Jump to content

why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

I'm on board with this in regards to Westeros. Our own (mostly Western) cultures would often have the God or Gods declare that they were the rightful King and to challenge them a crime against God but (as far as we know) Westeros has no God's Mandate to validate their authority. 

It is something that is curiously absent in the woiaf. The only instance I am aware of that touches on this is not a claim of rights by the gods, but that of the Valyrians being above that of the gods.

Quote

I do wonder if there is such a thing as the Chinese interpretation of Heaven's Mandate were successful rebellions are thought of as being the will of the Gods. 

One could say that trial by combat is a variance of such beliefs. Perhaps the same concept could be inferred to that of rebellions and wars as well. Of course there is nothing in the text to support this that I'm aware of, however, it's an interesting thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

If Renly had no right to usurp his nephews throne, then why should he help his brother usurp it?

 

And of course it seems unlikely that the Reach Lords would support Stannis to be King. Renly they loved, Stannis not so much. 

Stannis isn't a Usurper though, he is Robert's heir, and Robert's dying wish was for his son to succeed him, which Ned wrote down as "rightful heir" which Robert then signed, so technically Stannis should've ascended to the throne. Renly was second in line to the throne, he tried to take the throne despite Stannis being Robert's legal heir.

Perhaps if Renly promised them positions of power in King's Landing the Tyrells would've obliged. Or perhaps Shireen could've been betrothed to a Tyrell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jaehaerys-III said:

Perhaps if Renly promised them positions of power in King's Landing the Tyrells would've obliged. Or perhaps Shireen could've been betrothed to a Tyrell.

That's the issue with the argument put forth by many that Renly was this great political strategist, who had the support and love of so many. The only reason the Tyrells supported him, was because they wanted Margaery to be Queen. If they had so much confidence in Renly as a leader, they would have supported him in supporting Stannis. Instead, everyone claims that he would have lost the Tyrells if he did so. Doesn't sound like they had much respect for the authority, or faith in the decisions of their would be King.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jaehaerys-III said:

Stannis isn't a Usurper though,

In the eyes of Renly and the majority of the realm he is. 

Ned knows the truth, Cersei confirmed it. Stannis does not, he only suspects. 

Quote

he is Robert's heir, and Robert's dying wish was for his son to succeed him, which Ned wrote down as "rightful heir" which Robert then signed, so technically Stannis should've ascended to the throne.

The rest of the will, that Ned did not falsify, also stated that Ned was to be Regent till his heir comes of age. Everyone already thinks that Joffrey is the heir, the dead Robert included, and the wording of the will, even changed, still nods towards the twelve year old Joffrey rather than the thirty something Stannis. 

Quote

 

Renly was second in line to the throne, he tried to take the throne despite Stannis being Robert's legal heir.

That is from the reader's perspective. From Renly and his supporters he is fourth in line and Joffrey is the current King and Tommen his heir. 

Quote

Perhaps if Renly promised them positions of power in King's Landing the Tyrells would've obliged.

That is not Renly's call. It is Stannis' decision and he was not even going to make Renly is Hand. 

"Strike your banners and come to me before dawn, and I will grant you Storm's End and your old seat on the council and even name you my heir until a son is born to me. Otherwise, I shall destroy you."

Quote

Or perhaps Shireen could've been betrothed to a Tyrell.

Sure. But if Stannis has a son (either with Selyse or should she die and remarry) then the scarred Shireen's betrothal is worth considerably less. 

But the issue is Stannis, his personality and his unwillingness to compromise as well as the fear that he is a man who holds grudges. The prospect of the thirty something Stannis being the King for the rest of Mace's life is probably not great. 

The Reach Lords supported Renly because they loved him, it is not because of any hatred of the Lannisters. The relatively unknown Joffrey as King is likely a preferable option to Stannis being King in their eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The situation there is different. Theon wasn't just a ward, he was also a hostage, and as such he was the charge of the Starks until such time as the king gave Theon permission to return home.

Robert was already the Lord of Storm's End in his own right, and a man grown, and Ned, too, and he became Lord of Winterfell after Brandon and Rickard died. Now, Jon would have broken guest right if he had killed Robert and Ned since they were visiting him at the time the letter arrived. And I'm not saying Jon should have executed them. But he still didn't have any right to call his banners and rebel against his king. Aerys II had not wronged Jon Arryn in any way, shape, or form.

And nothing indicates that a lord has a right to denounce a king who has never wronged him, personally. He could have allowed Robert and Ned to escape. He could have written Aerys telling him that he refused such order unless the king would clarify why he should kill those men, he could have demanded to conduct a proper trial against them, etc. He could even have provoked Aerys so that the king declared him a traitor and a criminal, too, so that he would now have the necessary pretext to call his banners. But just rising against the king to defend some buddies of yours is a little bit much.

Thanks for the response. True, Theon's situation is a bit different, like you say, he is a hostage as well as a traditional ward. That said Robert and Eddard's situations are also unusual. Normally a ward would return home upon reaching their majority which neither did and furthermore as you say Robert was Lord of Storm's End and yet he still seems to have being fostered by Jon Arryn, perhaps with the Stormlands being run by a castellan?

On Aerys not wronging Jon I'd have to disagree, leaving aside the issue of his breach of the feudal contract, Aerys did have Jon's son and heir Elbert killed. Whilst we don't get much detail about it, if it resembles his killings of the Starks then it was done without a trial and therefore illegally.

Depending on the country and time in some medieval societies a king or lord who had forsaken his duties could be denounced and removed from the throne, obviously the rebels would claim a breach of the contract whilst the royalists would deny that one had occurred but as an idea it did exist in real history.

True, he could have attempted to provoke Aerys into declaring war on him first but I don't think that there was any need to. Aerys has already killed his heir without trial and Robert and Eddard are hardly his buddies, as his wards or even former wards they would be considered members of his family in that killing them would be seen as kinslaying. I don't think it's ever explicitly stated but I would be very surprised if the right to self defense only applied to an individual and not to someone defending their 'family', especially given them importance of 'the family' in a feudal society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22.5.2017 at 3:08 PM, Lord Varys said:

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.

