why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

[Bernie Mac]

Just now, Darkstream said:

And why would she expect Stannis to be the one usurping the Crown over his brother? It's because she knows he has the strongest claim in which to justify his actions with.

Stannis has been sulking on Dragonstone for months. He is a man who has not been subtle about the fact that he should have been made Hand and should have been made Lord of the Stormlands. I think it is pretty clear why he would look the obvious brother to try and usurp his nephews crown. 

 

Just now, Darkstream said:

Just as when the North declared their independence, they didn't declare for Bran over Rob.

Please read the actual chapter. At that stage Cat has no idea about Joffrey and Tommen being bastards. To Cat Joffrey is the legal King, Tommen his heir. In fact she suggests peace with the Crown, not Stannis. 

 

Just now, Darkstream said:

Well no, that may be the case, but that is a strawman argument.

That is the argument you made. At the point in time Cat truly believed that Joffrey was the King and Tommen the heir. If Renly claiming a Crown is absurd to Cat then Stannis doing the same is equally absurd. 

Just now, Darkstream said:

They lost.

Actually no, many of his supporters won. Renly, well his ghost, was a hero of the Blackwater. They rewrote history and Stannis is the only treasonous brother. Renly died a loyal subject. 

Just now, Darkstream said:

Only in the eyes of the ignorant people in Westeros. In actuality, he was not commiting treason.

That is debatable. Robert lived and died with Joffrey as his legal heir. The lawful time for Stannis to change that was the nine months he was sulking on Dragonstone. He possibly could have had it accepted as 'law'if he called a Great Council and convinced enough people that it was true.  He ignored both of those options and tried to claim the relm by amassing a large enough army. 

According to the laws of Westeros, Stannis committed treason. Sorry if this upsets you.  

Just now, Darkstream said:

...And I know, I know. He had no proof, I get it.

Excellent. 

Just now, Darkstream said:

Thats because you keep repeating the same thing.

Really. Quote them then. Quote all the things you think I keep on repeating and I will discuss them, rather than generalise what you think has been said. Don't make accusations you can't follow up on. 

Just now, Darkstream said:

 

Nobody here is denying that Renly had more support, was more likely to win the war, that Stannis had no proof, etc. It's just as bizarre that you and others need to constantly make these statements as well.

We are trying to explain to you that Claim is not just dependent on birth order. If you can accept that it is not just about birth order then there is no reason for you to reply.

No one in this thread is arguing that Renly is older than Stannis, that in the line of succession he comes before him (while they are both behind their nephews). 

Just now, Darkstream said:

No, I stated that it is not a legal means to determine the succession, and that having might, does not equate to having a stronger claim.

 

Yes it does. Who had the stronger claim to the Throne when Aerys died? Viserys, his legal heir or Robert the man who actually claimed the Throne? Clearly it was Robert. Might can indeed lead to having a stronger claim. In fact Viserys himself was trying to raise an army so he could claim his Throne. 

 

[Darkstream]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Stannis has been sulking on Dragonstone for months. He is a man who has not been subtle about the fact that he should have been made Hand and should have been made Lord of the Stormlands. I think it is pretty clear why he would look the obvious brother to try and usurp his nephews crown. 

Fair enough, that's possible, but not necessary In order for her to have the same reaction due to the reason I've stated.

Quote

 

Please read the actual chapter. At that stage Cat has no idea about Joffrey and Tommen being bastards. To Cat Joffrey is the legal King, Tommen his heir. In fact she suggests peace with the Crown, not Stannis. 

So, it's still irrelevant. Even though she still believes that, Robb is declaring Independence, not Bran. If House Baratheon was going to attempt a coup, it's only natural to assume that the head of the house would be the one doing so. Just as Robert seized the Crown, instead of one of his younger brothers, who had a weaker claim to justify it by.

Quote

That is the argument you made. At the point in time Cat truly believed that Joffrey was the King and Tommen the heir. If Renly claiming a Crown is absurd to Cat then Stannis doing the same is equally absurd. 

No, I'm stating that she thinks it's absurd for Renly to claim the Crown over his brother, not in general.

