Renly was the true steel

why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

225 posts in this topic

20 hours ago, 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 don't agree the Tyrells would've necessarily defected. Remember, Renly proclaimed himself before Stannis did; Renly could've then received the letter and wrote his brother the terms of his support (likely making him his heir). At that point, as Olenna herself said, the Tyrells were committed and couldn't pull back - and with a living Renly betrothed or, better still, already wed to Margaery, they can't really go to anyone else. All they can do is take Renly's assurances (yes, they keep Highgarden and the Wardenship as reward for their support, even though the Florents are part of the royal family; yes, Marge and Renly still wed, yes, they are still in the succession) and hope for the best. Even if you're totally on board with Renly trying to steal his brother's crown (and kill him in the bargain), Renly went about if very stupidly.

Consider that, once you're up for kinslaying and regicide - an inherent part of what Renly wanted to do - there's a lot to gain by backing Stannis, because it gives you the chance to inherit legitimately. Despite all the comparisons to Robb Stark, Robert Baratheon and Aegon the Conqueror, Renly was really very radical in claiming the right to the throne based on charisma and power alone; and that precedent is absolutely terrible for the constitution of the Westeros. Robert had both might and charm, but he also had the strong backing of many of his vassal lords and a marriage alliance with another - and for all that, he's still, rightly, called The Usurper. Aegon was acclaimed eagerly by the riverlords and the denizens of what would become known as the Crownlands, negotiated a settlement with the King of the North, raised the Tyrells up after the Gardeners fell, and his half-brother married into the Durrandons: a crown based on might, but also on consent, on religious ceremony, on bilateral relationships and promises of a social contract. If Renly succeeded in becoming King, what's to stop an endless succession of future wars, if it's established that anyone with a big army can be King?

But if you work with Stannis, all that goes away. You can use your position of strength to force Stannis to name you heir over Shireen, at which point, after enthroning Stannis, you can arrange for him to go boar hunting or something, and bam! King. Still murder, still kinslaying, still kingslaying, but a semi-legitimate succession. All that requires is patience, and a few years. Also, if you're really smart, you make sure that all the nasty bits of the War of the 5 Kings end up on your brother's shoulders, and not yours. That way, he gets remembered as the king who slew Joffrey, Tommen, Myrcella, Cersei, et al; and you get to be the summer king who follows the tyrant but sets a different course. And all you lose in the bargain is having to wait a few more years to wear the crown.

Share this post


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

Hammer...Nail...Right on the head!

This is excellent point that I have never seen brought up before. :thumbsup:

Thanks Darkstream!  It came to me when I was musing on peaches, poetry, politics and perfidy...ha ha. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Renly's Banana said:

Renly.. never.. killed Robert? 

You keep denying all my claims but not offering much. Stannis is unyielding and rigid. He's a very good war-time soldier and a terrible peace-time ruler. He most certainly WOULD have a religious revolt on his hands, with riots worse than the ones Joffrey caused. If his Florent stooges continue to push Melisandre's religion there would be blood in the streets. I would also love to see all the Lords' reactions to being told "give me your armies, we're gonna go fight ice demons in the north." I'm sure everyone will follow him blindly and not revolt in the slightest. As for the Ironborn and Northerners.. they would still rebel. Stannis is a stranger with a foreign religion that threatens the old gods; why should any northern lord care about him? Robb doesn't even know the man. 

But also I heard that his wife slept with Patchface and cucks him. How shameful. NOT A KING I'D FOLLOW! SAD!!!

Go back to bed you gangrenous old sea dog. You know nothing of the Ways of the Peach™
but your son does

Oops my fault i meant that he tried to kill Stannis.

We don't know about his administrative capabilities. We can asume that his policies are hard but positive though because he is a smart and competent guy.

As far as we know there has only been one faith uprising and the Faith Militant dosn't exist anymore. 

He probably wouldn't tell all lords to go fight the ice demons he would probably be smart about it. Send a dozen thousand men or so to repair and man all the castles and strengthen the defences. Gather supplies and dragonglass for the defence of the wall. When it becomes aparent to everyone that the Others are real then Stannis can call all the banners to come.