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.

Sure, the Targaryens have sympathies. But there is nothing to imply that anything close to half the realm would support them, much less so when Robert was still king and the realm was unified under his rule. 

Quote

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.

The point is that even societies without written laws aren't lawless. But, as you admit now that primogeniture is a strong principle to say the least, we can conclude that it wasn't Stannis who was in the wrong when he defended his right against Renly.

Quote

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.

And that's why he also wants her older brother to die? Because primogeniture doesn't matter? Or is it because it does matter? The Karstarks go through great trouble just to make sure they have the claim, they plan to rebel, they plan to stab Stannis in the back, and they plan to marry Alys all just so that they have the claim to Karholt and not a prisoner a thousand miles away. 

Quote

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.

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.

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.

It's called the seven kingdoms, a smaller lord sure has a duty to his immediate overlords. If not, show me a quote proving otherwise. A written law would be my preference, since that is your own standard. 

Quote

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?

Show me the quote where it says that Manderly knows where Bran is. If he does, sure, he has every reason of calling him his liege rather than Rickon. If he doesn't, Bran isn't within his reach. 

Quote

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.

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.

Robert clearly wanted his son to succeed him, Joff wasn't his son, it's as simple as that.

Ned wanted to contact Stannis and give him the throne, so no, he didn't take the office of regent under false pretenses. Reread AGOT, preferably not with a bias for Targaryens. 

Pycelle and Swyft don't take the regency from Cersei and offer it to Kevan, they simply contact Kevan, who swoops in and becomes regent, presumably by Tommen's decree. Only the king can appont a regent. That Ned asked the council to confirm it seems like a practical measure since the council members are the most powerful men of the capital, and securing their support is vital when confronting someone as powerful as the queen. It's not a legal requirement.

Of course, if it is, point me to the written law confirming your opinion. 

Quote

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.

Robert tells us that people call him usurper, that does not make it so that he thinks himself a usurper. It's okay to admit you're wrong, that he's afraid of Viserys, Drogo and Dany is mainly because they have some support (nowhere near half the realm though) and command a dothraki army. Notice how Robert only wanted to have them killed after they got their dothraki, not before, which indicates that he's more afraid of the dothraki than their support in the realm itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

In the eyes of Renly and the majority of the realm he is. 

Ned knows the truth, Cersei confirmed it. Stannis does not, he only suspects. 

The rest of the will, that Ned did not falsify, also stated that Ned was to be Regent till his heir comes of age. Everyone already thinks that Joffrey is the heir, the dead Robert included, and the wording of the will, even changed, still nods towards the twelve year old Joffrey rather than the thirty something Stannis. 

That is from the reader's perspective. From Renly and his supporters he is fourth in line and Joffrey is the current King and Tommen his heir. 

That is not Renly's call. It is Stannis' decision and he was not even going to make Renly is Hand. 

"Strike your banners and come to me before dawn, and I will grant you Storm's End and your old seat on the council and even name you my heir until a son is born to me. Otherwise, I shall destroy you."

Sure. But if Stannis has a son (either with Selyse or should she die and remarry) then the scarred Shireen's betrothal is worth considerably less. 

But the issue is Stannis, his personality and his unwillingness to compromise as well as the fear that he is a man who holds grudges. The prospect of the thirty something Stannis being the King for the rest of Mace's life is probably not great. 

The Reach Lords supported Renly because they loved him, it is not because of any hatred of the Lannisters. The relatively unknown Joffrey as King is likely a preferable option to Stannis being King in their eyes. 

You seem to be claiming Renly thinks he's fourth in line yet one of the justifications of Renly taking the throne is that Joffrey is illegitimate and that Stannis wouldn't be a good ruler. Renly acknowledges he's second in line.

Agreed with your comments regarding the will.

I still never understood why the Reachmen disliked Stannis. And if Stannis had offered the Tyrells and their bannermen positions in the council, to replace the likes of Baelish and Varys (whom he hated) perhaps they would've gone over to him. The Tyrells were after power, although then again they would prefer Baelish's offer of Margaery becoming Queen over a few seats in the Small council. Perhaps Stannis would offer them titles in the Westerlands following a Lannister defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

Sure, the Targaryens have sympathies. But there is nothing to imply that anything close to half the realm would support them, much less so when Robert was still king and the realm was unified under his rule. 

Viserys III could have counted on the support of Dorne, the Reach, the Iron Islands (Balon would have liked to avenge himself on Robert), and parts of the Riverlands, the Crownlands, and possibly other regions where there are still Targaryen sympathies we don't know anything about.

That is half the Realm. And more people would have joined him if he had come with a pretty large army.

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

The point is that even societies without written laws aren't lawless. But, as you admit now that primogeniture is a strong principle to say the least, we can conclude that it wasn't Stannis who was in the wrong when he defended his right against Renly.

Stannis had no right to call himself king, either. If you aren't the king you can't insist that your younger brother betrayed you. Stannis and Renly are betraying King Joffrey.

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

And that's why he also wants her older brother to die? Because primogeniture doesn't matter? Or is it because it does matter? The Karstarks go through great trouble just to make sure they have the claim, they plan to rebel, they plan to stab Stannis in the back, and they plan to marry Alys all just so that they have the claim to Karholt and not a prisoner a thousand miles away. 

Arnolf Karstark already has Karhold. Alys and Harrion are more of a technical problem that can be resolved with murder.

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

It's called the seven kingdoms, a smaller lord sure has a duty to his immediate overlords. If not, show me a quote proving otherwise. A written law would be my preference, since that is your own standard.

Well, if you are looking you see a lot of that, actually. Smaller lords serving on the king's council, thus being able to give order and shape the lives of their technical liege lord.