Quote

Actually no, many of his supporters won. Renly, well his ghost, was a hero of the Blackwater. They rewrote history and Stannis is the only treasonous brother. Renly died a loyal subject. 

Well that may have been the initial rumors running around in the immediate aftermath, but everyone knows the truth now.

Quote

That is debatable. Robert lived and died with Joffrey as his legal heir. The lawful time for Stannis to change that was the nine months he was sulking on Dragonstone. He possibly could have had it accepted as 'law'if he called a Great Council and convinced enough people that it was true.  He ignored both of those options and tried to claim the relm by amassing a large enough army. 

According to the laws of Westeros, Stannis committed treason. Sorry if this upsets you.  

Why would it upset me? Even if it was true, it wouldn't upset me.

He didn't commit treason according to the laws of Westeros, he committed treason according to the false perception of the facts by the Westerosi population. I fully acknowledge that in world, he is seen as a treasonous traitor. 

Quote

Excellent. 

Really. Quote them then. Quote all the things you think I keep on repeating and I will discuss them, rather than generalise what you think has been said. Don't make accusations you can't follow up on. 

We are trying to explain to you that Claim is not just dependent on birth order. If you can accept that it is not just about birth order then there is no reason for you to reply.

Well, if you can't accept that you are not using the correct definition of claim, in the context as it pertains to this discussion, and the OP, there's no reason for you to reply either.

Quote

No one in this thread is arguing that Renly is older than Stannis, that in the line of succession he comes before him (while they are both behind their nephews). 

No, you are arguing that he has a stronger claim, despite admitting to the contrary, and your basing this on an irrelevant definition of the word claim.

Quote

Yes it does. Who had the stronger claim to the Throne when Aerys died? Viserys, his legal heir or Robert the man who actually claimed the Throne? Clearly it was Robert.

Viserys did, until Robert was coronated. Yes, Robert "claimed" the throne, by rights of conquest, not by rights of a stronger claim.

Quote

 

Might can indeed lead to having a stronger claim. In fact Viserys himself was trying to raise an army so he could claim his Throne. 

 

No, Viserys was raising an army in order to support his claim.

[Bernie Mac]

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Fair enough, that's possible, but not necessary for her to have the same reaction due to the reason I've stated.

The reason you made up you mean? Let us stick to the facts. 

Quote

So, it's still irrelevant.

lol just because you say it is? 

Quote

 

Even though she still believes that, Robb is declaring Independence, not Bran. If House Baratheon was going to attempt a coup, it's only natural to assume that the head of the house would be the one doing so. Just as Robert seized the Crown, instead of one of his younger brothers, who had a weaker claim to justify it by.

Where does she say this? You are putting words into her mouth that she never states. 

Quote

No, I'm stating that she thinks it's absurd for Renly to claim the Crown over his brother, not in general.

Where does she say absurd. Please quote where she says absurd. 

She thinks that Joffrey is the King, that Renly is trying to steal Robert's crown. She suggests making peace with the Crown. Stannis and Renly both claiming their brothers crown is wrong. If she thinks one trying to do it is absurd then she thinks it is true of both of them as neither was Robert's heir. 

 

Quote

Well that may have been the initial rumors running around in the immediate aftermath, but everyone knows the truth now.

 

No, they don't know the truth. They know rumours, some choose to believe it some choose not to. 

Quote

Why would it upset me? Even if it was true, it wouldn't upset me.

You seem to not be able to handle the truth. 

Quote

He didn't commit treason according to the laws of Westeros, he committed treason according to the false perception of the facts by the Westerosi population. I fully acknowledge that in world, he is seen as a treasonous traitor. 

Excellent. We both agree that to Cat in the AGOT chapter that John Doe quoted, she saw both Stannis and Renly as traitors. 

Quote

Well, if you can't accept that you are not using the correct definition of claim, in the context as it pertains to this discussion, and the OP, there's no reason for you to reply either.

No, you are arguing that he has a stronger claim, despite admitting to the contrary, and your basing this on an irrelevant definition of the word claim.

Irreverent? Since when do you decide when a word is irrelevant?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/claim

to ask for something of value because you think it belongs to you or because you think you have a right to it:

That is all it means according to the dictionary. You are giving extra meaning to the word. Robert thought he has right to the Crown because he won the war. Renly thinks he has a right to the Throne because he has the most support. Stannis also thinks he has a right to the Crown because he thinks (not knows) that his nephews are bastards. 

