys said:

You are the one who is bringing up a feudal contract that is never mentioned in the books.

So is your argument that there is no feudal contract between the king and his subjects in the books?

Because it doesn't state that water is wet, or that pigs don't fly, however I would assume it's safe to say that water is wet in the woiaf,  and that no pigs - bar the offspring of one having had sex with a dragon - have the ability to fly either.

It is established, common knowledge that the world GRRM has created is based on the real world medieval feudal system, in which there is a feudal contract, and obligations the King must oblige to in service to his subjects. If Aerys's actions didn't violate this agreement, then you would be hard pressed to name something that would. 

Like I've said, sometimes you just have to use common sense. There are many facts throughout the books that are not explicitly stated, that does not mean that the reader should question them, if there is not a legit reason to do so.

Quote

People knew that Aerys II was mad even before that. The entire Realm saw that at Harrenhal. But the execution of Rickard and Brandon did not, in fact, trigger a rebellion yet, nor was the beef of the Starks the madness of King Aerys but rather the actions of Prince Rhaegar.

Well I hope you're not implying that they were perfectly fine with what Aerys did. I'm pretty sure it wasn't something they just forgot about, and were OK with.

And you've just provided additional grounds for them to be pissed off, and justify a rebellion. 

Quote

And who is to say whether a lord has any right to demand a trial-by-combat. Alester Florent didn't even get a trial, never mind a trial-by-combat, and Lysa Arryn also made it clear that Tyrion would only get a trial-by-combat on her terms.

Well Florent, I don't recall demanding a trial by combat, besides his actions were not in question, he did not deny what he did. 

Yeah, and Lysa was as mad as King Aerys, and she still granted him a trial by combat against her own wishes, supporting that it is the law, and she was obligated to do so. 

Quote

There are no hints that there are laws that allow a lord to rebel against his king when the man refuses another lord a trial-by-combat.

Sure there are.

A Feast for Crows - The Captain Of Guards

Quote

"He was slain in single combat during a trial by battle," Prince Doran said. "By law, that is no murder."

Notice Doran says "by law." This indicates that trial combat is covered in the law, not just a custom.

The Hedge Knight

Quote

"You have another choice, though," Prince Baelor said quietly. "Whether it is a better choice or a worse one, I cannot say, but I remind you that any knight accused of a crime has the right to demand trial by combat. So I ask you once again, Ser Duncan the Tall—how good a knight are you? Truly?"

A Game of Thrones - Tyrion V

Quote

"I thank you, my good lady, but I see no need to trouble Lord Robert," Tyrion said politely. "The gods know the truth of my innocence. I will have their verdict, not the judgment of men. I demand trial by combat."

Notice Baelor says "...the right to demand trial by combat."

He doesn't say "...you have the option to request a trial by combat"

And again, Tyrion demands, not requests a trial by combat.

There are several more examples of demands for trial by combat in the text. One does not demand something from a King, if it is not a right that is obligated to them.

If the King is breaking the law, or denying his subjects their rights, that is grounds to rebel, and depose of said King.

Quote

 

And in a sense fire as House Targaryen's champion kept up the ridiculous spirit of a trial-by-combat considering that this is also some sort of judgment by the gods. If the Seven or the trees had been with Lord Rickard he may not have burned...

It's no surprise that you would make a statement as this. All of your arguments are just as nonsensical. As like Mad King Aerys, you are attempting to use asinine loop holes to support your assertions.

Quote

You don't seem to understand. Deposing Aerys II may have been justified. But just because I lead a movement against the king doesn't mean I have also the right to make myself king. Those are different things. Robert had no good claim to the Iron Throne and had thus no right to take the throne.

Sure he did. You keep bringing up Robert's distant relationship to the Targs, but that was just an after thought to keep up appearances, as people do care about lines of succession and blood rights, contrary to what you would put forth. 

But he didn't claim the throne on grounds of having a strong claim to the throne. He won the rights to the throne on the grounds of rights of conquest, stemming from a justified Rebellion, as Aery's did break the feudal contract between himself and his subjects.

Quote

Mad Aerys wasn't 'deposed by legal means', he was murdered by his Kingsguard. If the lords and people of the Realm had no obligation to look to Aerys' children and grandchildren as his heirs then Stannis also has no right to consider himself Robert's heir. After all, nobody swore a vow to accept his succession to the Iron Throne, right?

Robert was murdered, not deposed of, a new regime was not instated. Joffery still sat the throne on the grounds that he was Robert's legal heir. The facts are that Joffery is not Robert's legal heir, and Stannis knows this, whether he can prove it or not. His claim is made on these grounds, not by rights of conquest as were Robert's.

