Renly was the true steel

why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

636 posts in this topic

24 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

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)

To give context as to why he's legitimizing a bastard and naming him his heir. Stannis did as much when declaring himself king. 

“ I declare upon the honor of my House that my beloved brother Robert, our late king, left no trueborn issue of his body, the boy Joffrey, the boy Tommen, and the girl Myrcella being abominations born of incest between Cersei Lannister and her brother Jaime the Kingslayer. By right of birth and blood, I do this day lay claim to the Iron Throne of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros.”

GRRM might as well have copied and pasted the text in for robb's speech.

“One more matter. Lord Balon has left chaos in his wake, we hope. I would not do the same. Yet I have no son as yet, my brothers Bran and Rickon are dead, and my sister is wed to a Lannister. I’ve thought long and hard about who might follow me. I command you now as my true and loyal lords to fix your seals to this document as witnesses to my decision.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

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. 

So what? That definition, although legit, is irrelevant to the context of who has a stronger claim to the throne.

You also went on to say:

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

Which is a undeniably false statement. You are strait up wrong, yet don't have the class or dignity to admit it. Deal with it, and own up to your mistake.

Quote

 

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 

So, what's your point? I'll not deny that is what he did, and it doesn't support your argument at all. 

Find a new horse to beat, the one you're incessantly whacking died about five pages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

To give context as to why he's legitimizing a bastard and naming him his heir. Stannis did as much when declaring himself king. 

“ I declare upon the honor of my House that my beloved brother Robert, our late king, left no trueborn issue of his body, the boy Joffrey, the boy Tommen, and the girl Myrcella being abominations born of incest between Cersei Lannister and her brother Jaime the Kingslayer. By right of birth and blood, I do this day lay claim to the Iron Throne of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros.”

GRRM might as well have copied and pasted the text in for robb's speech.

“One more matter. Lord Balon has left chaos in his wake, we hope. I would not do the same. Yet I have no son as yet, my brothers Bran and Rickon are dead, and my sister is wed to a Lannister. I’ve thought long and hard about who might follow me. I command you now as my true and loyal lords to fix your seals to this document as witnesses to my decision.”

 

Robb's words are not the Will's words. It's possibly that Robb mentions "since my brothers Bran and Rickon are dead" in the will, but actually that would only be in their favor if they turn up alive. It would give them the legal argument to contest Robb's will. If he does not refer to them at all in his will, because he assumes they're dead, while declaring Jon his heir and specifically excluding Sansa from Stark inheritance because of her Lannister marriage, then it can be argued that Robb's will is to be taken as making Jon heir, no matter what, even though Robb wouldn't have.

As for Stannis: he's talking about Robert's issue. Stannis is excluding Robert's children from having the right to inherit the throne and crown. Which was exactly what I said is the sole logical reason you'd specifically include the mentioning of a dead relative in your will: the children of a dead sibling can formulate a possible legitimate claim through blood. So, if you don't want your cousins or nephews andnieces to inherit anything, you will have to stipulate the supposed blood connection first to then say "and they're not getting anything".

Anyway, I don't see how the above quotes boost your claim that Robb's Will said "my dead brothers Bran and Rickon are not my heirs". It's superfluous. If you're dead then the practical consequence is that you're not alive to inherit anything. Duh! I'm not going to write "my grandmother is not my heir" either in my will when my grandmother is long dead.

Edited by sweetsunray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

24 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

So what? That definition, although legit, is irrelevant to the context of who has a stronger claim to the throne.

Nope, it is entirely relevant, There is more than one way to determine what claim is stronger. One way to do it would be through the line of succession, the other through actual support and the ability to actually claim the Throne. 

Quote

You also went on to say:

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

 

Yup, And in the same post you quoted I also stated "Claim has multiple meanings." Now I am sorry if this upsets you, but it is true. 

 

24 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 

Which is a undeniably false statement. You are strait up wrong, yet don't have the class or dignity to admit it. Deal with it, and own up to your mistake.

How am I wrong? Or more precisely, how is the Cambridge dictionary wrong? What qualifies you to say that your definition of the word is right and theirs is wrong?

I am not trying to make you any more angry than you already are, I am just trying to explain a point you have been missing. 