And again, only a king can make or unmake lords or legitimize bastards. It is King Joffrey who makes Garlan Tyrell a lord and attaints the Florents, it is King Tommen who grants Castamere to Rolph Spicer and makes Ramsay Snow a lord, etc. A lord only has to follow his liege lord if the man does things in the name of the king. If he leads a rebellion against the king he has no duty in assisting him in that one.

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

Show me the quote where it says that Manderly knows where Bran is. If he does, sure, he has every reason of calling him his liege rather than Rickon. If he doesn't, Bran isn't within his reach. 

It doesn't matter where Bran is. If Manderly cared about primogeniture as much as you do Brandon Stark would be his liege lord, even if he was on the moon. And Rickon Stark would simply be the brother of his liege lord. But that's not how he refers to him.

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

Robert clearly wanted his son to succeed him, Joff wasn't his son, it's as simple as that.

No, Robert said that he wanted his son Joffrey to succeed him. And Joffrey was his son. A son is not just your biological descendant but also the boy you raised as son. You can consider a ward your son, too, at least in a sense, and Gyles Rosby wanted his ward to inherit Rosby after his death.

And we don't know what Robert would have done had he known about the incest. It would have been his call, not Ned's or Stannis' or anyone's. The king rules on his own succession, not some people around him. If they do, there is war. Because, you know, those people don't really have all that much authority as the king.

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

Ned wanted to contact Stannis and give him the throne, so no, he didn't take the office of regent under false pretenses. Reread AGOT, preferably not with a bias for Targaryens. 

He did. A regent is only necessary if the king is a minor or otherwise incapacitated. If the king is Stannis Baratheon there is no need to even name a regent. Ned intended to get himself confirmed as the Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm for King Joffrey Baratheon only to then reveal that Joffrey Baratheon wasn't the king at all but a bastard born in adultery and incest.

That is deception and treason. To remain honest Ned should have revealed what he know or believed to know to Robert on the man's deathbed and reject the Regency (because in his opinion the throne should go to Stannis). Or he should have tried to settle the succession while he was still Hand, by revealing what he believed he knew to the Small Council and the court before he made any attempts to get himself confirmed as Lord Regent and Protector.

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

Pycelle and Swyft don't take the regency from Cersei and offer it to Kevan, they simply contact Kevan, who swoops in and becomes regent, presumably by Tommen's decree.

Nope:

Quote

The realm is being ruled by Ser Harys Swyft and Grand Maester Pycelle. They have dispatched a raven to Casterly Rock, inviting your uncle to return to court and assume the regency. If he means to accept, he had best make haste. Mace Tyrell has abandoned his siege of Storm’s End and is marching back to the city with his army, and Randyll Tarly is reported on his way down from Maidenpool as well.

If I invite you it is my choice to invite you. I could also invite somebody else entirely. Kevan had no right to demand the regency, and the one thing that prevented Mace or Tarly from seizing the regency is that Pycelle and Swyft had offered it to Kevan first. Tarly and Mace arrived in the capital before Kevan, and if things hadn't been settled by then (by Kevan dispatching a raven back to KL to confirm that he was taking the regency) Mace would have taken both the Handship and the Regency.

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

Only the king can appoint a regent.

Certainly not. Aegon III's regents appointed and deposed themselves, never asking the king for his leave. They even prevented the king's own brother-in-law from becoming one of his regents (Alyn Velaryon). And neither did anyone ask Tommen or Joffrey who their regents should be. If a dying king doesn't make his Hand the regent for his minor heir it is very unlikely that his wishes are heeded because his Hand will speak with his voice after his death and he and the council will set the Regency up, not the king.

If a minor king could name a regent himself he wouldn't need a regent. He could rule in his own right. The whole point of a regency is to have a ruler in the king's stead because the king cannot rule himself.

Cersei is made the Queen Regent by the Small Council, too. And she is also granted a seat on the Small Council by the authority of the council.

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

That Ned asked the council to confirm it seems like a practical measure since the council members are the most powerful men of the capital, and securing their support is vital when confronting someone as powerful as the queen. It's not a legal requirement.

It is. Reread the relevant Ned chapter 

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

Of course, if it is, point me to the written law confirming your opinion. 

I don't have to do that. You see how things are in the books if you properly read them.

8 hours ago, John Doe said:

Robert tells us that people call him usurper, that does not make it so that he thinks himself a usurper. It's okay to admit you're wrong, that he's afraid of Viserys, Drogo and Dany is mainly because they have some support (nowhere near half the realm though) and command a dothraki army. Notice how Robert only wanted to have them killed after they got their dothraki, not before, which indicates that he's more afraid of the dothraki than their support in the realm itself. 

Robert is afraid that Viserys III would come back to Westeros looking like a king. That is what the Dothraki would give to him.

 

11 hours ago, RedViperofDorne54 said:

Thanks for the response. True, Theon's situation is a bit different, like you say, he is a hostage as well as a traditional ward. That said Robert and Eddard's situations are also unusual. Normally a ward would return home upon reaching their majority which neither did and furthermore as you say Robert was Lord of Storm's End and yet he still seems to have being fostered by Jon Arryn, perhaps with the Stormlands being run by a castellan?

They were just visiting with Jon. They were no longer living there. After the tourney of Harrenhal they went back to the Eyrie to spend some time with Jon and their friends there. They were even in the Vale for a visit prior to the tourney. Robert had long since ended his days as a ward. He was even at Storm's End when his parents died.

11 hours ago, RedViperofDorne54 said:

On Aerys not wronging Jon I'd have to disagree, leaving aside the issue of his breach of the feudal contract, Aerys did have Jon's son and heir Elbert killed. Whilst we don't get much detail about it, if it resembles his killings of the Starks then it was done without a trial and therefore illegally.

It was his nephew Elbert. But we don't know any details about that. Just because a member of your family is accused of and executed for a crime you are not allowed to rebel. And we don't know whether the other people got a trial or not. Jon Arryn certainly wouldn't have accurate information on what had transpired in KL. He wasn't there.