No way Stannis would come to actual blows with Robb Stark. Robb Stark knows his father supported Stannis and the real reason for why Robb declared war was because he was fighting the Lannisters and wanted to save and later take revenge for his father. I think him proclaiming himself king was just for show off. Robb planned on Stannis taking the Iron Throne and would 100% renounce his kingship and swear allegiance to Stannis.

Stannis would not demand that everyone convert. His best man and friend Davos is of the faith of the seven. He would probably try to spread it somewhat and he would certainly face backlash true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Why is it always Stannis-centric when people say Renly should have done his duty and been loyal. If Renly was to do that he'd be raising his armies in defence of King Joffrey against Stannis, Renly doesn't base his claim to the throne on the bastardy of the royal children. He's simply usurping them because they're Lannister puppets, he doesn't even consider the legitimacy of the King until he's in his tent with Catleyn. Stannis is simply an after thought, if Renly flees to Highgarden and claims the throne why on Earth would he think to declare for Stannis out of loyalty? He's already usurping two claimants that are ahead of Stannis in the line of succession and Stannis hasn't even declared himself. 

To say that Renly should have done his duty from Renly's eyes is to say that Renly should have supported Joffrey yet he never gets called out on that, he's willing to usurp his nephews that he believes to be Robert's children yet people on here always state that he should have done his duty to Stannis, the morality of trying to steal Joffrey's/Tommen's throne is never even mentioned, hmmmm I wonder why that could be. 

The reality is simple, Renly chose to usurp Joffrey, as soon as he did that everyone else in the line of succession before him doesn't even matter, usurping three people isn't any worse than usurping the king. He had the connections in the Reach, his own vassals and the link to Highgarden, when he decided to usurp Joffrey it would be absolutely illogical to think oh I'm usurping my nephews but morality demands that I declare the third in line king instead, despite him sitting on Dragonstone in silence and despite all the advantages I have over him. 

It's a Stanniscentric view because it's a Stannis' fans view. 

Edited by Trigger Warning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ravenous reader said:

Many of the arguments on this thread maintain that Renly was the better politician, the more strategic thinker than either Stannis or Ned; and use that as justification for his usurpation of what was by rights his brother's position.  But in the end, he was killed because he didn't know how to diplomatically converse with his elder brother.  Humiliating Stannis constituted a grave and reckless political error.  


Are you implying that he wouldn't have been assassinated if he had nicely turned down Stannis' offer?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

<snip>

He may pretend that to Catelyn, but I suspect he's lying. He lacks a reason to reveal the truth - after all, that just makes Stannis king, and he's dead-set on claiming the throne immediately - and once Stannis stakes his claim, it's in his own interest to see that law-minded lords are divided between Joffrey and Stannis instead of siding firmly with either claimant.

At the very least, given Stannis withdrawing and the rumors about sellswords (fairly early AGoT, IIRC) you'd think he'd have considered whether he brother was planning to rebel, and why. Also, once again, Renly had an opportunity to throw down his claim and support Stannis once they met; which carries real advantages. Sure, he's more powerful than Stannis - and now he can become the heir and the power behind the throne until his time is right, and have a much more secure throne for himself and any heirs to boot. Instead he chooses to press his momentary advantage, completely ignoring the precedent he's setting and propaganda coup he can arrange by backing Stannis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

Why is it always Stannis-centric when people say Renly should have done his duty and been loyal. If Renly was to do that he'd be raising his armies in defence of King Joffrey against Stannis, Renly doesn't base his claim to the throne on the bastardy of the royal children. He's simply usurping them because they're Lannister puppets, he doesn't even consider the legitimacy of the King until he's in his tent with Catleyn. Stannis is simply an after thought, if Renly flees to Highgarden and claims the throne why on Earth would he think to declare for Stannis out of loyalty? He's already usurping two claimants that are ahead of Stannis in the line of succession and Stannis hasn't even declared himself. 

To say that Renly should have done his duty from Renly's eyes is to say that Renly should have supported Joffrey yet he never gets called out on that, he's willing to usurp his nephews that he believes to be Robert's children yet people on here always state that he should have done his duty to Stannis, the morality of trying to steal Joffrey's/Tommen's throne is never even mentioned, hmmmm I wonder why that could be. 

