why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

[Darkstream]

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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

Sure, feel free to go with that, if you like.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, let's do just so.

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

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

I actually agree with you there. But we are living in world where states and countries and governments and kings (still) exist, and they go to war and conquer each other. That is a brute fact of reality.

10 hours ago, Darkstream said:

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

That is not correct. Not by the standards of our world and the world of Westeros. Sovereign rulers are in agreement that they have the right to declare war on other nations and countries as Aegon the Conqueror did before he begun his conquest. Aegon followed the rules of warfare there. He did not just attack the other kingdoms, he wrote a lot of letters laying out his intentions, and then he marched to war.

10 hours ago, Darkstream said:

And Robert had just as much right to depose of the inbred, foreign invaders, as they had to invade foreign land in the first place - even without all the bs that Aerys was pulling - which is to say no right at all.

Robert is a descendant of those inbred foreign invaders himself, both through Princess Rhaelle, his grandmother, as well as through Orys Baratheon, the founder of his dynasty. And while he may have had a right to rebel against a king who was simply demanding his head without (good) explanation, he sure as hell had no right to crown himself.

In addition, keep in mind that the rebellion was begun by Jon Arryn. That man had no right to rebel nor any right to protect his former wards Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon. Both were men grown by that point.

10 hours ago, Darkstream said:

However, that is just the way it is in a feudal society, if you have the might, you have the ability to dictate who is the rightful King. Robert conquered the ruling King, garnered the support of the Lords paramount, the Faith, and was coronated as the legal King of Westeros...deal with it.

What do you mean by 'legal king' there? Who defined that? Since when is Westeros a society where there is an institution which decides who is a 'legal king'? Such institutions don't exist. The fact that Robert had some coronation and sat on the throne for a couple of years doesn't make him the legal or rightful king.

And, sure, the Conqueror, too, wasn't a universally acknowledged and accepted king (although he seems to have been very popular with the commoners). That is why quite a few lords and the Faith eventually rose against Aenys and Maegor. But they were dealt with eventually and from the days of Jaehaerys I and Viserys I the Seven Kingdoms (Dorne excluded, of course) did recognize the Targaryens as their rightful royal dynasty.

The same cannot be said of the Baratheons. Time has no yet given legitimacy to his rebellion and usurpation.

It is not my opinion that the people of Westeros see the Targaryens as their rightful royal dynasty. It is a fact.

10 hours ago, Darkstream said:

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

I'm pretty sure Stannis would have fucked his own sister to do that had he had a sister to fuck.

But that aside, the Targaryens themselves usually don't practice magic. Their ancestors did. There blood just retains just some magical quality (as does Stannis', who most likely could become a dragonrider, too, if he had access to a dragon).

Stannis using black magic is an ugly thing for his Westerosi peers and people. They don't look kindly on that kind of thing. But the real problem isn't that he used that but that he provoked the conflict with Renly to have a pretext to kill him so that he could prevent a vision his sorceress-mistress saw in her fires. That is deplorable.

10 hours ago, Darkstream said:

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

He sat on the throne, but so what? Is Roose Bolton 'the legally accepted, ruling' Warden of the North? Is Ramsay the rightful and trueborn Lord of Winterfell? Is Emmon Frey the 'legally accepted, ruling' Lord of Riverrun? Is Littlefinger the rightful Lord of Harrenhal?

Are Joffrey and Tommen the rightful Kings of Westeros by 'right of conquest' if not by right of blood (as you constantly insist they are not)? After all, Stannis lost on the Blackwater, did he lose his crown and claim, too, never mind his own personal beliefs? The Targaryens lost on the Trident and during the Sack, too, and you are saying that means they have lost their claims. Never mind that they are not dead. Not yet, at least. Viserys III and Daenerys survived (and Aegon, too, possibly, not to mention Jon Snow) and Dany is going to come back eventually.

Stannis also tries to come back. Stannis even thinks he can pass his claim on to his daughter Shireen, just as Aerys II transferred his claim to his own son Viserys III, and Viserys then to his sister and chosen heir, Daenerys. Why is it that pretender and traitor Stannis Baratheon can do that but Viserys III and Dany can't?

Or just check the Blackfyres. None of them ever sat the Iron Throne as far as we know but they and their followers still thought Daeron Falseborn and his descendants were false kings while Daemon Blackfyre and his sons and grandsons were the rightful kings. They, too, didn't care that they lost on the battlefield again and again.

Or take Aegon II. The man was deposed by Rhaenyra and went into hiding yet he continued the fight, never mind that he no longer wore a crown or sat a throne. The fact that he got deposed didn't stop him, just as the Boltons deposing the Starks isn't going to stop the loyal Northmen from trying to restore them.

[Darkstream]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not correct. Not by the standards of our world and the world of Westeros. Sovereign rulers are in agreement that they have the right to declare war on other nations and countries as Aegon the Conqueror did before he begun his conquest. Aegon followed the rules of warfare there. He did not just attack the other kingdoms, he wrote a lot of letters laying out his intentions, and then he marched to war.