Quote

If a king is mad, a tyrant, or for some other reasons incapable to rule he is usually deposed and replaced by his legal heir - by the time of his death that was Prince Viserys. That's how this is done. You don't pick some distant cousin of the king instead.

They didn't pick Robert because he was some distant cousin, that was not his claim, it was one of conquest.

Had Rhaegar not kidnapped/ran off with the daughter of a Lord paramount, and taken up arms on behalf of his mad father's cause, perhaps they would have instated Rhaegar as the new King. But that is not how things played out. Rhaegar was killed, as was his father. 

And like I've already said, Aerys was deposed of, his heirs had nothing to lay claim to.

Quote

That is nowhere stated in the text. In fact, nothing in Westeros indicates that Robert or anybody thinks of Viserys III, Daenerys, or Aegon having lost their claims to the Iron Throne because of the deeds of their (grand-)father.

Except that Robert was instated as the King, and was coronated, with the support of the Lords paramount, and that of the faith of the Seven as well. 

Unfortunately, for these Lords that you claim did not recognize Robert as the true King, they lost the war, and were now under jurisdiction of the new, legally accepted King of the Seven Kingdoms. If they didn't like it, they could have continued their fight, and rebelled against Robert. Instead, they bent the knee, and begrudgingly or not, did accept Robert as the King.

Quote

The point is what those laws stipulate. You seem to be think because Robert sat on the Iron Throne he was also a rightful king, 

No, I think he was the legal King because he won that right through conquest, and was then legally coronated by the Lords and the Faith as the legally accepted King.

And if you don't accept that the rebellion was legal, he still took the throne. Just as Renly had no claim, or legal ground to stand on, if he had won the war, that would have given him the right, and ability to proclaim that he was the King.

Quote

To gain leverage over the Lannisters? Doran Martell did never homage to either Robert or Joffrey or Tommen (or Stannis or Renly).

What leverage is there to be gained by marrying your son into a family who's authority and legitimacy you deny, and don't acknowledge? 

---

Besides, by your logic, your claim that Aegon was the rightful ruler of the Seven Kingdoms, is nullified as well. Dorne had not sworn fealty to the Targaryn regime, nor did they bend the knee at the behest of being conquered either.

---

And no matter how you spin it, Renly did not have a stronger claim than Stannis.

If you accept the actual facts that Robert was the King, Stannis' claim is stronger.

If you deny Robert's legitimacy, and put forth that Danny is the rightful heir, then through the Baratheon's distant relation to the Targ's, Stannis would still come before Renly.

If you claim either had no claim at all, then no claim, cannot be stronger than another non existent claim.

[Lord Varys]

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

So is your argument that there is no feudal contract between the king and his subjects in the books?

I never said that a king doesn't have obligations to his lords and subjects. But he is the one in charge. He is the one who makes and interprets those rules. He is the king. The others are subjects. And subjects have no real rights in any proper monarchy.

The idea that Robert had a right to declare himself king (and he did so before King Aerys was dead) just because his king demanded his death doesn't make any sense. Neither does the idea that Aerys demanding his death broke some feudal contract. We don't actually know yet why Aerys demanded the deaths of Ned and Robert. We don't have the full picture there.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Because it doesn't state that water is wet, or that pigs don't fly, however I would assume it's safe to say that water is wet in the woiaf,  and that no pigs - bar the offspring of one having had sex with a dragon - have the ability to fly either.

Those are trivialities. Not complex legal matters.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

It is established, common knowledge that the world GRRM has created is based on the real world medieval feudal system, in which there is a feudal contract, and obligations the King must oblige to in service to his subjects. If Aerys's actions didn't violate this agreement, then you would be hard pressed to name something that would.

Even in the real world there were no proper feudal contracts. In most medieval monarchies the royal person was sacrosanct and invulnerable. No lord could legally lay hands on him or depose him, and even when that happened with those weak English kings members of the royal family were often involved.

But I'm not saying Robert wasn't allowed to rebel (well, technically he wasn't since rebellion is always a crime, that's part of the very concept of the term), just that him rebelling didn't make him king. And there is a very good reason for that.

A subject can never conquer anything. Because a subject is always a rebel and thus a traitor. Whatever such a man does is alway against an unlawful act, there is no way around that.