24 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 

So, what's your point? I'll not deny that is what he did, and it doesn't support your argument at all. 

 

Please tell me what you think my argument actually is, as it is clear you have not been taking on board anything I have been trying to tell you. 

Quote

Find a new horse to beat, the one you're incessantly whacking died about five pages ago.

No, I'm enjoying this one. 

Edited by Bernie Mac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bernie Mac

Oh, and by the way. You're not even using the version of 'claim' that you provided the definition for correctly half of the time either.

Your definition:

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

Please explain to me how having an army, or more support, allows you to ask for something 'stronger.' 

Claim as you've defined it is an abstract concept; a decleration, or an assertion. Either a verbal or written notion. Nothing can make it stronger, it just is what it is; Words, and words are wind.

Here's a few more definitions:

verb

1.state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

noun

1.an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

---

Cause the loss of (someone's life).
synonyms:take, result in the loss of, cause the loss of
"the fire claimed four lives"

---

You claimed (meaning: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.) that Robert had a stronger claim (meaning: a right or title to something) because he did claim (meaning: cause the loss of) the throne from Aerys.

Well, I claim (meaning: an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.) that your claim (meaning: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof) is bogus, and doesn't prove anything, as well as being circular reasoning.

And you see, contrary to your claim (meaning: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof) that one cannot claim (meaning: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof) something without the strength to hold it, I just did.

Get it now?


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Please tell me what you think my argument actually is, as it is clear you have not been taking on board anything I have been trying to tell you. 

I know what your argument is, and I essentially agree with it. The issue is, you refuse to use the proper terminology.

Quote

No, I'm enjoying this one. 

Alright, have at 'er then. Have fun, but just know, I will no longer be standing here, and propping up the carcass for you.

:cheers:

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

@Bernie Mac

Oh, and by the way. You're not even using the version of 'claim' that you provided the definition for correctly half of the time either.

By all means don't just generalise. Please quote half the times I have misused the word claim.  Or is this just another empty claim (;)) of yours?

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Your definition:

Not my definition, the Cambridge dictionary's definition. You don't like it then contact them. 

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 

Please explain to me how having an army, or more support, allows you to ask for something 'stronger.' 

No idea what you are trying to say here. 

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Claim as you've defined it is an abstract concept; a decleration, or an assertion. Either a verbal or written notion. Nothing can make it stronger, it just is what it is; Words, and words are wind.

Have you not actually been reading what I have been writing? Claim is abstract, by some definitions Stannis has a stronger claim and by others Renly has. 

That has been the dictionaries point all along. Now I am sorry that you are upset with the Cambridge dictionary. 

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

 

You claimed (meaning: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.) that Robert had a stronger claim (meaning: a right or title to something) because he did claim (meaning: cause the loss of) the throne from Aerys.

Yup.

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Well, I claim (meaning: an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.) that your claim (meaning: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof) is bogus, and doesn't prove anything, as well as being circular reasoning.

lol ok. Please calm down. 

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And you see, contrary to your claim (meaning: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof) that one cannot claim (meaning: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof) something without the strength to hold it, I just did.

What evidence have you provided.

6 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Get it now?

 

Nope, from the beginning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are philosophically profound --

Now I realise how arbitrary a 'claim' really is.

The law is a fiction!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

You guys are philosophically profound --

Now I realise how arbitrary a 'claim' really is.

The law is a fiction!

It really is. That is pretty much what GRRM says in regards to the inheritance laws. If you are strong enough you can make the law whatever you want. That is why Cregan Stark's granddaughters likely got passed over or how Robert became King over Viserys. It is also how Princes with better 'claims' can lose the throne when Grand Council's are called. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

It really is. That is pretty much what GRRM says in regards to the inheritance laws. If you are strong enough you can make the law whatever you want. That is why Cregan Stark's granddaughters likely got passed over or how Robert became King over Viserys. It is also how Princes with better 'claims' can lose the throne when Grand Council's are called. 

GRRM is holding up a mirror to us...

Is that all it boils down to..

Is it really OK to kill your brother...

Is that who we really are...

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ravenous reader said:

GRRM is holding up a mirror to us...