Right, you don't want to accept that there is a feudal contract between the King and his subjects, due to it not being explicitly stated in the text, yet you want me to accept that the sovereign states of Martinworld have some sort of international laws of warfare? Come on, I don't recall reading about the UN, or a like organization, in any of the books that I've read from ASoIaF.

Besides, laws governing what is considered to be legal warfare, don't give anyone the right to invade and conquer a sovereign state. What were the grounds that Aegon had to justify his invasion?

And please don't tell me about him having one of his emissaries murdered. The act of one Kingdom committing what could be considered an act of war is not justification to invade and conquer an entire continent, and then proclaim yourself King. 

Quote

Robert is a descendant of those inbred foreign invaders himself, both through Princess Rhaelle, his grandmother, as well as through Orys Baratheon, the founder of his dynasty. And while he may have had a right to rebel against a king who was simply demanding his head without (good) explanation, he sure as hell had no right to crown himself.

He had just as much right as Aegon did.

Quote

In addition, keep in mind that the rebellion was begun by Jon Arryn. That man had no right to rebel nor any right to protect his former wards Eddard Stark and Robert Baratheon. Both were men grown by that point.

Who cares if they were grown men? Despite your objections, and refusal to accept it, Aerys was in the wrong, and Aryn had every right to support his allies in rebellion against a mad, and out of control King.

Quote

What do you mean by 'legal king' there? Who defined that? Since when is Westeros a society where there is an institution which decides who is a 'legal king'? Such institutions don't exist.

But yet you claim there is an institution that decides the legality of international warfare?

Well, I've stated it about ten times already, but very well. He is the legal King because he was coronated as such, and accepted by the Lords paramount who rule the regions of Westeros. They have sworn fealty to him as their King, and abide by his command, as well as pay taxes to him. There is no denying that he was the legally ruling King of Westeros.

It's the same "who" and process that legitimized Aegon's rule.

Quote

The fact that Robert had some coronation and sat on the throne for a couple of years doesn't make him the legal or rightful king.

Sure it does. That's exactly what it means.

Quote

And, sure, the Conqueror, too, wasn't a universally acknowledged and accepted king

Well, then there goes your argument against Robert. You can't argue that a few Lords secretly wishing to depose of him nullifies his legitimacy, while discarding the same situation in Aegon's case.

Quote

The same cannot be said of the Baratheons. Time has no yet given legitimacy to his rebellion and usurpation.

Oh please, what does the amount of time have to do with it? Who decides what is the appropriate time for a regime to be considered legit?

Quote

It is not my opinion that the people of Westeros see the Targaryens as their rightful royal dynasty. It is a fact.

So? Some, or even many may think that, but it doesn't change the fact that Robert is the King. A lot of people don't accept Trump as their president in the US, however, like it or not, he is.

Quote

I'm pretty sure Stannis would have fucked his own sister to do that had he had a sister to fuck.

Heh, yeah right. He doesn't even like to fuck his own wife, and only reluctantly fucked Mel, as he saw it as his duty.

But in all seriousness, I agree. I was only having a little fun with you, and seeing if I could push your buttons.

Quote

But that aside, the Targaryens themselves usually don't practice magic. Their ancestors did. There blood just retains just some magical quality (as does Stannis', who most likely could become a dragonrider, too, if he had access to a dragon).

Well, having dragons can be considered a form of practicing magic, and their lack of dragons in the past century was not by choice. What do you think they were trying to do at Summerhall...I'm willing to bet that magic was involved there.

Quote

Stannis using black magic is an ugly thing for his Westerosi peers and people. They don't look kindly on that kind of thing. But the real problem isn't that he used that but that he provoked the conflict with Renly to have a pretext to kill him so that he could prevent a vision his sorceress-mistress saw in her fires. That is deplorable.

What? Now not accepting a peach offered to you is considered provoking? The only one doing any provoking was Renly; He essentially laughed in Stannis' face, and dared him to take him down if he could.

Quote

He sat on the throne, but so what? Is Roose Bolton 'the legally accepted, ruling' Warden of the North? Is Ramsay the rightful and trueborn Lord of Winterfell? Is Emmon Frey the 'legally accepted, ruling' Lord of Riverrun? Is Littlefinger the rightful Lord of Harrenhal?

Yes, right now they are the legally accepted rulers, according to the current regime in power.

Quote

Are Joffrey and Tommen the rightful Kings of Westeros by 'right of conquest' if not by right of blood (as you constantly insist they are not)?

Yes, they are considered that, as their illegitimacy is not known (or believed.)

Quote

After all, Stannis lost on the Blackwater, did he lose his crown and claim, too, never mind his own personal beliefs?

He only lost a battle, not the war. And he is not considered the legal King, he can't lose a Crown that he doesn't currently possess, and is still currently fighting for.

Quote

 Why is it that pretender and traitor Stannis Baratheon can do that but Viserys III and Dany can't?

Who says they can't? It's their right to fight for what they believe is theirs. If a Targaryen were to be successful at reclaiming the Throne, restoring peace, and being accepted as the rightful rulers, then the Baratheon regime's reign will be seen as an illegitimate, traitorous usurping of the Crown. You know as well as I do, that history is written by the victors. Until (or if) the Targ's (or any other contender) can claim the throne, the Baratheon's are the legally ruling regime. That is just a fact.