11 hours ago, RedViperofDorne54 said:

Depending on the country and time in some medieval societies a king or lord who had forsaken his duties could be denounced and removed from the throne, obviously the rebels would claim a breach of the contract whilst the royalists would deny that one had occurred but as an idea it did exist in real history.

I know, and I certainly acknowledge that Ned and Robert had such a right. They had done nothing wrong, after all. But my point is that Aerys II becoming a tyrant/no longer being the rightful king, etc. doesn't justify Robert's claim to be the new king. The new king then would be Aerys II's heir.

Just as Robb points out that his beef was with Joffrey, not Tommen, and that once he had killed or removed Joffrey Tommen would be the rightful king.

11 hours ago, RedViperofDorne54 said:

True, he could have attempted to provoke Aerys into declaring war on him first but I don't think that there was any need to. Aerys has already killed his heir without trial and Robert and Eddard are hardly his buddies, as his wards or even former wards they would be considered members of his family in that killing them would be seen as kinslaying. I don't think it's ever explicitly stated but I would be very surprised if the right to self defense only applied to an individual and not to someone defending their 'family', especially given them importance of 'the family' in a feudal society.

Well, if Jon Arryn was extending guest right to outlaws and traitors he certainly could not hide behind that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Viserys III could have counted on the support of Dorne, the Reach, the Iron Islands (Balon would have liked to avenge himself on Robert), and parts of the Riverlands, the Crownlands, and possibly other regions where there are still Targaryen sympathies we don't know anything about.

That is half the Realm. And more people would have joined him if he had come with a pretty large army.

Dorne never supported him, Doran had made a deal and never acted upon it. 

If the Reach supported the Targaryens as you claim, they would have done so after Robert died. They didn't, and supported first the Baratheons (Renly) and then the Baratheons (Joffry and then Tommen, who they think are Baratheons). So, three Baratheons, no Targaryens. Interesting. 

Prove your claim that Balon wanted anything other than be crowned king in his own right, show me a quote proving his Targaryen sympathies. The only thing we know about him is that he rebelled against Aerys under his father. 

Quote

Stannis had no right to call himself king, either. If you aren't the king you can't insist that your younger brother betrayed you. Stannis and Renly are betraying King Joffrey.

You do not seem to understand what a line of succession is, then. It is established to regulate the succession of a king. Renly is betraying Joffrey, as well as Tommen, Myrcella and Stannis. Everyone who comes before him in the line of succession has his rights called into question by someone behind them crowning himself.  

Quote

Arnolf Karstark already has Karhold. Alys and Harrion are more of a technical problem that can be resolved with murder.

A technical problem because primogeniture seems to be a popular law in Westeros They go through great lengths just so they can claim Karholt, even though they already own the place in practice. That shows you how important that law is. 

Quote

Well, if you are looking you see a lot of that, actually. Smaller lords serving on the king's council, thus being able to give order and shape the lives of their technical liege lord.

And again, only a king can make or unmake lords or legitimize bastards. It is King Joffrey who makes Garlan Tyrell a lord and attaints the Florents, it is King Tommen who grants Castamere to Rolph Spicer and makes Ramsay Snow a lord, etc. A lord only has to follow his liege lord if the man does things in the name of the king. If he leads a rebellion against the king he has no duty in assisting him in that one.

Both are vows, both are equally binding to the one who swears them. If this is not the case, Catelyn should have corrected Walder Frey, but she didn't.

Quote

It doesn't matter where Bran is. If Manderly cared about primogeniture as much as you do Brandon Stark would be his liege lord, even if he was on the moon. And Rickon Stark would simply be the brother of his liege lord. But that's not how he refers to him.

No he wouldn't. If it is so, show me a written law, or even a hint confirming your opinion. Because the books, again, align with my view. 

You know who the ruler of House Hayford is? Lady Ermesande, not Tyrek, whose whereabouts are unknown. You know who became King of Winter after Brandon the Shipwright disappeared at sea? His son, Brandon the Burner. What gave him the authority to burn the ships if his father was still the liege of the northern lords? 

Quote

No, Robert said that he wanted his son Joffrey to succeed him. And Joffrey was his son. A son is not just your biological descendant but also the boy you raised as son. You can consider a ward your son, too, at least in a sense, and Gyles Rosby wanted his ward to inherit Rosby after his death.

And we don't know what Robert would have done had he known about the incest. It would have been his call, not Ned's or Stannis' or anyone's. The king rules on his own succession, not some people around him. If they do, there is war. Because, you know, those people don't really have all that much authority as the king.

Joffrey was not his son, of course he has to be of his blood. He poses as a Baratheon, not as a Waters and not as a Lannister. He is not a ward, he is a bastard, and we know that a bastard doesn't have a claim unless he is legitimized (and this is not achieved by posing as someone else, aka your natural son when you aren't). Nevermind that incest is widely considered a sin when you're not a Targaryen, and adultery is not something that a queen should do if she wishes to produce a legitimate heir. And that Jaime broke his vows by sleeping with the king's wife. Joffrey has basically no legal grounds to call himself king, only the lie that he is the trueborn heir of Robert Baratheon.

Quote

He did. A regent is only necessary if the king is a minor or otherwise incapacitated. If the king is Stannis Baratheon there is no need to even name a regent. Ned intended to get himself confirmed as the Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm for King Joffrey Baratheon only to then reveal that Joffrey Baratheon wasn't the king at all but a bastard born in adultery and incest.

That is deception and treason. To remain honest Ned should have revealed what he know or believed to know to Robert on the man's deathbed and reject the Regency (because in his opinion the throne should go to Stannis). Or he should have tried to settle the succession while he was still Hand, by revealing what he believed he knew to the Small Council and the court before he made any attempts to get himself confirmed as Lord Regent and Protector.

Show me the written law saying all those things. You can't have it both ways. 

Plus, the fact that Ned did not reveal it to Robert on his deathbed does not make Joffry any more legitimate. He was not the king's son, his mother even ignored the king's will. No matter how you try to spin it, Joffry is not the king.

