Jump to content

Narrative Wise, Did Robb Need to be a King?


Sourjapes

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Larraq, The Lash said:

GRRM also called Viserys the Beggar King and considered him king.  By your logic, Robert was no king.   

No. Because Robert is always referred to King in the Appendix as well. The point is that positions like King only have as much power as people choose to give them. There are no firm rules to it.

If anything it's the post I was responding to that takes away Robert's Throne. After all, the Targaryens didn't surrender or recognise Robert as King. Indeed, it's looking very likely that we're going to see at least one Targaryen sit on the Throne before the series is done. If they declare "The Baratheons were never Kings" does that make it true?

7 hours ago, Larraq, The Lash said:

Robb is not Ned and Stannis is not Robert.  They're not best friends.  Just because Ned and Robert were friends does not make Robb and Stannis friends.  Stannis is the unbending type.  Robb can't be trusted to keep his word.  They could have done well as a team because it may encourage Lyssa to join in.  Stark, Baratheon, Tully, and Arryn vs. Lannister, Tyrell, and Greyjoy.  It's an even match.  Dorne will sit this one out. 

Nah. Lyssa was Littlefinger's puppet and there's no way he's helping Stannis take the Throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/03/2018 at 9:28 PM, The Sunland Lord said:

He didn't need it, his vassals declared him king. It made more damage than good. 

No, in fact the other kings/queens are wannabe's since they declared themselves as such. 

To be fair Joffrey believes himself to be heir, Stannis knows himself to be heir (though no one else does) and Renly alone is a wannabe king.  Balon and Robb crown themselves kings of their respective fiefdoms, Balon by design and intent, Robb by course of events and almost by accident, but the scope is imited to the historic constituent kingdoms (allowing for the River Lords transferring their loyaltly from any notional "River King" to The King in the North).

20 hours ago, ResidentHi11 said:

Robb was the KitN though. He didn't have the support of a town or city, he had the support from the entire North and Riverlands. That is quite a hefty chunk of real estate. They stopped paying taxes to Kings Landing and had begun minting their own coin (Manderly in ACoK), they had their own Army and Navy (building a fleet, again Manderly in ACoK).

As Varys says, "Power lies where people believe it lies." or something along that line. :)

I agree.  This indeed all boils down to perception and recognition.  The Lords and people of the North certainly regarded Robb as their king and, possession being 9/10 of the law and the Starks being established rulers of the North, that is really what counts, whether he won or lost militarily in the end.  Since he lost after a relatively short period of time it is easy to dismiss his kingship but the likes of Lyanna Mormont who so memorably responded to Stannis's demand for fealty with "Bear Island knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is STARK" show that the idea is alive and well.  Either the Iron Throne restores it's hold on the territory of the North and resecures the loyalty of its people or there will be another KitN, it's in the balance at present.

Independence movements are rarely cut and dried but Robb held all the levers of power so was effectively a king from the moment he crowned himself to the moment he died.  Of course all the other claimants and the one in posession the Iron Throne in particular will dispute this and declare him a rebel and a traitor but it cuts both ways: until he is defeated he is a king vs until he is victorious he is not a king being simply a matter of perception or choice.  How effective he was as king given the Ironborn invasion and the capture of Winterfell and Moat Cailin leaving him trapped in the Riverlands is a different question.

OP: Either Robb submits to Joffrey who he believes to be the legitimate king but neither he nor any of the Northern or River Lords are happy with this idea given recent events; or he backs Stannis as an alternative Barratheon heir, though not the rightful king yet he has no real following and has yet to show his hand; or he backs Renly who has declared himself and has all the strength of the Stormlands and The Reach but no right to the throne at all; or he declares himself king and relies on the strength of his strategic position to make that a reality.

In the event he understandably decides that Joffrey has violated the reciprocal duties between monarch and subject and withdraws his loyalty, returning to the Stark's age old kingship in the North.  The strength of his strategic position is soon shown to be hollow by the Ironborn and a deus ex machina intervention by Melisandre.