The reality is simple, Renly chose to usurp Joffrey, as soon as he did that everyone else in the line of succession before him doesn't even matter, usurping three people isn't any worse than usurping the king. He had the connections in the Reach, his own vassals and the link to Highgarden, when he decided to usurp Joffrey it would be absolutely illogical to think oh I'm usurping my nephews but morality demands that I declare the third in line king instead, despite him sitting on Dragonstone in silence and despite all the advantages I have over him. 

It's a Stanniscentric view because it's a Stannis' fans view. 

I would need to review a couple passages in the text before I would either challenge or concede to your main point.

However, in relation to the discussion at hand pertaining to the op, I don't see the relavancy in your argument. Whether Renly's intent was to usurp the crown from Joffrey or Stannis, he was still in the wrong, and Stannis had every right to oppose him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

25 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

He may pretend that to Catelyn, but I suspect he's lying. He lacks a reason to reveal the truth - after all, that just makes Stannis king, and he's dead-set on claiming the throne immediately - and once Stannis stakes his claim, it's in his own interest to see that law-minded lords are divided between Joffrey and Stannis instead of siding firmly with either claimant.

At the very least, given Stannis withdrawing and the rumors about sellswords (fairly early AGoT, IIRC) you'd think he'd have considered whether he brother was planning to rebel, and why. Also, once again, Renly had an opportunity to throw down his claim and support Stannis once they met; which carries real advantages. Sure, he's more powerful than Stannis - and now he can become the heir and the power behind the throne until his time is right, and have a much more secure throne for himself and any heirs to boot. Instead he chooses to press his momentary advantage, completely ignoring the precedent he's setting and propaganda coup he can arrange by backing Stannis.

 

He gains absolutely nothing from pretending to Catelyn since he then goes on to say that it doesn't really matter to him anyway it's absolutely written in a way that contains a small moment of uncertainty. Huge numbers of lords followed him into rebellion against what is seen as Robert's true born children, them being bastards only helps him, if they're going to help Renly usurp Big Bobby B's kids why would they care about usurping Stannis as well? Bastardy gives him an even more solid claim. 

Oh come on, it just isn't going to happen. It's not as simple as that and I don't think Renly has the much faith in Stannis as king as it is, the majority of the Reach has bound themselves to Renly and followed him into rebellion, they're championing his cause but that doesn't mean they'll stick to him when he fucks them about, takes his crown off and gives it to Stannis meanwhile giving his wife's crown to Selyse. What advantages outweigh the potential losses?

He spits in Mace Tyrell's face whilst stripping his daughter of the crown and offers him instead a man that was his enemy and one that's married to a Florent a House known to trumpet their better claim to Highgarden, in doing this he also alienates every other rival of House Florent and that's not to mention that Stannis has a reputation as a hard ass, why would any of these people really want him for a king? He only got some of them in the chaos of Renly's death without that it's less certain. They might not all just throw in with the Lannisters but they might just go home. Penrose lists several prominent Reach lords as "those that love Renly best" and it shows that Renly's been cultivating his alliances in the Reach for a while and not just with House Tyrell, these people are in it for Renly, they won't be happy when he just passes them off to someone they neither know nor care for, You don't pull 100,000 men into open rebellion and then just give the crown to someone else, it would be ridiculous. 

Once Renly is crowned there was no going back, it's just not reasonable the same way that it wouldn't be reasonable for Robb to surrender his crown after his vassals have put their faith in him and it's even more of a precarious situation with Renly . If Stannis wanted Renly's support he should have approached him before Robert died, he knew that Renly was working against the Lannisters but no, he sat on Dragonstone is silence whilst Robert died and the game played out for everyone else. 

Edited by Trigger Warning

Share this post


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

I would need to review a couple passages in the text before I would either challenge or concede to your main point.

However, in relation to the discussion at hand pertaining to the op, I don't see the relavancy in your argument. Whether Renly's intent was to usurp the crown from Joffrey or Stannis, he was still in the wrong, and Stannis had every right to oppose him.