[Darkstream]

On 2017-5-22 at 6:59 AM, Bernie Mac said:

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

It's not meaningless, by ignoring Robert's will, the small council and Cercei were committing treason.

Again, breaking the law does not equate to said law not existing. It was the legal obligation of the small council to confirm Ned as reagent, they were negligent of their duty by ignoring Robert's wishes.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Right, you don't want to accept that there is a feudal contract between the King and his subjects, due to it not being explicitly stated in the text, yet you want me to accept that the sovereign states of Martinworld have some sort of international laws of warfare? Come on, I don't recall reading about the UN, or a like organization, in any of the books that I've read from ASoIaF.

You don't have to have such a thing for that. Just look into history. Sovereign monarchs have addressed as and considered each other equals since the days of the ancient Egyptians and the Hittites. And people even wrote treatises how to justify war since before the days of Augustine.

But aside from that it is quite clear that a rebellion is an illegal, criminal act in Westeros. Else people wouldn't refer to it as a 'rebellion'.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Besides, laws governing what is considered to be legal warfare, don't give anyone the right to invade and conquer a sovereign state. What were the grounds that Aegon had to justify his invasion?

And please don't tell me about him having one of his emissaries murdered. The act of one Kingdom committing what could be considered an act of war is not justification to invade and conquer an entire continent, and then proclaim yourself King.

I already said above somewhere that Aegon didn't start a just war there, especially not with all the Seven Kingdoms. In the case of Argilac the Arrogant he was certainly unduly provoked but whether it was right of him to go to war over that I do not know. That is irrelevant here, though since sovereign monarchs can attack and declare war on other sovereign monarchs. Subjects can't. Robert could not declare war on Aerys II and conquer his kingdom. And he didn't. He led a rebellion and overthrow him. Those are different things.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

He had just as much right as Aegon did.

Nope.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Who cares if they were grown men? Despite your objections, and refusal to accept it, Aerys was in the wrong, and Aryn had every right to support his allies in rebellion against a mad, and out of control King.

Nope. Jon Arryn had no right to interfere with his king's issues with Lord Robert and Lord Eddard. Just as you have no right to interfere with the quarrel between me and my boss, never mind that we are friends.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

But yet you claim there is an institution that decides the legality of international warfare?

I didn't say that. I said there are rules in those societies that differentiate between monarchs and subjects.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Well, I've stated it about ten times already, but very well. He is the legal King because he was coronated as such, and accepted by the Lords paramount who rule the regions of Westeros. They have sworn fealty to him as their King, and abide by his command, as well as pay taxes to him. There is no denying that he was the legally ruling King of Westeros.

He was factually the king of Westeros. Not legally. He is a usurper and a rebel. Such men are not legally ruling kings.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

It's the same "who" and process that legitimized Aegon's rule.

In a sense, yes, but Aegon ruled for 37 prosperous years and Robert only 15 shitty years. Aegon also didn't take his throne over the corpses of royal children, nor did he accept the murder of the previous king. 

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Well, then there goes your argument against Robert. You can't argue that a few Lords secretly wishing to depose of him nullifies his legitimacy, while discarding the same situation in Aegon's case.

I don't, actually. I said that the Targaryens only became the universally accepted royal dynasty of Westeros in the days of Jaehaerys I. Prior to that their rule wasn't secure.

It may have been only a few lords who were plotting against Aegon but half the Realm or more was plotting against Robert. Robert himself calls Ned his last friend. He didn't trust Stannis, Renly, Cersei, Tywin, this other advisers, or anyone else. He didn't think his wife's family would get along with his brothers should he be gone (and he was right).

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Oh please, what does the amount of time have to do with it? Who decides what is the appropriate time for a regime to be considered legit?

It is time. Time leads to people growing up under a new regime and accepting it as normality. Only that gives any legal construct legitimacy. As long as people remember that things were once different they are going to try to restore things as they once were if they have an incentive to do so. And fifteen years are nothing. People still remember and idolize the peaceful reign of Aerys II. A lot of people are not exactly happy with the way Robert won his throne.

Aegon had nearly forty years but that wasn't enough, either. But Jaehaerys I's fifty-years of peace and prosperity sealed the deal.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

So? Some, or even many may think that, but it doesn't change the fact that Robert is the King. A lot of people don't accept Trump as their president in the US, however, like it or not, he is.

Well, Trump didn't become king over the dead body of Obama's son nor did he kill Hillary to get into the White House. Robert essentially did that.

Kings usually inherit the throne. Whenever they have to take it or steal it they are not 'the rightful king'. They try to present themselves that way but they aren't. There is a proper way you become king and it is not to rebel against your king, to win that rebellion, and to kill (or try to kill) the heirs of your king so that nobody can challenge your claim anymore.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Heh, yeah right. He doesn't even like to fuck his own wife, and only reluctantly fucked Mel, as he saw it as his duty.

ADwD indicates that Mel and Stannis have constant sex. He didn't just sleep with her to create the shadows. Mel makes it clear that Stannis was in her bed in Castle Black. They didn't do anything magical up at the Wall.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Well, having dragons can be considered a form of practicing magic, and their lack of dragons in the past century was not by choice. What do you think they were trying to do at Summerhall...I'm willing to bet that magic was involved there.