   
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sourjapes said:

Your first paragraph is pointless

I don't think it is. It's why Cat doesn't stay around after Renly's murder... She knows Stannis will not negotiate with her, or Robb so long as he's King in the North, and that she'd be in danger of becoming a hostage if she tried. Stannis even threatens Robb for stealing half his kingdom during the parley prior. It's why she comes back with her mission failed... She's unable to secure any alliances, and Robb can't get any more allies. It's part of Robb's isolation.

5 hours ago, Sourjapes said:

The leeches? Who cares? It had little affect unless you are very superstitious. Joffrey, Balon, Robb, they each died of very explainable causes that were the natural result of the choices they made, the lives they'd lived. You could cut that entire leech scene out of the story, I say.

As a reader, sure, you can perhaps speculate that the leeches did nothing, that Mel saw the deaths coming, and then put the leech show on to convince Stannis to burn Edric Storm. But to the characters in the book it's a pretty big deal... It's why Davos goes against Stannis to smuggle Edric off Dragonstone, thus risking his head. It's part of the reason why Stannis puts trust in Mel... she proved herself effective with the demonstration. And it's specifically using King's Blood to "kill" 3 Kings... Joffrey, Balon, and Robb are all Kings. The scene wouldn't have felt the same if it was 2 Kings and a Lord. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

To be fair Joffrey believes himself to be heir, Stannis knows himself to be heir (though no one else does) and Renly alone is a wannabe king.  Balon and Robb crown themselves kings of their respective fiefdoms, Balon by design and intent, Robb by course of events and almost by accident, but the scope is imited to the historic constituent kingdoms (allowing for the River Lords transferring their loyaltly from any notional "River King" to The King in the North).

I'm not blaming Joffrey for believing he is the heir. But he is not chosen by anyone, since the deception we are all aware of gave him the right to sit on the IT. 

Stannis is also not the lawful king, because there is at least one legit Targaryen still alive, and we know that the Iron Throne is a Targ invention and they ruled it for almost three centuries. So he has a claim, but not stronger than Daenerys.

Renly at least doesn't pretend to be lawful king or anything, he just believes the strenght behind him can make him king.

Balon is different than Stannis, Renly or Joffrey, because he wants independence for his kingdom.

None of them, anyways, is wanted to be crowned by their vassals, unlike Robb (to be fair, not every bannerman was present when he was declared king).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sourjapes said:

Your first paragraph is pointless because Stannis doesn't win and nothing Robb's army does winds up having any benefit for Stannis. He fails to draw Tywin into the west anyway. I too appreciated the difficult diplomatic situation but I question if that was the best way to do it. In hindsight, maybe it would have been a bigger punch to the gut if Robb made the natural alliance with Stannis and then after that roughly the seem events play out as I outlined in my beginning post. The leeches? Who cares? It had little affect unless you are very superstitious. Joffrey, Balon, Robb, they each died of very explainable causes that were the natural result of the choices they made, the lives they'd lived. You could cut that entire leech scene out of the story, I say.

 

Being a king is hard and so is being a lord paramount during war time where you have to fight on multiple fronts and everything you love is at risk. As for the name of the war, "The War of Four Kings" sounds just fine.

Nothing Robb's army does helps Stannis, true, but it's also true that Robb and Stannis are fighting the same foe, separately, no unifying strategy. It's obv impossible to know how an alliance would have helped, but I'm having a difficult time believing it would have made no difference.

Leeches: Hardly mere "superstition." This is a world where priests can resurrect the dead, ice demons have armies of zombies, prophets can see the future, a boy can drink a magic paste and see the past. This is not a world where it's easy to call "superstition."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Sourjapes said:

I enjoy thinking of ways it could have been done differently. Most especially in light of GRRM's  choice to greatly expand the story after "A Storm of Swords", though that's not really what this is. It was just an idle thought that ocurred to me. Others made an argument about it being necessary because it is ironic since Ned declared for Stannis.However in my opinion that doesn't really make sense because there is no pay-off for that; Robb wasn't killed by Stannis. Maybe if he'd been slain by a shadow I would believe that but it appears clear to me that his fate was sealed by events and choices far beyond anything Stannis did aside from lose at the Blackwater.