Aerys was the king and Robert his subject. There were not of equal rank. You cannot declare war on a man who isn't your equal. That is why wars take place between states and the leaders of those states, not between governments and insurgents. Those are uprisings, riots, and rebellions and always unjust in monarchies if their purpose is not 'to set things right' (by, say, deposing a madman or tyrant) but 'putting some other guy with a bad claim on the throne'.

That is what Robert's Rebellion became. The rebellion to topple the Mad King became a crusade against House Targaryen and a campaign to the self-aggrandizement of Robert Baratheon. In that sense it was unjustified. If they had just killed Aerys and Rhaegar and then crowned Viserys III or Aegon VI everything would have been (reasonably) fine. Nobody loved Aerys. And a lot of people did understand that Rhaegar's actions had been nearly as mad as those of his father. But half of the people of Westeros or more were not fine with the kingslaying, the murders of innocent royal women and children, and the coronation of Robert Baratheon.

If you think everybody has a right to conquer himself some kingdoms then Robb could just as well have declared himself King of Westeros because he could sure as hell tried to conquer everything.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Well Florent, I don't recall demanding a trial by combat, besides his actions were not in question, he did not deny what he did. 

He clearly denied that he was a traitor and that he intended to commit treason.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Yeah, and Lysa was as mad as King Aerys, and she still granted him a trial by combat against her own wishes, supporting that it is the law, and she was obligated to do so. 

Tyrion tricked Lysa into going along with it. And she had the power to deny him the right to pick his champion.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Sure there are.

A Feast for Crows - The Captain Of Guards

Notice Doran says "by law." This indicates that trial combat is covered in the law, not just a custom.

The point there is that dying in a trial-by-combat is not considered to be murder by law. It has to do with the law defining what murder is.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

The Hedge Knight

A Game of Thrones - Tyrion V

Notice Baelor says "...the right to demand trial by combat."

He doesn't say "...you have the option to request a trial by combat"

And again, Tyrion demands, not requests a trial by combat.

There are several more examples of demands for trial by combat in the text. One does not demand something from a King, if it is not a right that is obligated to them.

There are ways around that as Aerys proves with Rickard. You can demand it, but you don't always have the means to enforce it. That is the point with primitive feudal monarchies. If the king laughs in your face if you demand anything from him nobody is going to help you. There are no institutions you can turn to.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

If the King is breaking the law, or denying his subjects their rights, that is grounds to rebel, and depose of said King.

There are no hints that the people of Westeros have any rights in our modern understanding. There are certain customs, and people are supposed to treat each other in a certain way, accept certain boundaries, etc. but there is no hint that a lord has the right to withhold anything from his king, or refuse any order given to him by his king, etc.

We see the power of the king in the little shit Joffrey. He can force two knights to fight to death to settle their grievances. They can do nothing about that.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

It's no surprise that you would make a statement as this. All of your arguments are just as nonsensical. As like Mad King Aerys, you are attempting to use asinine loop holes to support your assertions.

Nope, that was me actually looking into our medieval history and citing an example from the medieval trials by ordeal, the trial by fire. Aerys took it to the extreme, of course, but there are similarities there.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Sure he did. You keep bringing up Robert's distant relationship to the Targs, but that was just an after thought to keep up appearances, as people do care about lines of succession and blood rights, contrary to what you would put forth. 

Nope, Robert's blood claim was the reason chose him as their king. It is Robert who later claimed that his war hammer was his claim, etc. Robert never said he ruled the Iron Throne 'by right of conquest', he says he won the throne by killing Rhaegar with his war hammer. Which is actually factually incorrect. The Lannister took the Iron Throne in his name.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

But he didn't claim the throne on grounds of having a strong claim to the throne. He won the rights to the throne on the grounds of rights of conquest, stemming from a justified Rebellion, as Aery's did break the feudal contract between himself and his subjects.

If you could prove that I'd believe you.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Robert was murdered, not deposed of, a new regime was not instated. Joffery still sits the throne on the grounds that he is Robert's legal heir. The facts are that Joffery is not Robert's legal heir, and Stannis knows this, whether he can prove it or not. His claim is made on these grounds, not by rights of conquest as were Robert's.

Cool, then I'm just going to kill people on the basis of my imagination, too. If Stannis can do accuse people of adultery and incest without any proof, so can I.

The truth about Robert's children is irrelevant. There are no paternity tests in Westeros. It is impossible to prove Stannis' fancy tale. The only thing that matters is Robert's wishes. And he named Joffrey his heir. It is not up to you or Stannis or anyone to question that.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Had Rhaegar not kidnapped/ran off with the daughter of a Lord paramount, and taken up arms on behalf of his mad father's cause, perhaps they would have instated Rhaegar as the new King. But that is not how things played out. Rhaegar was killed, as was his father. 