Quote

Nope:

If I invite you it is my choice to invite you. I could also invite somebody else entirely. Kevan had no right to demand the regency, and the one thing that prevented Mace or Tarly from seizing the regency is that Pycelle and Swyft had offered it to Kevan first. Tarly and Mace arrived in the capital before Kevan, and if things hadn't been settled by then (by Kevan dispatching a raven back to KL to confirm that he was taking the regency) Mace would have taken both the Handship and the Regency.

The very fact that he has to make haste shows that the council's authority on the matter is not written in stone. 

Quote

Certainly not. Aegon III's regents appointed and deposed themselves, never asking the king for his leave. They even prevented the king's own brother-in-law from becoming one of his regents (Alyn Velaryon). And neither did anyone ask Tommen or Joffrey who their regents should be. If a dying king doesn't make his Hand the regent for his minor heir it is very unlikely that his wishes are heeded because his Hand will speak with his voice after his death and he and the council will set the Regency up, not the king.

If a minor king could name a regent himself he wouldn't need a regent. He could rule in his own right. The whole point of a regency is to have a ruler in the king's stead because the king cannot rule himself.

Cersei is made the Queen Regent by the Small Council, too. And she is also granted a seat on the Small Council by the authority of the council.

Show me the quote where it says that the council has the legal right to override the last king's will. A written law would be preferable, as this is your own standard, but any hint would be appreciated. 

Quote

It is. Reread the relevant Ned chapter 

 It isn't. But you could quote the relevant part, I'm sure if you are able to do that. 

Quote

I don't have to do that. You see how things are in the books if you properly read them.

So again, no argument to be found here. 

Quote

Robert is afraid that Viserys III would come back to Westeros looking like a king. That is what the Dothraki would give to him.

Looking like a king? No, he is afraid of a dothraki army and those not content with his rule rising up against him. At no point does he even suggest that this makes his reign not legitimate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Dorne never supported him, Doran had made a deal and never acted upon it. 

If the Reach supported the Targaryens as you claim, they would have done so after Robert died. They didn't, and supported first the Baratheons (Renly) and then the Baratheons (Joffry and then Tommen, who they think are Baratheons). So, three Baratheons, no Targaryens. Interesting. 

Prove your claim that Balon wanted anything other than be crowned king in his own right, show me a quote proving his Targaryen sympathies. The only thing we know about him is that he rebelled against Aerys under his father. 

We are talking about hypothetical scenarios here. If Viserys III had come to Westeros while Robert was alive the houses and regions I listed would not have stood with Robert, just as they now don't stand with Tommen or Stannis.

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

You do not seem to understand what a line of succession is, then. It is established to regulate the succession of a king. Renly is betraying Joffrey, as well as Tommen, Myrcella and Stannis. Everyone who comes before him in the line of succession has his rights called into question by someone behind them crowning himself.  

Show me that this is the case. There is no indication that this is as you claim. In fact, quite a few people gave up their claims, accepted the rulings of the kings on the succession despite them having 'the better claim'. Princess Rhaenys and Laenor Velaryon, Prince Maegor and Princess Vaella, Duncan Targaryen, etc.

The idea that Prince Baelon, Viserys I or Aegon V were betraying anyone when they became kings or heirs apparent just doesn't make any sense.

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

A technical problem because primogeniture seems to be a popular law in Westeros They go through great lengths just so they can claim Karholt, even though they already own the place in practice. That shows you how important that law is. 

This is not about the law, it is about appearances. 

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Both are vows, both are equally binding to the one who swears them. If this is not the case, Catelyn should have corrected Walder Frey, but she didn't.

Catelyn is biased there himself. She thinks the rebellion her son leads is justified. It is not, actually. Just as her own arrest of Tyrion Lannister wasn't legally justified, either.

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

No he wouldn't. If it is so, show me a written law, or even a hint confirming your opinion. Because the books, again, align with my view. 

You know who is the ruler of House Hayford? Lady Ermesande, not Tyrek, whose whereabouts are unknown. You know who became King of Winter after Brandon the Shipwright disappeared at sea? His son, Brandon the Burner. What gave him the authority to burn the ships if his father was still the liege of the northern lords? 

What has House Hayford to do with any of that. We are talking about primogeniture here. And you sure as hell can declare a man dead. If somebody doesn't come back from war or the sea people are justified in concluding that the person is dead.

However, Lord Wyman has no right to decide that Rickon Stark is his liege lord if he has no good reason to believe Brandon Stark might be dead. He could be still alive, and he is still alive.

Wyman is doing the same thing as the Reach and the Stormlords do. They just decide that Renly is their king, period. And they don't think they are wrong there. Not at all. And those men aren't all traitors or criminals.

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Joffrey was not his son, of course he has to be of his blood. He poses as a Baratheon, not as a Waters and not as a Lannister. He is not a ward, he is a bastard, and we know that a bastard doesn't have a claim unless he is legitimized (and this is not achieved by posing as someone else, aka your natural son when you aren't). Nevermind that incest is widely considered a sin when you're not a Targaryen, and adultery is not something that a queen should do if she wishes to produce a legitimate heir. And that Jaime broke his vows by sleeping with the king's wife. Joffrey has basically no legal grounds to call himself king, only the lie that he is the trueborn heir of Robert Baratheon.

A child born in wedlock is never a bastard. It can't be. Because unless proven otherwise a child born in matrimony is the son of the husband of that marriage. That's how things are, in real life as well as in Westeros.

Did anybody ever prove that Joffrey Baratheon isn't the son of Robert Baratheon? No, they didn't.

And by the way, the idea that Joffrey is posing as a Baratheon is just silly. Joffrey is a Baratheon because his father Robert acknowledged him as his son, as any proper father should. He doesn't know that he is not Robert's seed. And it is not up to you or Stannis to sniff around Cersei and accuse her of adultery if you can't back it up. Stannis couldn't, and thus he is a traitor to both his brother Robert and Robert's son Joffrey.