Sure, but the Targaryens are not running around trying to kill their enemies with black magic.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

What? Now not accepting a peach offered to you is considered provoking? The only one doing any provoking was Renly; He essentially laughed in Stannis' face, and dared him to take him down if he could.

Stannis provoked Renly by besieging Storm's End. He didn't have to do that. And as you well know he did so because Melisandre convinced him to take out Renly first because she had foreseen that he would defeat him at the Blackwater if he did not.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, right now they are the legally accepted rulers, according to the current regime in power.

But is King Tommen truly in power? Of what, exactly?

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

He only lost a battle, not the war. And he is not considered the legal King, he can't lose a Crown that he doesn't currently possess, and is still currently fighting for.

When does a war begin and when does a war end?

A succession war fought for blood claims usually only ends when one of the bloodlines is extinguished or when one of the parties gives up a claim (that was what ended the Anarchy in England, for example - King Stephen accepted Matilda's son Henry as his heir). Viserys III never gave up his claim to the Iron Throne, and neither did Daenerys. This war isn't over yet. The fact that there were no battles during the short reign of Robert doesn't mean anything in that regard. There weren't battles all the time during the Hundred Years War. 

The idea that, say, the War of the Five Kings ending with the Red Wedding is more less silly. The Stark loyalists don't think it is over. They prepare for their move and will strike, and this is not going to be a new war from their point of view.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Who says they can't? It's their right to fight for what they believe is theirs. If a Targaryen were to be successful at reclaiming the Throne, restoring peace, and being accepted as the rightful rulers, then the Baratheon regime's reign will be seen as an illegitimate, traitorous usurping of the Crown. You know as well as I do, that history is written by the victors. Until (or if) the Targ's (or any other contender) can claim the throne, the Baratheon's are the legally ruling regime. That is just a fact.

History is not that easy. Usurpation or not, the factual King on the Iron Throne from 283-298 AC was Robert Baratheon, not Viserys III. Historians writing about that period will doubtless call it the interregnum of Robert the Usurper or something of that sort, but they will still discuss Robert's tax policies, his crushing of the Greyjoy Rebellion, etc., not what Viserys III did to rule Westeros. Because Viserys III didn't rule Westeros despite the fact that he was the rightful king.

It could very well be that Daenerys is going to decree that Robert and his brothers and alleged children never were real kings. But this isn't going to change the past. Just as Aegon II's declaring that Rhaenyra never was a queen doesn't change the fact that she sat the Iron Throne and ruled the Realm for a half a year or more.

[Lord Varys]

35 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

It's not meaningless, by ignoring Robert's will, the small council and Cercei were committing treason.

Again, breaking the law does not equate to said law not existing. It was the legal obligation of the small council to confirm Ned as reagent, they were negligent of their duty by ignoring Robert's wishes.

There is no reason to believe that the Small Council has to confirm a dying monarch's wishes for a regency government. It seems they can ignore his wishes. One assumes they are supposed to go through with the king's wishes but if they have doubts about his choices or know stuff the king didn't know they certainly can alter things.

[Darkstream]

13 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

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

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XV

Quote

 

"Stannis Baratheon is Robert's true heir," Ned said. "The throne is his by rights. I would welcome his ascent."

 

 

A Clash of Kings - Prologue

Quote

Stannis Baratheon, Lord of Dragonstone and by the grace of the gods rightful heir to the Iron Throne of the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros, was broad of shoulder and sinewy of limb, with a tightness to his face and flesh that spoke of leather cured in the sun until it was as tough as steel. 

A Clash of Kings - Prologue

Quote

 

I have lost him, Cressen thought, despairing. If only he could somehow approach Melisandre unseen . . . he needed but an instant's access to her cup. "You are the rightful heir to your brother Robert, the true Lord of the Seven Kingdoms, and King of the Andals, the Rhoynar, and the First Men," he said desperately, "but even so, you cannot hope to triumph without allies."

 

A Clash of Kings - Davos II

Quote

Bryce Caron walked his horse forward a few paces, his long rainbow-striped cloak twisting in the wind off the bay. "No man here is a turncloak, ser. My fealty belongs to Storm's End, and King Stannis is its rightful lord . . . and our true king

A Clash of Kings - Catelyn VI

Quote

Later that day, Maester Vyman brought a letter. She saw him at once, hoping for some word from Robb, or from Ser Rodrik in Winterfell, but the message proved to be from one Lord Meadows, who named himself castellan of Storm's End. It was addressed to her father, her brother, her son, "or whoever now holds Riverrun." Ser Cortnay Penrose was dead, the man wrote, and Storm's End had opened its gate to Stannis Baratheon, the trueborn and rightful heir. The castle garrison had sworn their swords to his cause, one and all, and no man of them had suffered harm.

A Storm of Swords - Davos II

Quote

"You are kind, Salla, but my duty's to my king, not your purse. The war will go on. Stannis is still the rightful heir by all the laws of the Seven Kingdoms."