Claim has multiple meanings. I am sorry if the English language offends you, but there is more than one claim. In some ways Stannis had a stronger claim than his younger brother and in other ways Renly had a stronger claim. That is all people have argued here. If you don't like the fact that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the word 'claim' then bring it up with the Cambridge dictionary. 

Quote

Viserys did, until Robert was coronated.

Nope. Robert's clam was stronger than Viserys even before his coronation. Do you know how we know this to be true? Robert claimed the Throne. His claim was stronger. 

Quote

 

Yes, Robert "claimed" the throne, by rights of conquest, not by rights of a stronger claim.

That was his stronger claim. He claimed the Throne. It happened, deal with it. 

Quote

No, Viserys was raising an army in order to support his claim.

To strengthen his claim. You can't clam something if you are not strong enough to hold it. Visery's claim was weak, he needed an army to strengthen that claim. 

[Darkstream]

38 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

The reason you made up you mean? Let us stick to the facts. 

lol just because you say it is? 

Where does she say this? You are putting words into her mouth that she never states. 

Where does she say absurd. Please quote where she says absurd. 

She thinks that Joffrey is the King, that Renly is trying to steal Robert's crown. She suggests making peace with the Crown. Stannis and Renly both claiming their brothers crown is wrong. If she thinks one trying to do it is absurd then she thinks it is true of both of them as neither was Robert's heir. 

 

 

No, they don't know the truth. They know rumours, some choose to believe it some choose not to. 

You seem to not be able to handle the truth. 

Excellent. We both agree that to Cat in the AGOT chapter that John Doe quoted, she saw both Stannis and Renly as traitors. 

Irreverent? Since when do you decide when a word is irrelevant?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/claim

to ask for something of value because you think it belongs to you or because you think you have a right to it:

That is all it means according to the dictionary. You are giving extra meaning to the word. Robert thought he has right to the Crown because he won the war. Renly thinks he has a right to the Throne because he has the most support. Stannis also thinks he has a right to the Crown because he thinks (not knows) that his nephews are bastards. 

Claim has multiple meanings. I am sorry if the English language offends you, but there is more than one claim. In some ways Stannis had a stronger claim than his younger brother and in other ways Renly had a stronger claim. That is all people have argued here. If you don't like the fact that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the word 'claim' then bring it up with the Cambridge dictionary. 

Nope. Robert's clam was stronger than Viserys even before his coronation. Do you know how we know this to be true? Robert claimed the Throne. His claim was stronger. 

That was his stronger claim. He claimed the Throne. It happened, deal with it. 

 

Well you're refusing to acknowledge this definition. 

Definition of claim

2a :  a right to something; specifically :  a title to a debt, privilege, or other thing in the possession of another The bank has a claim on their house.

Having an army doesn't give you the right to something, if gives you the ability to forcefully, and illegally take something that you have no right to.

It's only common sense, that in the context of discussing rights of succession, the definition I have provided is the proper one to use.

You want to insert "claim" in as a synonym for "support" but It's not the same thing. Claim and support are not synonyms.

Quote

You can't clam something if you are not strong enough to hold it. 

Sure you can, a poster on this very thread claimed victory in a debate, although his argument wasn't even close to being strong enough to justify doing so.

Or hey, I claim that I can lift twenty tons over my head.

...guess what, I'll let you in on a secret, I'm actually not strong enough to do so.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your comments as you are just starting to resort to childish and snarky comments, and strawman arguments.  
 

[ravenous reader]

People on this thread are just arguing now in order not to 'lose face'.  It's inane.  Please, it's obvious an older brother comes before a younger one in the succession.  Renly in his hubris thought he could leapfrog the queue.

[Lord Varys]

Bringing in the Stark succession doesn't help. Robb is the eldest son and heir of Eddard Stark. But who is the heir of the murdered Robb Stark? Sansa Stark Lannister who apparently was formerly disinherited by her brother? Brandon the Broken, a cripple whom the Lords of the North would rather see dead than follow? Rickon Stark, the Wild Wolf? Jon Snow the Bastard?