THe entirety of Robbs story is a trope that GRRM wanted to behead, like Ned. to change it would lessen the story.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

I don't think it is. It's why Cat doesn't stay around after Renly's murder... She knows Stannis will not negotiate with her, or Robb so long as he's King in the North, and that she'd be in danger of becoming a hostage if she tried.

The main reason was that her and Brienne were being blamed for Renly's murder, and Brienne was attacked.

20 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Balon is different than Stannis, Renly or Joffrey, because he wants independence for his kingdom.

None of them, anyways, is wanted to be crowned by their vassals

Balon's vassals seemed on board with his plans, bar a few nay-sayers like the Reader. 

23 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

OP: Either Robb submits to Joffrey who he believes to be the legitimate king but neither he nor any of the Northern or River Lords are happy with this idea given recent events; or he backs Stannis as an alternative Barratheon heir, though not the rightful king yet he has no real following and has yet to show his hand; or he backs Renly who has declared himself and has all the strength of the Stormlands and The Reach but no right to the throne at all; or he declares himself king and relies on the strength of his strategic position to make that a reality.

Another alternative is to beat the Lannisters, kill Joffery, then crown Tommen. That in a way would have been the more legitimate route - recognising the Baratheon line as his father had, but punishing those who killed his father, and removing Lannister influence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

The main reason was that her and Brienne were being blamed for Renly's murder, and Brienne was attacked.

So, why run all the way back to Riverrun? Why not seek sanctuary in Stannis' camp? It's pretty close, just across a field, much closer than Riverrun. The torches of Stannis' camp where even visible to Cat. And they weren't attacked for long... after they slipped from Renly's tent, they were able to get to Cat's escort, and leave Renly's camp without issue.

Also, the final parts of that chapter...

Quote

 

As the long fingers of dawn fanned across the fields, color was returning to the world. Where grey men had sat grey horses armed with shadow spears, the points of ten thousand lances now glinted silverly cold, and on the myriad flapping banners Catelyn saw the blush of red and pink and orange, the richness of blues and browns, the blaze of gold and yellow. All the power of Storm's End and Highgarden, the power that had been Renly's an hour ago. They belong to Stannis now, she realized, even if they do not know it themselves yet. Where else are they to turn, if not to the last Baratheon? Stannis has won all with a single evil stroke.

I am the rightful king, he had declared, his jaw clenched hard as iron, and your son no less a traitor than my brother here. His day will come as well.

A chill went through her.

 

Stannis has just killed Renly, is how Cat saw it, through some evil stroke. To Stannis, Robb is no less a traitor than Renly was, and Cat knows this. To Stannis, Robb is a usurper.

Robb being called King in the North, and accepting the title, is a major reason why there can be no alliance between him and Stannis, unlike with Renly who was willing to negotiate an alliance. To Stannis, Robb is just one of the usurper Kings he has to deal with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Unacosamedarisa said:

So, why run all the way back to Riverrun? Why not seek sanctuary in Stannis' camp? It's pretty close, just across a field, much closer than Riverrun. The torches of Stannis' camp where even visible to Cat. And they weren't attacked for long... after they slipped from Renly's tent, they were able to get to Cat's escort, and leave Renly's camp without issue.

Also, the final parts of that chapter...

Stannis has just killed Renly, is how Cat saw it, through some evil stroke. To Stannis, Robb is no less a traitor than Renly was, and Cat knows this. To Stannis, Robb is a usurper.

Robb being called King in the North, and accepting the title, is a major reason why there can be no alliance between him and Stannis, unlike with Renly who was willing to negotiate an alliance. To Stannis, Robb is just one of the usurper Kings he has to deal with. 

I pretty much agree with all of that, so fair enough. I was more talking about the immediate reason for fleeing, as opposed to the very valid reasons you give for her to keep running. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jon Fossoway said:

Wasn't Robb crowned by his bannermen? He couldn't say 'K, no thx' when his most powerful bannermen lay a crown on his head.