Is that all it boils down to..

Is it really OK to kill your brother...

Is that who we really are...

?

He always takes the last of the mashed potatoes AND the gravy. What else was there to be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Universal Sword Donor said:

the mashed potatoes AND the gravy.

The mashed potatoes and the gravy...

I am for the caviar and the blow fish...

Who are you referring to?

I think we are making headway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

No idea what you are trying to say here. 

 

Quote

Nope, from the beginning. 

OK, I'll give it one last attempt to enlighten you, but after this, you're on your own.

Having a stronger army does not strengthen one's claim. (meaning: a right or title to something.) What it does is give you an advantage, or the means by which to claim (meaning: cause the loss of) something from someone else. Renly claims (meaning: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof) that he is the King, and can do so because he has an army to back him up, but the reality is that his claim (meaning: a right or title to something,) despite having a stronger army than Stannis, is still much weaker than that of his brother's.

 

Quote

Not my definition, the Cambridge dictionary's definition. You don't like it then contact them. 

I meant the definition that you 'provided' not your own personal definition.  

And you really need to lay off of the strawman arguments; I've already stated that it's a legit definition, and I certainly didn't say that "I didn't like the definition," or that I was "upset with the Cambridge dictionary," or that "the Cambridge dictionary was wrong."

As well as with a bunch of other crap you said I think or feel. Do really think anything some random guy on the internet says is going to upset me? I'm all :D's my friend. Sorry if that upsets you.

Quote

No idea what you are trying to say here

That's because I was asking you to make sense of your nonsensical assertion that a claim (meaning: to ask for something of value because you think it belongs to you or because you think you have a right to it) can be made stronger by having an army. There really is no understanding it.

Edited by Darkstream

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, ravenous reader said:

The mashed potatoes and the gravy...

I am for the caviar and the blow fish...

Who are you referring to?

I think we are making headway...

Mance, Rhaegar, Daario, Euron, whatever names touches your mind

They are all the same with equally valid claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2017 at 8:45 AM, Renly was the true steel said:

ill never understand why people think Renly "doing his duties as younger brother" would be a good idea the Tyrells would be gone and still reck them on the blackwater and stannis stubborn fool that he is wouldn't even try to reach terms with Robb (which Davos and Cresson urged him to)

meanwhile if Stannis concedes to Renly they can all take kingslanding together beat back Tywin end the war much faster 

I totally agree with you. Stannis and Robb should have supported Renly. They could have crushed the Lannisters and made a new government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lord of Raventree Hall said:

I totally agree with you. Stannis and Robb should have supported Renly. They could have crushed the Lannisters and made a new government.

That is the mystery of the human psyche.  It's more about the quality than quantity.

“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” 
― Maya Angelou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

 

OK, I'll give it one last attempt to enlighten you, but after this, you're on your own.

Dude, you  have replied to me 16 times so far in this thread. Some times you have replied two or three times to a single comment I have made. I very much doubt you will be able to leave it alone. 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Having a stronger army does not strengthen one's claim.

Yeah, it does. This is pretty simple. To be able to claim something that someone else already has you need the strength to take it from them. The Iron Throne belonged to someone else, both Renly and Stannis, being the brothers of the deceased King, had claims to the Throne but Renly, with the Reach and Stormlands backing him, actually had a stronger chance of success. In turn his chance of claiming the Throne was stronger until his brother brought magic into the equation. 

Stannis assassinated one brother, did not bother to warn another his life was in danger and was willing to sacrifice his nephew Edric. It seems that Stannis is the biggest obstacle for someone with Baratheon blood having and keeping the Throne. 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

 

I meant the definition that you 'provided' not your own personal definition.  

 

That is the definition. Sorry. 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

That's because I was asking you to make sense of your nonsensical assertion that a claim (meaning: to ask for something of value because you think it belongs to you or because you think you have a right to it) can be made stronger by having an army.

Dude, you are really going to have to get over the Cambridge dictionary's definition of a word. Maybe start your own dictionary and have your own definitions, that'll teach them.

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

There really is no understanding it.