Who does know those things, truly?

[Darkstream]

21 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Bringing in the Stark succession doesn't help. Robb is the eldest son and heir of Eddard Stark. But who is the heir of the murdered Robb Stark? Sansa Stark Lannister who apparently was formerly disinherited by her brother? Brandon the Broken, a cripple whom the Lords of the North would rather see dead than follow? Rickon Stark, the Wild Wolf? Jon Snow the Bastard?

Who does know those things, truly?

I do. Bran is the legal heir, whether he garners claim support or not. That is a fact.

[Darkstream]

18 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

  Renly in his hubris thought he could leapfrog the queue.

Yup, it seems he wasn't as strong as he "claimed."

[Universal Sword Donor]

12 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

I do. Bran is the legal heir, whether he garners support or not. That is a fact.

Kings and lords can dictate who their heir is. We see it half a dozen times. Here, you can read up on it: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Customs#Inheritance

Robb clearly delineated someone else to be his heir -- we assume Jon -- because Bran was "dead." Who will end up as Lord of WF? We do not know. Who is the legal heir? We don't know.

[Bernie Mac]

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Well you're refusing to acknowledge this definition. 

lol no, I have not. Please quote me where I have refused to ackowledge that is also one definition of the word. 

 

 Time and time again I have told you that there more than one interpretation of that word. I have not stated that any one meaning is more correct than the other. 

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 

Having an army doesn't give you the right to something, if gives you the ability to forcefully, and illegally take something that you have no right to.

That is a right in itself. Once again you are arguing semantics, words have more more than one meaning. Having the largest amount of support does give you certain rights. There is no clear answer, you getting annoyed with others for not thinking the same way as you is getting a little ridiculous.

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

It's only common sense, that in the context of discussing rights of succession, the definition I have provided is the proper one to use.

As did mine. The quote I uses actually refers to Richard III and his successor's claim. If you had bothered to read it then you would have known this. 

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

You want to insert "claim" in as a synonym for "support" but It's not the same thing. Claim and support are not synonyms.

Nope. The dictionary is quote clear on Claim. You have a problem with their defintion then take it up with the Cambridge dictionary. 

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Sure you can, a poster on this very thread claimed victory in a debate, although his argument wasn't even close to being strong enough to justify doing so.

What does this have to do with my reply. No on wonder you are confused, you are generalising everyone's replies. Please read what people are actually saying. 

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Or hey, I claim that I can lift twenty tons over my head.

Good for you. This has what to do with my reply?

28 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your comments as you are just starting to resort to childish and snarky comments, and strawman arguments.  
 

lol but you still replied. 

30 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

People on this thread are just arguing now in order not to 'lose face'.  It's inane.  Please, it's obvious an older brother comes before a younger one in the succession.  Renly in his hubris thought he could leapfrog the queue.

 There is not one person in this thread (at least the last 6 pages) who has claimed that Stannis is behind Renly in the line of succession. That seems to be Darkstream's go to response when he does not like what someone has replied to him. 

 

Renly thought the largest army every gathered in Westeros would let him leap frog the queue. It was certainly arrogance, but it was arrogance that was warranted. A magical assassin prevented him from becoming King. Stannis' weak support stopped him from becoming King (as of yet). 

[Darkstream]

7 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Kings and lords can dictate who their heir is. We see it half a dozen times. Here, you can read up on it: http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Customs#Inheritance

Robb clearly delineated someone else to be his heir -- we assume Jon -- because Bran was "dead." Who will end up as Lord of WF? We do not know. Who is the legal heir? We don't know.

As of now, Bran is the heir. If Robb's will is revealed to name Jon as heir, then Jon will become the heir.

Thanks, but I've no need to read the link you've provided, I already know this.

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 minute ago, Darkstream said:

As of now, Bran is the heir. If Robb's will is revealed to name Jon as heir, then Jon will become the heir.

Thanks, but I've no need to read the link you've provided, I already know this.

Bran is not the heir. Robb wrote him out. We know that Robb excluded bran and rickon from the will and we can assume, if so desired, Sansa was as well due to her Lannister husband. Bran is definitively not an heir, but he has a relatively weak claim! Being immobile in a cave beyond the wall makes it pretty hard to drum up support.