I didn't say that he didn't I said that the fact that the usurpation of Joffrey is never even mentioned shows a considerable Stannis bias. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Trigger Warning said:

 

He gains absolutely nothing from pretending to Catelyn since he then goes on to say that it doesn't really matter to him anyway it's absolutely written in a way that contains a small moment of uncertainty. 

Oh come on, it just isn't going to happen. It's not as simple as that and I don't think Renly has the much faith in Stannis as king as it is, the majority of the Reach has bound themselves to Renly and followed him into rebellion, they're championing his cause but that doesn't mean they'll stick to him when he fucks them about, takes his crown off and gives it to Stannis meanwhile giving his wife's crown to Selyse. What advantages outweigh the potential losses?

He's already married to Margaery, which means the Tyrells are now bolted on to him - as Olenna herself says, having committed that far they were compelled to keep backing whatever horse they could.

1 minute ago, Trigger Warning said:

He spits in Mace Tyrell's face and offers him instead a man that was his enemy and one that's married to a Florent a House known to trumpet their better claim to Highgarden, in doing this he also alienates every other rival of House Florent and that's not to mention that Stannis has a reputation as a hard ass, why would any of these people really want him for a king? He only got some of them in the chaos of Renly's death without that it's less certain.

If some of the people who liked Renly went over to his brother after he mysteriously and conveniently died, I suspect far more would go over if he made a tearful speech about how honored he was by them, and how he must surrender the crown to the true king, etc., etc.,. Yes, some more ambitious lords would be miffed - but that's what the endless glad-handing Renly's excellent at comes in handy.

Oh, and joining Stannis makes the Tyrells incredibly dependent on him, since they can't leave with Marg married to him and they are dependent on him to protect their seat and paramountcy from the Florents at court.

1 minute ago, Trigger Warning said:

They might not all just throw in with the Lannisters but they might just go home. Penrose lists several prominent Reach lords as "those that love Renly best" and it shows that Renly's been cultivating his alliances in the Reach for a while and not just with House Tyrell, these people are in it for Renly, they won't be happen when he just passes them off to someone they neither know nor care for, You don't pull 100,000 men into open rebellion and then just give the crown to someone else, it would be ridiculous. 

Yes, but it was already ridiculous. Also, you can halve that number and it's still an awesome fighting force - and without a clear leader like Loras Tyrell, I see no reason to believe the defectors would be able to organize in time to defeat Stannis the way Tywin and the Tyrells did.

1 minute ago, Trigger Warning said:


Once Renly is crowned there was no going back, it's just not reasonable the same way that it wouldn't be reasonable for Robb to surrender his crown after his vassals have put tehir faith in him and it's even more of a precarious situation with Renly . If Stannis wanted Renly's support he should have approached him before Robert died, he knew that Renly was working against the Lannisters but no, he sat on Dragonstone is silence whilst Robert died and the game played out for everyone else. 

I disagree about that. If the Tyrells were willing to marry Joff and then murder him, they'd also be willing to do the same to Stannis. The bannermen might not be happy about it, but with Renly as designated heir and now two different voices affirming the bastard story (one who threw down his crown to do so), you have a compelling message - and this helps Renly. Oh, it also makes Renly look pretty selfless, which is always a handy bit of PR.

Why does this help? Because even if force and a monopoly on violence are the bedrock of any kingdom (or other government), it's an extremely destabilizing thing to make that force naked and unattached to any other respected rules. That's a threat to the rest of his reign, and to any heirs he may have. That is why I judge him - not because I like Stannis, though I do - but because he was either too foolish or too impatient to understand the devastating consequences of his coming to power in such a manner would be.

There's other advantages, too. While Renly clearly has no problem killing children, it's generally not something that makes you popular. By supporting Stannis, Renly ensures it's Stannis who gets the blood on his hands, not him. In Renly's case, it'd be even worse optics than Stannis, since he's doing it without even the rightness of law to support him. Again, this helps Renly later when he takes power. Plus, instead of taking power as yet another usurper after two extremely destabilizing conflicts, he can lawfully inherit*. Oh, and when he does, he'll make an amazing contrast: a return to the Seven after the fires of Rh'llor, a return to pageantry after a reign of austerity, a return to affable corruption after a reign of inflexible justice. Instead of a bloody tyrant facing constant rebellions, he'd be a sweet breath of spring.