Aerys had another son, and a sister-wife. And Rhaegar had two children as well (until they were brutally murdered).

Robb would have crowned Viserys III or Aegon VI. He says Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before him, and if Joffrey was deposed as an tyrant and false king then the innocent Tommen would be next in line, not some other dude.

Newsflash - if that was the case then Robert could also not be king before Viserys or Aegon. 

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And like I've already said, Aerys was deposed of, his heirs had nothing to lay claim to.

That's just crap.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Except that Robert was instated as the King, and was coronated, with the support of the Lords paramount, and that of the faith of the Seven as well. 

So what? They can all be traitors. Stannis would agree with me.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Unfortunately, for these Lords that you claim did not recognize Robert as the true King, they lost the war, and were now under jurisdiction of the new, legally accepted King of the Seven Kingdoms. If they didn't like it, they could have continued their fight, and rebelled against Robert. Instead, they bent the knee, and begrudgingly or not, did accept Robert as the King.

They can all lie, right? Or just wait and bide their time. They don't have to abide to your rules. Wyman Manderly also doesn't acknowledge Roose as Warden of the North despite feigning to do so.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

No, I think he was the legal King because he won that right through conquest, and was then legally coronated by the Lords and the Faith as the legally accepted King.

Well, I guess than the Northmen should better also truly bend the knee to Roose, now that I think of it. After all, he executed the traitor and false king Robb Stark at the Twins, butchered his treasonous men, and retook the North from the Ironborn. Now the North is his by right of conquest as much as by the decree of King Tommen. And every Northman opposing him is a rebel and a traitor.

And by the way - Roose never did homage to Robb as his king. He and many other Northmen weren't at Riverrun when Robb was proclaimed. He did really not betray 'his king' when he gutted Robb. 

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And if you don't accept that the rebellion was legal, he still took the throne. Just as Renly had no claim, or legal ground to stand on, if he had won the war, that would have given him the right, and ability to proclaim that he was the King.

No, it wouldn't. Might doesn't make right. Not in this sense. Crimes remain crimes. People may forget them and fail to avenge them but they remain crimes.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

What leverage is there to be gained by marrying your son into a family who's authority and legitimacy you deny, and don't acknowledge? 

You've got a fine little hostage? Remember, Myrcella went to Dorne, not the other way around.

38 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Besides, by your logic, your claim that Aegon was the rightful ruler of the Seven Kingdoms, is nullified as well. Dorne had not sworn fealty to the Targaryn regime, nor did they bend the knee at the behest of being conquered either.

I never said the Targaryens were the rightful kings of Dorne. They never were. They only became the kings of Dorne when Daeron II brought Dorne into the Realm.

[Darkstream]

On 2017-5-20 at 6:17 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Stannis no closer to being the King of Westeros than he was at the start of the series. 

At the start of the series, he was one of five King's vying for the Kingship. Now he is is one of two. Renly is dead, and Stannis has garnered some of the supporters that swore their allegiance to Renly, as well as some from Lords and clans in the North.

Even if I gave you ridiculously favourable odds, say that Stannis only has 0.001℅ chance of taking the Iron Throne, that is still significantly dominating odds over Renly's 0.000℅ chance.

On 2017-5-20 at 6:17 AM, Bernie Mac said:

Nope. Renly's plan was for Ned to arrest the royal family and act as Joffrey's regent. It was not for Ned to support him as King

Yeah, and depose of him, should he not turn out to be the puppet dancing on strings to Renly's music, as was his plan.

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Yeah, and depose of him, should he not turn out to be the puppet dancing on strings to Renly's music, as was his plan.

There is literally nothing in the books to support that. Renly wanted to have leverage so Cersei wouldn't try to kill him (and Ned). I won't quibble the semantics of seizing vs arresting as I think arresting implies a legitimacy to his actions. Renly knew nothing of the incest at the time. This was his second of three attempts to protect himself from being killed by the Lannisters. I suppose it worked all three times since Stannis killed him, not the Lannisters. Imagine how that entire scene would have gone down if Stannis had stayed in KL and lent Renly some swords along with telling Ned and/or Renly about the twincest.

The mind fairly boggles

 

[Darkstream]

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I never said that a king doesn't have obligations to his lords and subjects. But he is the one in charge. He is the one who makes and interprets those rules. He is the king. The others are subjects. And subjects have no real rights in any proper monarchy.