[Lord Varys]

21 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

I do. Bran is the legal heir, whether he garners claim support or not. That is a fact.

So you ignore the fact that Robb actually set up a will which named his heir? And you question the right of Robb to choose his own heir as a king?

We don't know whether he mentioned his brothers Brandon and Rickon as dead therein. If he did, and people actually learn or believe they are still alive his will might be ignored. If not, then, well, the fact that they still live might not help them to claim Winterfell because people think King Robb's will is more important than the fact that his brothers survived.

And if another Stark is installed as Lord of Winterfell or even King in the North, with the entire North doing homage and swearing fealty to such a person, things are not going to change because some children happen to be still alive. Especially not if a Queen/Lady Sansa or a King/Lord Jon is either unwilling or incapable of stepping down.

Lord Wyman Manderly has already chosen his new liege lord. And it is the younger Stark son, Rickon Stark, who he thinks is on Skagos. He also knows that the elder Stark boy, Brandon Stark the Cripple, is likely also still alive. Yet he doesn't send people looking for him. He wants Rickon.

We can be reasonably sure that the Northmen will care as much about the birth order as did the Reach men and Stormlanders who made Renly their king. Especially in light of the fact that Brandon is a cripple, incapable of fathering children or lead men into battle. The Northmen despise such people. He won't inspire loyalty in anyone. Most of the Northmen who saw Bran either pitied him or considered it an insult that this cripple was receiving honors he didn't deserve due to being a cripple. That makes it clear the Northmen most likely never had cripples, lackwits, or any other people who were unable to rule as their kings or lords. Such people would not survive in that environment.

Robb's entire story shows that the right of primogeniture and other inheritance laws mean pretty much nothing in the North. The Northmen are ruled by the Starks because the Starks rule with strength. If they don't, the Boltons skin them alive.

An elder son as 'popular' as Stannis should be very easily be pushed aside by younger son in the North. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

So you ignore the fact that Robb actually set up a will which named his heir? And you question the right of Robb to choose his own heir as a king?

We don't know whether he mentioned his brothers Brandon and Rickon as dead therein. If he did, and people actually learn or believe they are still alive his will might be ignored. If not, then, well, the fact that they still live might not help them to claim Winterfell because people think King Robb's will is more important than the fact that his brothers survived.

And if another Stark is installed as Lord of Winterfell or even King in the North, with the entire North doing homage and swearing fealty to such a person, things are not going to change because some children happen to be still alive. Especially not if a Queen/Lady Sansa or a King/Lord Jon is either unwilling or incapable of stepping down.

Lord Wyman Manderly has already chosen his new liege lord. And it is the younger Stark son, Rickon Stark, who he thinks is on Skagos. He also knows that the elder Stark boy, Brandon Stark the Cripple, is likely also still alive. Yet he doesn't send people looking for him. He wants Rickon.

We can be reasonably sure that the Northmen will care as much about the birth order as did the Reach men and Stormlanders who made Renly their king. Especially in light of the fact that Brandon is a cripple, incapable of fathering children or lead men into battle. The Northmen despise such people. He won't inspire loyalty in anyone. Most of the Northmen who saw Bran either pitied him or considered it an insult that this cripple was receiving honors he didn't deserve due to being a cripple. That makes it clear the Northmen most likely never had cripples, lackwits, or any other people who were unable to rule as their kings or lords. Such people would not survive in that environment.

Robb's entire story shows that the right of primogeniture and other inheritance laws mean pretty much nothing in the North. The Northmen are ruled by the Starks because the Starks rule with strength. If they don't, the Boltons skin them alive.

An elder son as 'popular' as Stannis should be very easily be pushed aside by younger son in the North. 

Robb specifically denotes Bran and Rickon as dead before he asks for his lords seals as witnesses, so I think it's safe to assume he excludes them from the will.

[Darkstream]

20 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

lol no, I have not. Please quote me where I have refused to ackowledge that is also one definition of the word. 