*Okay, not lawfully, but if Cersei could pull it off....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:


Are you implying that he wouldn't have been assassinated if he had nicely turned down Stannis' offer?

 

I think the point is that what people use as justification for Renly usurping the throne is not as factual as they believe it to be. All of the assertions that Renly would be a better king is just conjecture, and based on the false assumption that Renly is some sort of political genius.

21 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:

I didn't say that he didn't I said that the fact that the usurpation of Joffrey is never even mentioned shows a considerable Stannis bias. 

Ok, then I really don't understand your point, other than to bring attention to the obvious fact that some people have a bias towards Stannis, as is true with every character.

I would posit that this is more of an oversight than a bias. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

11 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

I think the point is that what people use as justification for Renly usurping the throne is not as factual as they believe it to be. All of the assertions that Renly would be a better king is just conjecture, and based on the false assumption that Renly is some sort of political genius.

Ok, then I really don't understand your point, other than to bring attention to the obvious fact that some people have a bias towards Stannis, as is true with every character.

I would posit that this is more of an oversight than a bias. 



My point is that if Renly doesn't know the children are bastards then it doesn't make sense to say that his duty was to declare for Stannis or anything related to Stannis before Stannis even declares himself, to be loyal would be to support Joffrey and once Stannis declares supporting him is neither here nor there since he's already usurping Joffrey and he offers no proof. It's a pretty big oversight to be fair they're not talking about Renly being dutiful, they just want him to support Stannis. If someone talks about duty without mentioning Joffrey and jumps straight to Stannis then it diminishes their entire point.
 

And in any case I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing attention to the prominence of the huge levels of bias that are in any Stannis thread, no one gets fan-boyed harder.

Edited by Trigger Warning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it comes down to it being easy to not like Stannis. Even though it's harder for me personally to like Renly, he's a cowardly, unloyal opportunist. 

I've always felt Stannis is one of the best written characters in the series purely because we should all like him but seldom few actually do (although they are die-hard fans). On paper he's the same as Ned in a lot of ways, but deeply flawed. While Ned is able to compromise his values and ideals to do what's best for others (i.e. hiding Jon's mother's name, lying to save Sansa and Arya etc.) Stannis is not and he is swayed into actions that go against his morales. 

I personally feel pity for Stannis, still don't like him though. 

But he definitely shouldn't get the blame for Renly being disloyal, there's no way he should ever have compromised and swore fealty to Renly. He was the legal heir and Renly just an opportunist. The throne doesn't count for anything if you don't follow the succession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

31 minutes ago, Trigger Warning said:



My point is that if Renly doesn't know the children are bastards then it doesn't make sense to say that his duty was to declare for Stannis or anything related to Stannis before Stannis even declares himself, to be loyal would be to support Joffrey and once Stannis declares supporting him is neither here nor there since he's already usurping Joffrey and he offers no proof. It's a pretty big oversight to be fair they're not talking about Renly being dutiful, they just want him to support Stannis. If someone talks about duty without mentioning Joffrey and jumps straight to Stannis then it diminishes their entire point.
 

:agree:

 

Stannis did not raise his banners. He spent months sitting on Dragonstone doing nothing after Robert died, long enough for Renly to gather his great army, for Robb to march his army from the north and fight a couple of battles and both of them to be proclaimed kings. During that time nobody knew if Stannis was going to sit out the entire war, claim a crown, or declare for King Joffrey - nobody can be judged for not supporting Stannis as that was not an option on the table.

 

I actually think we are missing some information about Renly's motivations, to wit - did he decided to become king then call his banners or did he call his banners then decide to become king? The one is naked ambition from the start, but the other is subtler and makes him a more complex character. I think perhaps  Renly formed his army to continue the plan he had proposed to Ned, to remove the Lannisters and take the Regency for Joffrey, arguably he would even have been justiied to do so - as a lord who had committed no crime he had a right to defend himself and he had reason to fear arrest or death from Cersei. I think it was only when he saw the sheer numbers of the army he had raised that he let it get to his head and thought that if all those men were willing to answer to him it was because he was most fit to be king.