------

A Game of Thrones - Bran I

Quote

His father peeled off his gloves and handed them to Jory Cassel, the captain of his household guard. He took hold of Ice with both hands and said, "In the name of Robert of the House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm, by the word of Eddard of the House Stark, Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, I do sentence you to die." He lifted the greatsword high above his head.

A Game of Thrones - Eddard V

Quote

"Near forty years I have been Grand Maester of the Seven Kingdoms," Pycelle replied. "Under our good King Robert, and Aerys Targaryen before him, and his father Jaehaerys the Second before him, and even for a few short months under Jaehaerys's father, Aegon the Fortunate, the Fifth of His Name. 

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XI

Quote

Ned raised his voice, so it carried to the far end of the throne room. "In the name of Robert of the House Baratheon, the First of his Name, King of the Andals and the Rhoynar and the First Men, Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm, by the word of Eddard of the House Stark, his Hand, I charge you to ride to the westlands with all haste, to cross the Red Fork of the Trident under the king's flag, and there bring the king's justice to the false knight Gregor Clegane, and to all those who shared in his crimes. 

There you go, quotes confirming that Stannis has a stronger claim than Renly, and that Robert is the recognized legal King of Westeros.

Now it's your turn. Like last time you made this absurd accusation, wherein I responded with quotes, and challenged you to do the same, I expect you won't have any quotes to back up your assertions, and just ignore it again.

[Bernie Mac]

30 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XV

A Clash of Kings - Prologue

A Clash of Kings - Prologue

A Clash of Kings - Davos II

A Clash of Kings - Catelyn VI

A Storm of Swords - Davos II

------

A Game of Thrones - Bran I

A Game of Thrones - Eddard V

A Game of Thrones - Eddard XI

There you go, quotes confirming that Stannis has a stronger claim than Renly, and that Robert is the recognized legal King of Westeros.

Now it's your turn. Like last time you made this absurd accusation, wherein I responded with quotes, and challenged you to do the same, I expect you won't have any quotes to back up your assertions, and just ignore it again.

lol calm down dude, This is just a discussion, it is not worth getting upset about, 

Now I would love to do as you requested, What assertion of mine would you like me to back up with quotes?

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

It's not meaningless, by ignoring Robert's will, the small council and Cercei were committing treason.

Again, breaking the law does not equate to said law not existing. It was the legal obligation of the small council to confirm Ned as reagent, they were negligent of their duty by ignoring Robert's wishes.

Dead Kings don't get to decide what happens when they are dead. Any legal authority Ned may have had disappeared when he had his men draw their swords on the royal family. A king, even an underage one, outranks his regent. 

Ned committed treason in the Throne room. 

[Lord Varys]

34 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Dead Kings don't get to decide what happens when they are dead. Any legal authority Ned may have had disappeared when he had his men draw their swords on the royal family.

I'd disagree there. Ned was still the Hand. And the Hand speaks with the King's Voice if the king is a minor, not the king. And the Hand also settles the succession if it is doubt. He rules the Realm in the stead of the dead king until a new king is crowned. That's the case since the reign of Viserys I who imbued Otto Hightower with that authority (and who then betrayed his dead king by presuming to settle a succession that was crystal clear).

But Ned still betrayed his king and friend by keeping the truth from him and faking his will. Ned's duty would have been to talk to Robert, tell him the truth, and ask him what he wanted him to do. Robert wanted Joffrey to be king and Ned's wishes are irrelevant there. Doing nothing and waiting until the king is dead is treason so that you can enforce something the king didn't want is treason.

34 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

A king, even an underage one, outranks his regent. 

Technically, yes. But the regents of Aegon III besieged their own king in Maegor's Holdfast. A minor king is just a puppet unless his regents allow him a word in the government. Which they don't need to do. Ned had every right to confine Cersei and her children, Joff included, to their chambers.

34 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Ned committed treason in the Throne room. 

If you mean he betrayed Robert you are right. He didn't betray Joffrey or Cersei, though.

@Darkstream

Quoting from Baratheon sycophants doesn't help your case. Should I quote all people stating that Viserys III and Daenerys Stormborn are the rightful rulers of Westeros? Those quotes are abundant, too.

[Bernie Mac]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd disagree there. Ned was still the Hand. And the Hand speaks with the King's Voice if the king is a minor, not the king.

And yet we saw in the regency of Aegon III that Hands and Regents are disposable. The precedent has been set.  A dead King does not get to decide who  rules after he is dead. 

Quote

If you mean he betrayed Robert you are right. He didn't betray Joffrey or Cersei, though.

Sure he did. His men drew their swords on the Royal family in the Throne room and as Robb tells the Greatjon; "My lord father taught me that it was death to bare steel against your liege lord,"

In the eyes of Joffrey and Kings Landing Ned had betrayed his King. Ned did not have the legal authority to declare Joffrey a bastard, Robert did and a Grand Council could  but until that time Joffrey was the legal King and Ned committed treason in the Throne room when he tried to arrest him and his siblings and Queen mother. 

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

And yet we saw in the regency of Aegon III that Hands and Regents are disposable. The precedent has been set.  A dead King does not get to decide who  rules after he is dead. 