 

Quote

to ask for something of value because you think it belongs to you or because you think you have a right to it:

"That is all it means according to the dictionary. You are giving extra meaning to the word. "

 

[Darkstream]

30 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Bran is not the heir. Robb wrote him out. We know that Robb excluded bran and rickon from the will and we can assume, if so desired, Sansa was as well due to her Lannister husband. Bran is definitively not an heir, but he has a relatively weak claim! Being immobile in a cave beyond the wall makes it pretty hard to drum up support.

Please do provide the quote stating what is written in the will.

And where is this will right now?

As I said:

"As of now, Bran is the heir. If Robb's will is revealed to name Jon as heir, then Jon will become the heir."

[Darkstream]

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

So you ignore the fact that Robb actually set up a will which named his heir? And you question the right of Robb to choose his own heir as a king?

Have I? 

Now you're resorting to using strawmen as well?

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Robb specifically denotes Bran and Rickon as dead before he asks for his lords seals as witnesses, so I think it's safe to assume he excludes them from the will.

Well, if he thinks they are dead there is no reason to believe he would specifically cut them out of the succession. In fact, it is actually very likely that the will opens with a line going somewhat like this 'Since a vile treason took my beloved younger brothers Brandon and Rickon from me...' The one being specifically excluded from the succession will be Sansa. Arya might also be officially declared dead in the will, making way for the introduction of Jon Snow as the new heir.

But whether Robb merely declares him his heir therein or whether he also legitimizes him as Jon Stark, son of Eddard Stark and an unknown woman, is completely unclear. In fact, we don't even know what his final decision was. There is a reason we don't actually know the content of that will.

In any case, if Bran and Rickon return into the story at a time before a new Stark Lord of Winterfell is formerly proclaimed the chances are actually pretty good that Robb's will be simply ignored. Even more so since Howland Reed knows that Jon Snow is not, in fact, Eddard Stark's son by an unknown woman.

A Wull from the clansmen knows Bran is still alive. Wyman Manderly and Robett Glover know that, too. And it is not unlikely that Howland Reed also knows that neither Bran nor his own children are dead. He most likely also knows where they went.

It is not very likely anyone in the North is going to turn to Jon Snow as Robb's successor while at least Rickon Stark is still alive (they won't turn to Bran). And if Sansa were to reveal herself publicly before such a decision is made people might also turn to her first. She is no longer a Lannister prisoner/hostage, and there might even be a chance that Robb disinherited Sansa and Arya only under certain conditions. Say, something along the lines of 'Should my beloved wife Jeyne not give birth to a son or a daughter before my own death, and should I not have freed my beloved sister from the clutches of the Lannister at that time, my heir is to be...'

The idea that Robb would disinherit Sansa and Arya under all possible circumstances in his will (like him freeing or getting them back before his death) doesn't sound convincing to me. Jon is his last resort, not someone he wants to make his heir under any circumstances. He most likely was hellbent to get him out of the Watch and back into the family as his brother and friend, now that his trueborn brothers were both dead, but that doesn't mean he must have concluded that Jon should be his heir no matter what.

[sweetsunray]

21 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Robb specifically denotes Bran and Rickon as dead before he asks for his lords seals as witnesses, so I think it's safe to assume he excludes them from the will.

Why would you exclude dead people from inheriting something?

If you were sure that a sibling of yours was dead and you wrote a will, would you then stipulate that your dead sibling is not to inherit anything? Of course not. If you're going to exclude someone from inheriting something, you're only going to mention the living relatives you don't want to inherit, or the children of the dead relatives (which doesn't apply in Bran's and Rickon's case, because neither had children at the time they were believed to have died)

[Bernie Mac]

30 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

to ask for something of value because you think it belongs to you or because you think you have a right to it:

 

You do realise I didn't come up with that definition, the Cambridge dictionary did.  Renly's claim, like his brother Robert's, is based on having the largest support to make him King. 

 

Quote

"Robert won the throne with his warhammer." He swept a hand across the campfires that burned from horizon to horizon. "Well, there is my claim, as good as Robert's ever was."

In fact that is also how Stannis tries to claim his throne, not through legality but through might. That is why goes to Storm's End before Kings Landing; he needs a larger army to claim the Throne that someone else is already sitting in