Edited by Buried Treasure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joffrey is the legal heir. Stannis failed to provide evidence that Joffrey was a bastard and therefore Joffrey remains the legal heir. Why should any Westerosi lord rebel against the throne on the basis of Stannis' claim if he provides no evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trigger Warning said:



My point is that if Renly doesn't know the children are bastards then it doesn't make sense to say that his duty was to declare for Stannis or anything related to Stannis before Stannis even declares himself, to be loyal would be to support Joffrey and once Stannis declares supporting him is neither here nor there since he's already usurping Joffrey and he offers no proof. It's a pretty big oversight to be fair they're not talking about Renly being dutiful, they just want him to support Stannis. If someone talks about duty without mentioning Joffrey and jumps straight to Stannis then it diminishes their entire point.

Ok, I get your point. And sure, prior to Stannis declaring, the argument that Renly should have been dutyful or loyal to Stannis would be nonsensical. Once Stannis does declare, and they have their parlay, Renly's refusal to renounce his claim, whether practical or not, would still be remiss of him.  

Is this argument made by some as a result of their bias? Sure. Does that negate the validity of it? No, I don't believe that it does.

Quote

And in any case I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing attention to the prominence of the huge levels of bias that are in any Stannis thread, no one gets fan-boyed harder.

No, I suppose there is nothing wrong with it, but I don't think the prominence of this is limited to just Stannis threads and fans. One of the most frustrating aspects of engaging in discussion on these forums for me, is the prevalence of bias in all threads, and pertaining to every character.

Perhaps it seems more prominent with Stannis fans, due to their unwillingness to bend. If you want to get through to someone with a strong bias towards Stannis, you need to strait up break them. Either that, or use sorcery and parlor tricks to fool them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renly was out for himself, plain and simple. He could have declared against the Lannisters without declaring himself king, but there wouldn't be as much glory in that. Maybe he would have made the best of the kings, but that's not exactly saying much compared to the others and doesn't negate the fact that his claim was based upon his selfish desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2017 at 7:20 PM, Renly was the true steel said:

i know im asking why so many readers think stannis was in the right here when he was basically risking the lives of thousands for his right to a throne he doesn't even want and doesn't have support to take it

Because Stannis believes in duty above all else. The throne was his according to right and law. It was his obligation to unseat the bastard usurper on the throne and rule Westeros. The simple fact is that he WAS in the right. Not having support or wanting to be king does not change the facts.

Renly on the other hand thought it would be fun to be king, didn't know about the twincest, and didn't give a damn about the fact that he had absolutely no right to proclaim himself king. In effect he was jumping ahead of five people because he still thought Joff, Myrcella, and Tommen were Robert's. Renly was being a total jackass.

Renly in fact was in the wrong, and should have taken Stannis' offer to be his heir in place of Shireen. Margaery would still have gotten to be queen so the Tyrells wouldn't have had any reason to back out. And together they could have won the war.

I get that Renly is liked. He's very likable, even to me, but he had no right to the throne and trying to pretend that he did or had some kind of noble motivation is silly. And trying to pin some kind of blame on Stannis for not submitting to Renly is beyond silly.

Share this post


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

no one gets fan-boyed harder.

I guess fans of other characters just need to pray fan-boy harder. :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume that Renly was being 100% practical (which he wasn't) and weigh up his options. At the time, Stannis hadn't crowned himself (I actually find it rather amusing how angry Stannis is that no-one declares for him - of course they haven't, you haven't put a crown on your head, you numpty) and Renly didn't know if he would or not. It would have been very embarrassing to declare for King Stannis only to have him declare for Joffrey.

Anyway, Renly has the choice of declaring for Stannis or crowning himself. The fundamental question is: would the Tyrells side with Renly if he supports Stannis or would they declare for Joffrey? I can't give a definite answer either way: Joffrey could make Marg a queen and Stannis isn't exactly fond of the Tyrells (not to mention his Florent connection) but Loras is Renly's best friend (and lover, though I don't know if Mace knew that). No doubt Renly had this question in mind when he was debating his options.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.