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Show me the written law saying all those things. You can't have it both ways.

Those are obvious. If you don't see why Ned was doing the wrong thing here I can't help you. I hope a better man than Eddard Stark is going to draw up your last will.

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Plus, the fact that Ned did not reveal it to Robert on his deathbed does not make Joffry any more legitimate. He was not the king's son, his mother even ignored the king's will. No matter how you try to spin it, Joffry is not the king.

The point is that it is not up to anyone but the king to rule on the legitimacy of the royal children. Nobody cares about your view on the parentage of the children of Elizabeth II, just as nobody cares about Stannis' view. Robert's view counts, and as long as Robert believes his children are his children they are his children. Who actually fathered the children doesn't matter in a world where there are no paternity tests.

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

The very fact that he has to make haste shows that the council's authority on the matter is not written in stone.

Nothing is written in stone. But then, despite Kevan making haste Tarly and Mace arrived first in KL and accepted the Small Council's decision against the better interests and despite the fact that they had the real power due to their armies. That tells us that they follow proper procedure and share my and George's view on the matter.

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

Show me the quote where it says that the council has the legal right to override the last king's will. A written law would be preferable, as this is your own standard, but any hint would be appreciated. 

Show to me that a king's will is binding. Eddard Stark betrayed Robert by trying to make Stannis king in place of Joffrey. Surely you would agree that Ned would be a traitor if Cersei's children were actually Robert's and Ned only believed they were not. In that case the will of Robert would be null and void because Ned would be undoubtedly a traitor.

But, again, the fact that Ned has to get confirmed as Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm shows that the will of the king by itself is not enough.

You also don't seem to be reading the text all that closely. Quite a few decisions that are made by Joffrey after he becomes king are done so with the consent of the Small Council. They are not just a bunch of yes-men, at least not when the king is a minor. They are the ruling body of the Realm and the power lies with them if there is a power vacuum after the death of a king.

5 minutes ago, John Doe said:

 It isn't. But you could quote the relevant part, I'm sure if you are able to do that. 

If you insist:

Quote

This is the will and word of Robert of House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and all the rest—put in the damn titles, you know how it goes. I do hereby command Eddard of House Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Hand of the King, to serve as Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm upon my…upon my death…to rule in my…in my stead, until my son Joffrey does come of age…

That is the text of Robert's last will. It makes it clear that Joffrey Baratheon is Robert's son and his successor as king. Eddard Stark is to serve as Joffrey Lord Regent and Protector until the king comes of age.

When Ned decided to betray his old friend he knew what he did. Those are his thoughts:

Quote

The deceit made him feel soiled. The lies we tell for love, he thought. May the gods forgive me.

I daresay the gods did not forgive him.

Robert also says this:

Quote

You give it to the council when I’m dead

It indicates that the council has to confirm it. Else Ned could just go on and do some regencing and protecting without consulting anyone.

Instead he thinks this:

Quote

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.

That is treason and deceit. He is intending to take the regency under false pretenses on the basis of a will he actually forged.

And specifically says:

Quote

I would ask this council to confirm me as Lord Protector, as Robert wished.

If you ask for confirmation, you need it. And Ned doesn't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jaehaerys-III said:

You seem to be claiming Renly thinks he's fourth in line yet one of the justifications of Renly taking the throne is that Joffrey is illegitimate and that Stannis wouldn't be a good ruler. Renly acknowledges he's second in line.

No, I think you have misread what actually happened. On Robert's deathbed Renly wants Ned (and presuambly himself) to take the underage King Joffrey and rule for him till he comes of age, separating him from his mother who Renly is fearful of. 

We even see Renly laugh at Stannis' story in their meeting with Cat

"Isn't that a sweet story, my lady?" Renly asked. "I was camped at Horn Hill when Lord Tarly received his letter, and I must say, it took my breath away." He smiled at his brother. "I had never suspected you were so clever, Stannis. Were it only true, you would indeed be Robert's heir."

"Were it true? Do you name me a liar?"

 "Can you prove any word of this fable?"

 Stannis ground his teeth.

 Robert could never have known, Catelyn thought, or Cersei would have lost her head in an instant. "Lord Stannis," she asked, "if you knew the queen to be guilty of such monstrous crimes, why did you keep silent? "

"I did not keep silent," Stannis declared. "I brought my suspicions to Jon Arryn."

 "Rather than your own brother?"

 "My brother's regard for me was never more than dutiful," said Stannis. "From me, such accusations would have seemed peevish and self-serving, a means of placing myself first in the line of succession. I believed Robert would be more disposed to listen if the charges came from Lord Arryn, whom he loved."

"Ah," said Renly. "So we have the word of a dead man."

As far as we know, from Renly's words and actions, he did not know about the incest and Stannis actually offers no evidence in either his letter or this conversation. 

 

Quote

I still never understood why the Reachmen disliked Stannis.

He is not easy to get along with. This is pretty much established throughout the series. Stannis himself points this put often enough

"All you need," his wife promised. "The swords of Storm's End and Highgarden for a start, and all their lords bannermen."
"Davos would tell you different," Stannis said. "Those swords are sworn to Renly. They love my charming young brother, as they once loved Robert . . . and as they have never loved me."
 
And of course how he views himself
My son reigns as King in the North, by the will of our lords and people. He bends the knee to no man, but holds out the hand of friendship to all."
"Kings have no friends," Stannis said bluntly, "only subjects and enemies."
 
Why would any Reach lord want to appoint a King like that who was so righteous that he does not value friendship or a quid pro quo relationship. 
 
On top of that he is a man who holds grudges and the Lords of the Reach held him under siege for a year and would fear him becoming King and the retribution they might suffer. 
 
And finally there is his marriage to a Florent. His heir is 50% Florent, his Hand, Admiral and Castellan of Dragonstone all Florents. Nepotism is the norm in Westeros and the Tyrells fear the Florents getting that much power as they have a decent claim on Highgarden themselves. 
 