Sure, there we agree. He can give his lords and council a suggestion, and can even install a Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm before he closes his eyes for good but he cannot enforce his will after his death.

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure he did. His men drew their swords on the Royal family in the Throne room and as Robb tells the Greatjon; "My lord father taught me that it was death to bare steel against your liege lord,"

 

But Joff wasn't Ned's liege lord. He wasn't crowned. Not even proclaimed. It was Ned's job to see that through, sure, but if Ned had only found out that Joff wasn't Robert's son after his death he certainly had the right and the duty to ensure that this child is not crowned. Assuming he believed that's what Robert would have wanted.

The fact that he did not tell Robert the truth and asked what he wanted is treason, though. As is faking Robert's will. Robert thought Joffrey was his son and wanted him to be king after him.

7 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

In the eyes of Joffrey and Kings Landing Ned had betrayed his King. Ned did not have the legal authority to declare Joffrey a bastard, Robert did and a Grand Council could  but until that time Joffrey was the legal King and Ned committed treason in the Throne room when he tried to arrest him and his siblings and Queen mother. 

The Hand has a right to settle a contested succession, too. Doing it after the king's death is a bad idea (just ask Otto Hightower) but it is still possible.

[Jon Ice-Eyes]

So there's this book called 'The King's Two Bodies,' which does an excellent historical examination of the notion that the kingship as an institution survives beyond the life of the actual king (and a lot about kingship conferring special attributes to whomever holds the title). Part of this is the smooth succession from one king to the next. 

Turns out that the civil service (if you can call it that) ensuring the easy move from a dead king to his next of kin was a development that didn't get particularly started until about the 12th or 13th century. And even then there were tons of hiccups. There were often civil wars in England around succession until well into the Early Modern period. 

But we're not in a constitutional monarchy in Westeros, so the rule of law doesn't have a ton of force beyond the will of the state (by which I mean the nobility as a group) to enforce it. There's no machine to keep everything rolling in the absence of direct authority. 

So what we need to look at is what kind of monarchy this is. Is it a late-style monarchy, where the concept of laws and their force lives well intact beyond the death of a king? Or is it more like a 12th century monarchy, where everyone knows broadly what's supposed to happen, except when the king dies the servants all run off with the silverware and wars tend to break out between his kin?

I would say look to how smooth succession was in 15th century England to get an idea of how it should work. War of the Roses, or just before.

[Darkstream]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

You don't have to have such a thing for that. Just look into history. Sovereign monarchs have addressed as and considered each other equals since the days of the ancient Egyptians and the Hittites. And people even wrote treatises how to justify war since before the days of Augustine.

I'm not sure what your point is here. You are still siting real world laws, which are in no way stated in the text, or even hinted at, while denying what should be an obvious assumption - the fact that there would be a feudal contract between a King and his subjects - for the same reason. If you refuse to except something that is obviously the case, despite not being explicitly stated, then you're dreaming if you think I'm going to accept these detailed laws that you propose are a fact in aSoIaF.

Quote

But aside from that it is quite clear that a rebellion is an illegal, criminal act in Westeros. Else people wouldn't refer to it as a 'rebellion'.

Well, just you saying so doesn't make it so.  And of course the government being challenged is going to consider it unlawful. But that is the whole point of a Rebellion - you are challenging the authority of the current government. If the government declares that it is illegal to rebel, it really doesn't matter, because you are disputing that government's authority.

If Robert lost, then of course him and his supporters would be deemed as traitors, engaging in illegal treasonous acts. What you don't seem to understand is the fact that they won renders whether or not it was legal as irrelevant. As Robert did claim the throne through conquest, and was supported and accepted as the new King by the Lords paramount and the Faith, he is now the one in charge, and is the one making the laws.

If the Lords who still dispute his authority were still resisting him, and in open rebellion, and the Faith had refused to recognize his authority, then you would have a case. But that is not the situation that is presented to us in the books. All open opposition to Robert had been crushed, or those opposing him had bent the knee. Robert has governed the realm in peace (aside from the Greyjoy rebellion, which was easily and swiftly put down) for fourteen years.

Quote

 

re·bel·lion

rəˈbelyən/

noun

- an act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.

- the action or process of resisting authority, control, or convention.

 

And as you can see, nowhere is rebellion actually defined as an illegal, criminal act. 

Either way, it really doesn't matter, if you want to claim that Robert's Rebellion was illegal, then fine, you're free to think that, it doesn't change the fact that Robert was recognized as the new legal King of Westeros.

Quote

I already said above somewhere that Aegon didn't start a just war there, especially not with all the Seven Kingdoms. In the case of Argilac the Arrogant he was certainly unduly provoked but whether it was right of him to go to war over that I do not know. That is irrelevant here, though since sovereign monarchs can attack and declare war on other sovereign monarchs. Subjects can't. Robert could not declare war on Aerys II and conquer his kingdom. And he didn't. He led a rebellion and overthrow him. Those are different things.

Sure, and a potato isn't a potato, if you call it a poetauto. You say he can't declare war on Aerys, yet that is in fact, exactly what he did. Who says he can't? And who cares if "they" say that? The facts are that he did.