Well, which is it? Either the King has obligations to his subjects, giving them rights, or he doesn't. You can't have it both ways.

Quote

The idea that Robert had a right to declare himself king (and he did so before King Aerys was dead)

False, he never did no such thing.

Quote

just because his king demanded his death doesn't make any sense. Neither does the idea that Aerys demanding his death broke some feudal contract. We don't actually know yet why Aerys demanded the deaths of Ned and Robert. We don't have the full picture there.

We know that Robert was in the Vale, and this happened before Aerys had any cause or reason to do so.

Quote

Those are trivialities. Not complex legal matters.

No, assuming that there is an agreement of obligations between a King and his subjects in a feudal society is not a complex legal matter. Not only should it be accepted as a fact, it should be expected.

Let me use your logic. Please provide a quote from the text stating that it is illegal to rebel against your King. Or,  I'll even make it easier for you, where is it stated that murdering your King is illegal?

Quote

Even in the real world there were no proper feudal contracts. In most medieval monarchies the royal person was sacrosanct and invulnerable. No lord could legally lay hands on him or depose him, and even when that happened with those weak English kings members of the royal family were often involved.

But I'm not saying Robert wasn't allowed to rebel (well, technically he wasn't since rebellion is always a crime, that's part of the very concept of the term), just that him rebelling didn't make him king. And there is a very good reason for that.

No, him deposing of the King, and being put forth as the King by the leaders of the rebellion, and the fact that he was accepted by the Lord's of Westeros, the Faith, and coronated, is what made him the King.

Quote

A subject can never conquer anything. Because a subject is always a rebel and thus a traitor. Whatever such a man does is alway against an unlawful act, there is no way around that.

Only, Robert did conquer the Seven Kingdoms, and is not considered a rebel and a traitor, he was recognized as the King of Westeros. This is exactly what is in the books, and is contrary to the fan-fic that you are babbling on about.

Quote

Aerys was the king and Robert his subject. There were not of equal rank. You cannot declare war on a man who isn't your equal.

Robert did.

Quote

But half of the people of Westeros or more were not fine with the kingslaying, the murders of innocent royal women and children, and the coronation of Robert Baratheon.

First off, stop spouting off ridiculous exaggerations that you constantly fail to provide any textual support for. Secondly, a few people not being fine with Robert's coronation, doesn't nullified that he was coronated, making him the legal King.

Quote

If you think everybody has a right to conquer himself some kingdoms

I don't think anyone, rightful King or not, has any right to conquer anyone. 

Quote

 

then Robb could just as well have declared himself King of Westeros because he could sure as hell tried to conquer everything.

Sure, he could have, and if he won, he would then be recognized as the King.

Quote

He clearly denied that he was a traitor and that he intended to commit treason.

But he did not deny his actions, which were considered by all to be treason. Whether he intended to or not, he did commit treason.

Quote

Tyrion tricked Lysa into going along with it. And she had the power to deny him the right to pick his champion.

If it wasn't his legal right, his trick wouldn't have worked. And siting a mad woman's abuse of her authority and position does not strengthen your argument. Do you think that if they were in KL, and she did not have the might to back her up, she would have gotten away with her hijinks? She pushed her denying of Tyrion's rights as far as she thought she could get away with it, but even she knew she wouldn't get away with flat out refusing Tyrion's demand. 

Quote

The point there is that dying in a trial-by-combat is not considered to be murder by law. It has to do with the law defining what murder is.

Sure, but it implies that trial by combat is legally recognized, and it would be pointless if it was not a right obligated to you. Do you think that Tywin would have allowed Tyrion's trial, if he had a choice?

Quote

There are ways around that as Aerys proves with Rickard. You can demand it, but you don't always have the means to enforce it. That is the point with primitive feudal monarchies. If the king laughs in your face if you demand anything from him nobody is going to help you. There are no institutions you can turn to.

Only, half of the realm did do something about it, as Aery's losing the support of his subjects, his title and power, and his life proves.

Quote

There are no hints that the people of Westeros have any rights in our modern understanding.

Only, you have been provided with numerous quotes stating otherwise. You know, something you have failed to do supporting any of your arguments.

...and who's talking about rights according to our modern understanding?

Quote

Nope, Robert's blood claim was the reason chose him as their king.

Let's see some text supporting this. Cercei even States that the throne was there for Ned's taking if he wanted it.

Quote

It is Robert who later claimed that his war hammer was his claim, etc. Robert never said he ruled the Iron Throne 'by right of conquest', he says he won the throne by killing Rhaegar with his war hammer.