So there are actually many valid reasons why the Reach Lords, in particular the Tyrells, did not want Stannis as King. Even if you ignored his likeability and his Florent connection this is still a King who is not going to reward support in the same way that Renly or the Lannisers would. 
Quote

And if Stannis had offered the Tyrells and their bannermen positions in the council, to replace the likes of Baelish and Varys (whom he hated) perhaps they would've gone over to him.

Sure. That is not in Stannis' character though and everyone knows that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, Robert said that he wanted his son Joffrey to succeed him. And Joffrey was his son. A son is not just your biological descendant but also the boy you raised as son. You can consider a ward your son, too, at least in a sense, and Gyles Rosby wanted his ward to inherit Rosby after his death.

And we don't know what Robert would have done had he known about the incest. 

Here you go trying to use inapplicable loopholes again. Joffery is NOT Robert's son, and to claim that he meant his son in a sense that he raised him as his own, and not meaning of his blood, is preposterous, that is not how progenitor succession works.

And we certainly do have quite the good idea of what Robert would have done if he new of Joffrey's illegitimacy. Not only do we have Ned's opinion on the matter, but we also have Robert's thoughts on Joffrey becoming the King - and these are his thoughts when thinking that Joffrey is his own blood.

A Game of Thrones - Eddard VII

Quote

 

"Let me tell you a secret, Ned. More than once, I have dreamed of giving up the crown. Take ship for the Free Cities with my horse and my hammer, spend my time warring and whoring, that's what I was made for. The sellsword king, how the singers would love me. You know what stops me? The thought of Joffrey on the throne, with Cersei standing behind him whispering in his ear. My son. How could I have made a son like that, Ned?"

 

Despite Robert's wishes to not have Joffrey on the throne, and contrary to your assertion that progenitor succession laws are not all that important, he still names him his heir, as he thinks it is Joffrey's right, due to these laws that you think are just discarded on a whim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Here you go trying to use inapplicable loopholes again. Joffery is NOT Robert's son, and to claim that he meant his son in a sense that he raised him as his own, and not meaning of his blood, is preposterous, that is not how progenitor succession works.

Do you understand the concept of marriage? It means that every child your wife gives birth throughout your marriage is yours until proven otherwise. And do you know what nobody proved in Westeros? That Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella are not Robert's children. Thus they are.

Stannis, Jon Arryn, and Ned would have to have led their suspicions before their king because only the king can sit in judgment over the queen consort or reassess the parentage of his own children.

This is a legal act. Robert could also have declared Cersei an adulteress and that her children are not his seed even if he actually believed the contrary (and just wanted to rid himself and her brood). That is what Aegon the Unworthy threatened to do to his son and heir Daeron.

But until a king does such a thing his wife's children are his children, period. And nobody has the right to claim otherwise without any good evidence. And even that evidence becomes irrelevant if it not laid before the king while he is alive. Upon his death his eldest son becomes the new king, never mind who actually fathered him.

Robert did recognize all of Cersei's children as his own children, and he did raise Joffrey as his son.

Joffrey was his son and heir, and Stannis certainly did have any right to question this. Even if he had proof that Cersei and Jaime committed incest and adultery (say, by catching them in the act, like Bran did) doesn't mean that Joff, Tommen, and Myrcella are not Robert's seed. Just because you know for a fact that I fucked your wife once doesn't mean I fathered your children, right?

15 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And we certainly do have quite the good idea of what Robert would have done if he new of Joffrey's illegitimacy. Not only do we have Ned's opinion on the matter, but we also have Robert's thoughts on Joffrey becoming the King - and these are his thoughts when thinking that Joffrey is his own blood.

A Game of Thrones - Eddard VII

That is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Robert never knew and thus we don't know what he would have done. He got soft on his deathbed and canceled the assassination of Daenerys and Viserys. I'm not so sure he would have given command to arrest or kill the children he though were his. Perhaps he wouldn't have wanted Joff to succeed him, but I'm not so sure he would have urged Ned to kill Tommen and Myrcella.

And he would have known much better what Stannis would do to Cersei and her children as well as to his kingdom. There is little chance that he would have wanted him to succeed him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Varys

I would also bring to your attention, the matter of the succession of Horn Hill. Despite Lord Tarly's wishes to name his younger son as his heir, he takes drastic measures to ensure that Sam cannot challenge his decree. Again, his actions would suggest to the contrary of your claim that these laws aren't very important, and easily discarded.

A Game of Thrones - Jon IV

Quote

 

Until the dawn of his fifteenth name day, when he had been awakened to find his horse saddled and ready. Three men-at-arms had escorted him into a wood near Horn Hill, where his father was skinning a deer. "You are almost a man grown now, and my heir," Lord Randyll Tarly had told his eldest son, his long knife laying bare the carcass as he spoke. "You have given me no cause to disown you, but neither will I allow you to inherit the land and title that should be Dickon's. Heartsbane must go to a man strong enough to wield her, and you are not worthy to touch her hilt. So I have decided that you shall this day announce that you wish to take the black. You will forsake all claim to your brother's inheritance and start north before evenfall.

"If you do not, then on the morrow we shall have a hunt, and somewhere in these woods your horse will stumble, and you will be thrown from the saddle to die … or so I will tell your mother. She has a woman's heart and finds it in her to cherish even you, and I have no wish to cause her pain. Please do not imagine that it will truly be that easy, should you think to defy me. Nothing would please me more than to hunt you down like the pig you are." His arms were red to the elbow as he laid the skinning knife aside. "So. There is your choice. The Night's Watch"—he reached inside the deer, ripped out its heart, and held it in his fist, red and dripping—"or this

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

@Lord Varys

I would also bring to your attention, the matter of the succession of Horn Hill. Despite Lord Tarly's wishes to name his younger son as his heir, he takes drastic measures to ensure that Sam cannot challenge his decree. Again, his actions would suggest to the contrary of your claim that these laws aren't very important, and easily discarded.