Quote

Nope.

Yup.

Quote

Nope. Jon Arryn had no right to interfere with his king's issues with Lord Robert and Lord Eddard. Just as you have no right to interfere with the quarrel between me and my boss, never mind that we are friends.

Well I'm touched that you consider us friends, however I must disagree with you...my friend. 

If I saw your boss blatantly abusing you, and breaking the law in doing so, not only would I have a right to interfere, but I would have a moral obligation - and under many jurisdictions, a legal obligation as well - to assist you. A lot of  jurisdictions consider turning a blind eye to certain acts to be unlawful negligence, and a prosecutable offense.

Quote

I didn't say that. I said there are rules in those societies that differentiate between monarchs and subjects.

Rules made and regulated by what institution?

Quote

He was factually the king of Westeros. Not legally. He is a usurper and a rebel. Such men are not legally ruling kings.

And who makes the laws in a feudal monarchy? That would be the factual King. If someone is factually the King, then he is the legal King, as he is the one who makes the law. By who's laws is he not the legal King?

Quote

In a sense, yes, but Aegon ruled for 37 prosperous years and Robert only 15 shitty years. Aegon also didn't take his throne over the corpses of royal children, nor did he accept the murder of the previous king. 

Not in a sense, it's the exact same authority and process that recognized Aegon as the legal King.

And no, Aegon claimed his throne over the charred corpses of thousands of soldiers, and farmers acting as soldiers, and seven murdered King's.

Quote

I don't, actually. I said that the Targaryens only became the universally accepted royal dynasty of Westeros in the days of Jaehaerys I. Prior to that their rule wasn't secure.

Well see, now I'm defending Aegon to you. The Targaryen rule may not have been completely secure untill Jaehaerys l, but Aegon was recognized as the legal King of Westeros once he was coronated as such.

Quote

It may have been only a few lords who were plotting against Aegon but half the Realm or more was plotting against Robert. Robert himself calls Ned his last friend. He didn't trust Stannis, Renly, Cersei, Tywin, this other advisers, or anyone else. He didn't think his wife's family would get along with his brothers should he be gone (and he was right).

Well, I like to see some text to support your claim that "half the realm or more" was plotting against Robert. Although, even if you could, that would not negate the legitimacy of his rule.

And this list of persons he didn't trust has nothing to do with them questioning Robert's legitamicy. That is quite the dishonest argument to make, as you are well aware of the situation and motives pertaining to Robert's mistrust, and the plotting against him. And if he wasn't the legal King, they would not need to secretly plot to get rid of him. They could simply remove him as a  criminal imposter, however, as he is recognized as the legal King, they would not have any support to do so.

Quote

It is time. Time leads to people growing up under a new regime and accepting it as normality. Only that gives any legal construct legitimacy. As long as people remember that things were once different they are going to try to restore things as they once were if they have an incentive to do so. And fifteen years are nothing. People still remember and idolize the peaceful reign of Aerys II. A lot of people are not exactly happy with the way Robert won his throne.

So what? None of this invalidates the fact that they are now under the authority of a new regime. And that is not what gives any legal construct legitamicy. The will and ability of the powers that be to enforce their laws, is what gives them legitamicy.

If my government passes a new law, does that mean nobody has to abide by said law until a time when nobody can remember a time when that law didn't exist? 

Quote

Well, Trump didn't become king over the dead body of Obama's son nor did he kill Hillary to get into the White House. Robert essentially did that.

And essentially, so did Aegon.

Besides, many people that reject Trump, would also claim that he cheated his way into office. Either way, that is irrelevant. The point is, just because a portion of a population doesn't agree with, or recognize one's authority, it doesn't invalidate that authority.

Quote

Sure, but the Targaryens are not running around trying to kill their enemies with black magic.

No, they used dragons, acquired through blood magic, and recked havoc on an entire continent, killing thousands. Stannis' use of black magic saved the lifes of many thousands, at the cost of one traitorous usurpers life.

And try using that argument with the Masters of Astapor, yunkai, and Mereen.

Quote

Stannis provoked Renly by besieging Storm's End. He didn't have to do that. And as you well know he did so because Melisandre convinced him to take out Renly first because she had foreseen that he would defeat him at the Blackwater if he did not.

Quote

But is King Tommen truly in power? Of what, exactly?

I don't know what your trying to get at here, but he is the currently recognized legal King of Westeros.

Quote

When does a war begin and when does a war end?

I hope that's a rhetorical question. But alright, the war dubbed as Robert's Rebellion ended when Aerys was deposed and his supporters laid down their arms, and bent the knee to Robert.

To claim that two children running for their lives, and just trying to survive, while exiled in another continent indicates that the war isn't over yet is a preposterous assertion. Danny may start another war in the future, but Robert's Rebellion ended more than fourteen years ago.

The wofk may be considered over as far as the name it was given is no longer applicable, but the actual war is still ongoing. Once all open opposition to the Crowns authority is quelled, or the current regime is deposed of, and the realm is in peace, then the war will be over.