What do you think it means to take something by rights of conquest?

Quote

Which is actually factually incorrect. The Lannister took the Iron Throne in his name.

Really, now you have to resort to nitpicking literal and figurative statements?

Quote

If you could prove that I'd believe you.

Well, the text already proves it, all one must do is read the books to know that is what happened. And besides, you just inadvertently admitted it yourself with your comment regarding Robert's war hammer. What you have provided as Robert's means of seizing the throne is conquest. I'm not sure how you don't understand that.

Quote

Cool, then I'm just going to kill people on the basis of my imagination, too. If Stannis can do accuse people of adultery and incest without any proof, so can I.

You could, only Stannis' claim isn't imaginary, it is the undisputable truth.

Quote

The truth about Robert's children is irrelevant. There are no paternity tests in Westeros. It is impossible to prove Stannis' fancy tale. The only thing that matters is Robert's wishes. And he named Joffrey his heir. It is not up to you or Stannis or anyone to question that.

Just as you seem to be under the impression that only your fan-fic wishes are all that matters. 

This is such a ridiculous argument to make, I don't even know where to start in explaining the dire implications that would result from such a neglectful, remiss attitude.

Quote

Aerys had another son, and a sister-wife. And Rhaegar had two children as well (until they were brutally murdered).

And they had nothing to claim. The Crown was stripped from Aerys. 

Quote

That's just crap.

Says you, it's still the case, whether you want to except it or not.

Quote

So what? They can all be traitors. Stannis would agree with me.

Except Stannis doesn't agree with you, as he also recognized Robert's rule.

Quote

They can all lie, right? Or just wait and bide their time. They don't have to abide to your rules. Wyman Manderly also doesn't acknowledge Roose as Warden of the North despite feigning to do so.

So? What's your point? Doesn't change the fact that Robert is the legally recognized King.

It doesn't matter that Wyman doesn't acknowledge it. As of now, Roose is the legal Warden of the North. If the the Boltons put down the Northern resistance, and the Lannister's manage to secure the throne, Wyman will be seen as a traitor.

Quote

Well, I guess than the Northmen should better also truly bend the knee to Roose, now that I think of it. After all, he executed the traitor and false king Robb Stark at the Twins, butchered his treasonous men, and retook the North from the Ironborn. Now the North is his by right of conquest as much as by the decree of King Tommen. And every Northman opposing him is a rebel and a traitor.

Only, unlike the Lords you are siting that didn't recognize Robert, the Northerners haven't bent the knee. If Roose wins, and still holds his title when this is all over, and the Kingdom is in peace, then sure, that will be the case.

Quote

No, it wouldn't. Might doesn't make right. Not in this sense. Crimes remain crimes. People may forget them and fail to avenge them but they remain crimes.

No, might does not make right. But unfortunately it does give you the means to dictate what is right. If Renly won, there would be nobody to persecute these crimes, essentially, he would just pardon himself and his followers, as would be in his power as the new King by rights of conquest.

Quote

You've got a fine little hostage? Remember, Myrcella went to Dorne, not the other way around.

Yeah, a hostage to give them leverage in a rebellion. Whether they support, or agree with Robert's authority, they have still recognized it.

[Darkstream]

38 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

There is literally nothing in the books to support that. 

You're right, I was thinking of Littlefinger's comments, not Renly's.

[Bernie Mac]

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

At the start of the series, he was one of five King's vying for the Kingship. Now he is is one of two.

Which means what exactly? A chance of success is not based on how many people are competing. I can declare myself the monarch of Great Britain tomorrow, my chances don't improve because there are only two contenders. 

At the start of the war of the five kings Stannis was in a stronger position as King than he is now, he got even stronger when he dealt with Renly. The Crown had less support than it does now.  Stannis' chances have deteriorated. Him still being alive has nothing to do with him becoming King. Joffrey died the winner and passed his crown on to his heir. 

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

 

Renly is dead,

And? Did you think my comment was insinuating he was still alive? Of course Renly is dead, Stannis killed him and the best chance of sitting someone with Baratheon blood on the Throne.  

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

 

and Stannis has garnered some of the supporters that swore their allegiance to Renly, as well as some from Lords and clans in the North.

Stannis started off with 5k supporters calling him King. He currently has around half of that. He also started off with Dragonstone, which he has also lost. A homeless king with only half his original army. Yup, he is currently in a worse position than he was at the start of the war. 