I know that quote. But Randyll also mentions that he could have disowned Sam if he wanted to do. He just wanted that son gone.

Besides, that has nothing to do with anything. I don't deny that an elder son usually comes before a younger. I just say that's not always the case, especially not when there are reason why elder sons are not exactly good kingly or lordly material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I know that quote. But Randyll also mentions that he could have disowned Sam if he wanted to do. He just wanted that son gone.

No, not if he wanted to. It is right there in the quote, he'd need just cause. Sam would have to commit some crime for Randyll to be able to disinherit him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Do you understand the concept of marriage?

I do. Do you understand how babies are made?

Quote

It means that every child your wife gives birth throughout your marriage is yours until proven otherwise. And do you know what nobody proved in Westeros? That Joffrey, Tommen, and Myrcella are not Robert's children. Thus they are.

That's not what it means. What a ridiculous concept of marriage. And you know what? Ned did have proof.

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XII

Quote

 

"All three are Jaime's," he said. It was not a question.

"Thank the gods."

 

So your claim that he had no right to question the legitimacy of Robert's children, which is bogus in the first place, is nullified even if it was accurate.

Your constant insistence that nobody has a right to question unlawful acts of deceit and treason is unfathomable. What ridiculously immoral, negligent, and destructive rules and attitudes you expect people to follow and have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I know that quote. But Randyll also mentions that he could have disowned Sam if he wanted to do. He just wanted that son gone.

Stop trying to twist the meaning of the text to support your desires. It clearly means the exact opposite of what you claim.

Quote

Besides, that has nothing to do with anything. I don't deny that an elder son usually comes before a younger. I just say that's not always the case, especially not when there are reason why elder sons are not exactly good kingly or lordly material.

It has everything to do with this discussion. It clearly shows that one cannot just ignore the laws of succession without just cause.

And no, not liking the personality of someone, is not an acceptable reason to deny them their lawful birthrights. Anyone who refused Stannis as the rightful King on these grounds was committing treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

No, not if he wanted to. It is right there in the quote, he'd need just cause. Sam would have to commit some crime for Randyll to be able to disinherit him. 

I know that quote. But Tyrion is not Tywin's heir despite the fact that he is the only son he has that isn't in the Kingsguard. Things are not so easy in that regard.

46 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

That's not what it means. What a ridiculous concept of marriage.

That is the legal concept of marriage in any developed country. Your father did not make a paternity test before he believed your mother's claim that you are his son (assuming your parents were married at the time of your birth). That's only done when you have reason to doubt. Robert never had a chance to doubt so, well, his sons was his son.

46 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And you know what? Ned did have proof.

That's not proof. Proof is something you can present to someone. A testimony is not proof. And, quite honestly, Cersei's claim that her children are Jaime's isn't worth all that much. Do we know that Robert didn't also fuck her around that time? Do we know Cersei can be sure that Jaime is the father of her children? We don't. She could be mistaken there.

In a world where there are no paternity tests there can't be any such proof. The fact that Cersei's children all greatly resemble her but not Robert doesn't prove anything. Ridiculous talk about the seed being strong is just that ... ridiculous talk.

46 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

So your claim that he had no right to question the legitimacy of Robert's children, which is bogus in the first place, is nullified even if it was accurate.

If you would read what I'm saying I actually acknowledged that Ned as Hand had the right to rule on the succession. He was speaking with the King's Voice. But it was treason not to tell Robert the truth and to try to get himself installed as King Joffrey's Lord Regent and Protector when he actually wanted to depose that king.

That is not all that difficult to understand.

46 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Your constant insistence that nobody has a right to question unlawful acts of deceit and treason is unfathomable. What ridiculously immoral, negligent, and destructive rules and attitudes you expect people to follow and have.

The point is that only the king can rule on the parentage and legitimacy of his own children, just as only the king can sit in judgment over the queen. The king's brother can't do that. And that's why Stannis isn't the king and should have either spoken to Robert or supported his royal nephew against his enemies. Nobody is obliged to take the claims of a man like Stannis seriously. That's why he has as many followers as he has.

25 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

It has everything to do with everything. It clearly shows that one cannot just ignore the laws of succession without just cause.

The fact that Randyll Tarly didn't choose to disown Sam doesn't mean he could have done so. Do you know who would have decided whether Sam had given him 'just cause'? Lord Randyll. He sure as hell could have found some pretext, just as Tywin didn't even need a pretext to not name Tyrion his heir.

Now, the fact that he didn't points towards the fact that Randyll wanted Sam to be either dead or gone. He did not want him to be still around and alive when he finally died, so that he could perhaps try to challenge Dickon's claim by complaining to Mace or the king about the whole affair. We know from TSS that you can actually challenge and overturn wills in court, just as you can stipulate conditions under which your heir actually is going to inherit and under which he or she is going to lose the title. We see this with Lady Rohanne Webber.

25 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And no, not liking the personality of someone, is not an acceptable reason to deny them their lawful birthrights. Anyone who refused Stannis as the rightful King on these grounds was committing treason.

Nobody betrayed Stannis. Stannis is just a usurper's brother trying to usurp the throne his brother stole, too. You can't legally inherit stolen goods.

The way Stannis is treated, both by the Stormlords, the Reach lords, as well as the people following Joffrey but actually not believing that he is Robert's son perfectly illustrates the fact that very few people actually care about the right of primogeniture or a line of succession. And it is quite clear that especially Renly's followers are devoted, loyal, and honest people (at least the bulk of the men we meet in his camp). They are not morally corrupt or believe that the law is irrelevant. They just don't think that Stannis' claim is all that relevant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I know that quote. But Tyrion is not Tywin's heir despite the fact that he is the only son he has that isn't in the Kingsguard. Things are not so easy in that regard.

 

As far as we know he is. Had Tywin died before Joffrey was killed Tyrion would be the Lord of the Rock. Tywin, as far as we know, had done nothing. Not announced another heir, not publicly disinherited Tyrion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...