Sure there is, you might not understand it, but many do. A larger army means you have a claim to power. This is pretty simple and is quite common throughout history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

I do, but most of their opinions are irrelevant because Joffrey was recognized as a legitimate king and Stannis hadn't declared yet. You can't be king if no one ones you and you don't put forth a claim. It's just an empty seat at that point. Olenna recognizes Joffrey and later Tommen as the rightful king too, so I'm not sure what you think you're espousing. Ned is the only one who knew and didn't recognize Joffrey as legitimate.

Stannis comes before Renly. If Renly declares himself king, he's ignoring Stannis' superior claim. No, the seat was not empty, that's the point of having a line of succession. If the king dies, there are rules in place to prevent everyone in the realm from declaring himself king in the hopesof being the fastest one. Every one coming before renly in this line of succession had his rights called into question by Renly crowning himself. 

Edited by John Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned was a Baratheon lackey. He honestly thought Robert was a king, and honestly thought that if Robert's children weren't Robert's seed they had not claims to the Iron Throne (both is questionable).

Robert was the king at the moment of his death, Viserys had no real support in Westeros at the time. And of course Robert's children weren't his heirs if they weren't of his seed, this is not even debatable. 

Quote

Robb quickly changed his mind on Stannis' claim when his lords declared him king. The same goes for Glover. And Olenna didn't let her private opinion influence the policy of House Tyrell.

None of these people care all that much about Stannis' claim.

The discussion is about Stannis vs Renly, and here everyone talking about it acknowledges that Stannis had the superior claim. We could have a discussion about whether Robb was justified in declaring northern independence or not, but that's not the point of this thread. 

I agree that Olenna didn't let her opinion influence her policy, but what does this have to do with the discussion? It shows that she's willing to be opportunistic, which is not necessarily a fault in Westeros, but it doesn't make Stannis any less justified in defending his claim against Renly. 

 

 

Edited by John Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, John Doe said:

Robert was the king at the moment of his death, Viserys had no real support in Westeros at the time. And of course Robert's children weren't his heirs if they weren't of his seed, this is not even debatable. 

Viserys III wasn't in Westeros by the time of his own or Robert's death. But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have had any support if he had come nor that the people in Westeros consider Robert 'the rightful king' in comparison to Viserys. People in Oldtown drink on the health of their rightful queen, Daenerys Stormborn, in AFfC. People actually do know who the rightful king is or should be. And nobody thinks it is Stannis, because Stannis is just a usurper's brother.

Robert's children were legally his children. Stannis had no right to declare them illegitimate because Stannis has no authority to crown himself, period. Robert's children were Robert's heirs, not Stannis, and Stannis has no right to challenge the succession because he just some dude, not the man in charge of settling the succession of his brother.

If your wife cuckolded you with her brother and the children you raised with her are not yours but you still think they are and you want them to leave your property you would not want that I, your brother, who believe that they are not yours kill them and your wife upon your own death to steal your property, right? That is what Stannis does. It is a deplorable thing to do, something no real brother would ever even contemplate.

3 hours ago, John Doe said:

The discussion is about Stannis vs Renly, and here everyone talking about it acknowledges that Stannis had the superior claim. We could have a discussion about whether Robb was justified in declaring northern independence or not, but that's not the point of this thread.

Stannis would have a superior blood claim if Robert was a rightful king and if people cared about that. But they don't, and thus it is meaningless to point that out. To try to win a crown (Stannis did not properly inherit anything) you need more than a blood claim. Stannis lacked that which is why he ended up using black magic to get what he wanted against (otherwise) unbeatable odds.

3 hours ago, John Doe said:

I agree that Olenna didn't let her opinion influence her policy, but what does this have to do with the discussion? It shows that she's willing to be opportunistic, which is not necessarily a fault in Westeros, but it doesn't make Stannis any less justified in defending his claim against Renly. 

It points out that talk of claims is just wind. Nobody cares about them, nor does anybody even really acknowledge that the theoretical strength of a claim in comparison to another claim is influencing policy.

Just look at the Hornwood thing. Ramsay raped and murdered Lady Hornwood yet Rodrik Cassel is convinced that Roose is not going give up the Bolton claim to the Hornwood lands and titles even in the wake of Ramsay's own (apparent) death. That shows you how relevant claims are when lands and titles are concerned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now