---

And aside from all of this, as we could go around in circles for ever disagreeing on these issues, the truth is that all of this is an attempt to draw attention away from the original intent of this discussion. As it pertains to the original op, the debate of who has the strongest claim between Stannis and Renly is grounded on the assumption that Robert was the legal ruling King. In this situation, there is no denying that Stannis' claim is stronger than Renly's. There shouldn't even be any debate on this, it is explicitly spelled out for us in the text. Anyone stating otherwise is belligerently denying the facts, just for the sake of arguing.

If you want to deny what is actually portrayed in the books, and try to use semantics and loop holes to claim that Robert wasn't the legal King, even though throughout the Seven Kingdoms he is recognized as so, then Stannis' claim, however weak it is, is still stronger than that of Renly's. 

Explain to me how in any scenario, other than using the incorrect terminology of "claim" in an insincere attempt to save face, results in Renly having a stronger claim than Stannis.

[Darkstream]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 

@Darkstream

Quoting from Baratheon sycophants doesn't help your case. Should I quote all people stating that Viserys III and Daenerys Stormborn are the rightful rulers of Westeros? Those quotes are abundant, too.

Yes, please do. I am curious to see what you come up with - especially the ones backing Renly. And then we can compare the character, reliability, and motives of the people making those claims against the ones that I have provided.

And no quotes by Renly, Danny or Viserys themselves, as I didn't include the quotes by Stannis.

[Darkstream]

And here's three more that I didn't include, as they were already posted a while back.

Quote

 

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

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

 

Quote

 

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

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

 

Quote

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

 

[Darkstream]

8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Now I would love to do as you requested, What assertion of mine would you like me to back up with quotes?

Uh huh, just as I called it. Play the ignorance card if you must.

8 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Dead Kings don't get to decide what happens when they are dead. 

Oh? So can I correctly assume that you agree with my argument against Lord Varys pertaining to this then?

[Bernie Mac]

45 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Uh huh, just as I called it. Play the ignorance card if you must.

I'm not playing the ignorance card. There is almost 30 pages of content. I will gladly try and back up my argument with evidence but let me know which statement(s) you would like me to focus on. 

Seriously chill out.

45 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Oh? So can I correctly assume that you agree with my argument against Lord Varys pertaining to this then?

You both are writing a lot.  Suffice to say I agree with some of what you both say and also disagree with some of what you  both say. 

[Darkstream]

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I'm not playing the ignorance card. There is almost 30 pages of content. I will gladly try and back up my argument with evidence but let me know which statement(s) you would like me to focus on. 

Let's not waste each other's, and everyone else's time hashing up the same nonsense that we've already carried on with too long.

If it actually matters to you, you're free to waste your time and search through those 30 pages to find the original quotes. I'm not interested in doing so myself.

Quote

You both are writing a lot.  Suffice to say I agree with some of what you both say and also disagree with some of what you  both say. 

Oh, well I was just curious, as you said "Dead Kings don't get to decide what happens when they are dead," whether you agree that since the King was deposed of and dead, that Robert had the right to claim the throne he conquered, or if you think he had an obligation to put Viserys on the throne?

[Lord Varys]

@Darkstream

Aegon the Conqueror didn't kill seven kings. The Gardener king and the Durrandon king died in battle, and Harren the Black burned with his castle. The Arryn king, Lannister king, and Stark king survived and bent the knee. And Princess Meria lived for another 14 years, too.

You seem to not grasp that your modern views are completely invalid in a medieval setting. Kings are not the same as common men. A man like Robert isn't a man of the royal family and can thus never be on equal footing with his king. Monarchs are far removed from the common rabble, including their most powerful subjects.

And that is why a subject cannot really declare war on a king. They can rebel but if you do that you are a traitor. And that doesn't change if you call yourself king, too. It is wrong and it remains wrong, never mind what you or anyone else say. That is part of the schizophrenic legal structure of a monarchy.

The opinions of the lords and people of Westeros don't matter. Not really. What matters is whether Viserys III and Daenerys give up their claims to the Iron Throne in favor of Robert Baratheon or not. If they did so voluntarily then Robert could claim he was the rightful king now. But they did not.

The kings who were defeated by Aegon and lived gave up their crowns and titles. They took and accepted Aegon as their king. That is how a king conquers other kings. But Robert never conquered Viserys III and Daenerys, nor did he kill them. And that's why he isn't the rightful king.

You also confuse laws and the legitimacy of governments. It doesn't matter what a government does, the question is whether it is legitimate. And a coup, rebellion, etc. is never legitimate because there are always laws in place that forbid that kind of thing. There might be states where the people have a right to overthrow a tyrant but a medieval society like Westeros didn't have rules for that although it is clear that the opinion was that you could do that.

However, that doesn't mean that you can then make a new king of your own choosing. Monarchy isn't a bowl of cherries.

To stick to your Trump example. If he was impeached the US would be stuck with Mike Pence as the new President (or whoever Trump made the new Vice President if he stepped down before Trump's own impeachment). The people there don't have the right to choose a new President before the next election.

We can say that Robert and Ned (although not Jon Arryn, he just was a traitor) had a right to fight against and overthrow Aerys but they had no right to make Robert king. Just as Renly and Stannis had no right to declare themselves king.