I think he could have. What were they going to do, kill him if he refused?

He had enough clout following his victory over the Kingslayer and his relief of Riverrun. His bannermen would have accepted his refusal, even if they weren't happy about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

I'm not blaming Joffrey for believing he is the heir. But he is not chosen by anyone, since the deception we are all aware of gave him the right to sit on the IT. 

Stannis is also not the lawful king, because there is at least one legit Targaryen still alive, and we know that the Iron Throne is a Targ invention and they ruled it for almost three centuries. So he has a claim, but not stronger than Daenerys.

Renly at least doesn't pretend to be lawful king or anything, he just believes the strenght behind him can make him king.

Balon is different than Stannis, Renly or Joffrey, because he wants independence for his kingdom.

None of them, anyways, is wanted to be crowned by their vassals, unlike Robb (to be fair, not every bannerman was present when he was declared king).

Fair points.  Let me just say that in their feudal system, kings are not normally chosen.  Kings inherit by right of blood.  The first of the line does so through warfare and his children thereafter by the right of blood.  

The kingsmoot is an ancient practice and to hold one is illegal.  The Greyjoys bent their knees and they agreed to give up the old ways.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

Fair points.  Let me just say that in their feudal system, kings are not normally chosen.  Kings inherit by right of blood.  The first of the line does so through warfare and his children thereafter by the right of blood.  

Of course. They have no elections. I can understand the idea that Joffrey had every right to fight to stay on the throne. 

1 hour ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The kingsmoot is an ancient practice and to hold one is illegal.  The Greyjoys bent their knees and they agreed to give up the old ways.  

The Iron Islands are in rebellion. From a unified Kingdoms POV, it's illegal, but they are in rebellion, so I can also understand their motives for choosing their own king.

Then again, the Kingsmoot was more an Aeron's crazy idea than anything else. It's the author's move that had to be done in order for Euron to take over control.

4 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Balon's vassals seemed on board with his plans, bar a few nay-sayers like the Reader. 

Well, of course they were on board. Otherwise, they'd literally sleep with the fishes. Forever.

However, they didn't choose him, just agreed with the decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Well, of course they were on board. Otherwise, they'd literally sleep with the fishes. Forever.

However, they didn't choose him, just agreed with the decision.

True enough, but it wasn't just the threat of violence that kept them in line. The return to the Old Way was clearly a popular idea among the Iron Born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

I think he could have. What were they going to do, kill him if he refused?

He had enough clout following his victory over the Kingslayer and his relief of Riverrun. His bannermen would have accepted his refusal, even if they weren't happy about it. 

In peace time he could have refused. But he was travelling with these men in a foreign land waging war against the Crown. He was crowned with the ancient title 'King in the North', too. Context & tradition matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jon Fossoway said:

In peace time he could have refused. But he was travelling with these men in a foreign land waging war against the Crown. He was crowned with the ancient title 'King in the North', too. Context & tradition matters. 

What would have happened if he refused? Do you think they would have strung him up? The Greatjon was the first to call for it, and he, and many others, were clearly devoted to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

What would have happened if he refused? Do you think they would have strung him up? The Greatjon was the first to call for it, and he, and many others, were clearly devoted to him. 

Do remember that before Robb was crowned, his bannermen and the riverlords were tangled in a discussion about the war effort and which King to ally or follow. Him being crowned King was the thing they needed to focus. Again, I don't think Robb wanted to be a King, but it was necessary for the war effort. Besides, you don't go letting down rough and hairy northmen when they are throwing their weapons at your feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jon Fossoway said:

Besides, you don't go letting down rough and hairy northmen when they are throwing their weapons at your feet.

He was happy to savage one of them with a wolf when he was waving a weapon in the air.

I'm not arguing Robb was wrong to do it, I jut don't agree with the idea that he was unable to turn them down. After his victories he was more dominant over them than he had ever been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...