And none of the Northern clans are calling him King, they are not going to travel South with him to sit him on the Throne. They currently have mutually exclusive agendas, ridding the North of Ironborn, Freys and releasing Ned Stark's daughter. There is still only 2,500 (getting smaller every day) soldiers who are calling Stannis King. 

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Even if I gave you ridiculously favourable odds, say that Stannis only has 0.001℅ chance of taking the Iron Throne, that is still significantly dominating odds over Renly's 0.000℅ chance.

Which has what to do with what I said? Where in my post did I say that Renly, as of the end of ADWD, had a better chance of winning the Crown?

My claim was that Stannis was in a worse position than he was at the start of the war. That is true, try arguing against something I actually said. 

4 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Yeah, and depose of him, should he not turn out to be the puppet dancing on strings to Renly's music, as was his plan.

Renly wanted Ned as Regent, and the intention was for Sansa to still marry Joffrey. If Renly was suggesting that Joffrey be a puppet for anyone it was Ned, not himself. His main worry was his own self preservation at that point as he thought that Cersei (and Cersei seems to be the only Lannister he really has a problem with) either taking his lands, his influential position on the Small Council or his life. 

[Darkstream]

18 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Which means what exactly? A chance of success is not based on how many people are competing. I can declare myself the monarch of Great Britain tomorrow, my chances don't improve because there are only two contenders. 

No, but if the other contender dies, your chances improve.

Quote

And? Did you think my comment was insinuating he was still alive?

I did not. Did you think my comment was insinuating that I thought that?

Quote

 

Of course Renly is dead, Stannis killed him and the best chance of sitting someone with Baratheon blood on the Throne.  

Stannis started off with 5k supporters calling him King. He currently has around half of that. He also started off with Dragonstone, which he has also lost. A homeless king with only half his original army. Yup, he is currently in a worse position than he was at the start of the war. 

And none of the Northern clans are calling him King, they are not going to travel South with him to sit him on the Throne. They currently have mutually exclusive agendas, ridding the North of Ironborn, Freys and releasing Ned Stark's daughter. There is still only 2,500 (getting smaller every day) soldiers who are calling Stannis King. 

Which has what to do with what I said? Where in my post did I say that Renly, as of the end of ADWD, had a better chance of winning the Crown?

Well, I don't dispute much of what you've said. I'll admit that I unintentionally straw manned you. My apologies.

Quote

My claim was that Stannis was in a worse position than he was at the start of the war. That is true, try arguing against something I actually said. 

Alright, calm down. Are you still that upset? We really don't need to hold grudges you know.

Quote

Renly wanted Ned as Regent, and the intention was for Sansa to still marry Joffrey. If Renly was suggesting that Joffrey be a puppet for anyone it was Ned, not himself. His main worry was his own self preservation at that point as he thought that Cersei (and Cersei seems to be the only Lannister he really has a problem with) either taking his lands, his influential position on the Small Council or his life. 

Yes, I've already admitted my mistake there.

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

No, but if the other contender dies, your chances improve.

Not necessarily. If there is a race of 100 people, the person in last places does not see his chances of winning against the favourite simply because the people in places 49-99 have dropped out. 

Stannis has less support than he did at the start, less holdings and has now alienated the Faith. His chances of success are smaller than they were at the beginning. 

 

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

I did not. Did you think my comment was insinuating that I thought that?

Yup. You mentioned Renly's chances being less than Stannis when no one else had said otherwise. 

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

 

Alright, calm down. Are you still that upset? We really don't need to hold grudges you know.

lol grudges for what. I'm happy that you felt the need to reply despite promising not to. 

 

[Darkstream]

35 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yup. You mentioned Renly's chances being less than Stannis when no one else had said otherwise. 

Well that's your mistake then.

Quote

lol grudges for what. I'm happy that you felt the need to reply despite promising not to. 

What promise? Stop making shit up. I told you I was not going to argue with you about your improper terminology any more. And despite your petty, immature attempt to goad me into responding, I ignored you, as you are the only one here playing these childish games.

[snow is the man]

Many use the argument that stannis is older and thus in line for the throne. Personally I think stannis is at fault but renly insulting him in such a way really didn't help matters. I think mel is the one responsible for this.

[Lord Varys]

@Darkstream

Let's cut to the chase here. Your idea that a king and a royal dynasty that has been overthrown results in everybody in that kingdom recognize this as the 'legal and correct thing' is just crap. Plain and simple. Especially if the new king has as a weak a legal claim as Robert Baratheon. The man's claim is about as good as Henry Tudor's, and he and his son both had to deal with impostors and pretenders for nearly an entire century. Or take the Wars of the Roses. Was the Edward IV the rightful king or Henry VI? 

If you think that it was clear who the rightful king of France after the death of Charles VI - Philipp VI or Edward III - you are mistaken. The British also didn't think their monarchy ended for all time when the Parliament army defeated the king and Cromwell had him executed. His son returned to the throne, never mind the whole Commonwealth interlude.

Deposing and killing a king is a vile crime in a world like Westeros, just as it was in our world. The idea that the people who supported, fought, killed, and died for the losing side in a civil war just forget all that after the winner get himself crowned is ridiculous. And it isn't the case with the Baratheons. People still plot behind Robert's back and prepare for the day of the Targaryen return. Viserys III was crowned on Dragonstone, too, and people know that.

If the Targaryen-Baratheons had ruled for a century or so a man like Stannis might have been able to claim that his brother was the rightful king.

But that's simply not the case. And by declaring himself king he betrayed both Robert, Cersei, and their children. Joffrey was Robert's chosen heir, not Stannis. And Stannis certainly lost every moral right to the throne when he abandoned his brother to his enemies and removed the royal fleet to Dragonstone without the king's leave. That was treason.

Renly also betrayed Robert, Cersei, and Robert's children but he did not betray Stannis. Stannis was neither Renly's liege nor king. Robert was, and after him Joffrey. Renly was a great lord of the Realm himself, in his own right, he was in no way subject to Stannis.

[Darkstream]

17 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@Darkstream

Let's cut to the chase here. Your idea that a king and a royal dynasty that has been overthrown results in everybody in that kingdom recognize this as the 'legal and correct thing' is just crap. 

Yes, let's do just so.

First off, there is no such thing as a rightful King. Anyone claiming to be the rightful ruler over a group of people is a complete, egotistical fraud. As @ravenous reader put it best "The law is fiction" and rightful Kings are just as much fiction. A rightful King is only so, because he had the might to declare him self as such - it's all made up bs.

So why don't you cut the crap with your ridiculous assertion that an independent state has the right to invade and wage war on another state? Nobody, has any right to conquer anyone. Period.

Aegon had as much right to invade Westeros as I have to break into your house in the middle of the night, shoot you in the head while you sleep, and claim your wife as my own.

And Robert had just as much right to depose of the inbred, foreign invaders, as they had to invade foreign land in the first place - even without all the bs that Aerys was pulling - which is to say no right at all. However, that is just the way it is in a feudal society, if you have the might, you have the ability to dictate who is the rightful King. Robert conquered the ruling King, garnered the support of the Lords paramount, the Faith, and was coronated as the legal King of Westeros...deal with it.

And you want to continually degrade Stannis, and call his methods unfair - as if there is such a thing as unfair in a war - because he used black magic to execute Renly. Well let's cut out the hypocritical crap. Your precious Targs are no friggin' better. How the hell do you think they managed to domesticate dragons? That's right, the deplorable, immoral use of blood magic. And not only that, they had to practice incest to maintain their control over the "unfair" advantage that they have. At least Stannis didn't have to fuck his own sister to create his shadow baby.

The undeniable facts, as GRRM has written it in his story, is that for the past fourteen years, Robert has been the legally accepted, ruling King of the Seven Kingdoms...again, deal with it.

You want to continually make shit up, ignore the text and story that GRRM has written, and insert your fan-fic version of the story. Well, that's absolute, and utter crap. Provide some text to back up your nonsense or knock it off. You're not fooling anyone who has actually read the books.

[Bernie Mac]

6 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, let's do just so.

First off, there is no such thing as a rightful King. Anyone claiming to be the rightful ruler over a group of people is a complete, egotistical fraud. As @ravenous reader put it best "The law is fiction" and rightful Kings are just as much fiction. A rightful King is only so, because he had the might to declare him self as such - it's all made up bs.

Totally agree. So the idea that Renly somehow wronged Stannis by not supporting him is ludicrous. Both were trying to usurp the Crown, neither had more right than the other to do so.

6 hours ago, Darkstream said:

 

You want to continually make shit up, ignore the text and story that GRRM has written, and insert your fan-fic version of the story. Well, that's absolute, and utter crap. Provide some text to back up your nonsense or knock it off. You're not fooling anyone who has actually read the books.

Dude, calm down., This is just a friendly discussion. Though it should be mentioned, demanding someone to back up their argument with text as evidence in a post you have provided none yourself is a little hypocritical.