Jump to content

Rethinking Stannis


BastardSword

Recommended Posts

Mulling over the idea of 'Winter is Coming' and the fact that the entire series began not with any of the characters we've come to know/love but with a knight facing off against an Other....

I've realized that even though Stannis is not a very likeable guy, the cold objective truth is that had Ned managed to call him back and together they established that Cersei's kids weren't Barratheons, he had the claim to the throne. Various characters throughout the book find reasons to dismiss Stan, but let's face it--if having an unattractive personality and exhibiting bad judgment were enough to disqualify someone from the kingship, not many men would ever sit a throne in Westeros or in our world.

In re-reading the books I noted a pattern in which characters "kinda sorta" acknowledge that Stan is the Man, but then fluff it off to put forth their own candidate.

He's rigid, he's gotten himself embroiled (pun intended) with Mel, etc., therefor, even though legally he has the strongest claim if Cersei's brood aren't Robert's, nobody wants him. Including me, this thread is not because I like the guy personally or think he'd make the best king.

However, looking into the "heart of winter", Stannis responded when the Wall called. Sure it wasn't a purely altruistic act but a way to show he deserved to be king, but other than Gandhi and Mother Teresa in our world and maybe Maester Aemon in Martin's, who really acts from altruism? At best you get enlightened self interest that is a win/win for both parties.

Everybody else with aspirations either to hold the throne or put their candidate on it have failed to grapple with the threat in the north. They're playing the Game of Thrones, but the rules are about to be changed dramatically now that Winter Is Here, even more than just the usual climatic challenges. I can't help but think of the line from the Book of Jeremiah:

"The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved." (JER. 8:20)

As readers, I think in many of our discussions we project into the future the way things have been in the past, and take at face value the calculations made by the various GOT players. Like most of the characters in the book, even those who have actually seen what's north of the Wall, we don't know what is really happening up there. We do know when the Crow showed it to Bran in his dream after his fall, it was terrifying, and showed him why he had to live.

GRRM has said somewhere that the scene of the Stark kids finding the Direwolves was one of if not the first images he had when he was first imagining the book. I have wondered sometimes why that was not made the Prologue. I recently re-read the Ser Waymar scene and was struck by how cocky he is, how slow he is to realize that this is a situation that nothing in his privileged "Knight of Summer" lordling background has prepared him for, and now I see him as a symbol for Westeros in general. He says to the Other, "dance with me", but it's not a dance he gets, but a slaughter, and at the end he is himself one of the walking dead.

Between that and Westeros now stands the Wall, its very young Commander who has enemies known and unknown, some ragtag Wildlings, and....Stannis Barratheon. I suppose the predictions I've read here on the board that Stannis's storyline is basically played out and he's toast (those puns again) could be true--take him out and things are even bleaker, the obsidian on Dragonstone may or may not be mined but it won't be by him. On the other hand, wouldn't it be something if in the end, it's dull humorless Stan of the Nixonesque 5 o'clock shadow, the prototypical last kid picked for the kickball team, with his arse on that prickly throne, rather than any of the flashier, more glamorous candidates?

I can think of one strong argument for that: unlike many of the GOT players, Stannis seems to have the ability to learn from his mistakes and take a new tack. On the other hand, it takes Davos doing handsprings to ever get him to reevaluate, and he no longer has Davos beside him.

I'd especially like to hear from people of the "Westeros won't have Stannis Barratheon to kick around any more" school that his storyline/usefulness is played out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all the talk throughout the books about Stannis not being a good king, I actually think things have played out to show otherwise.

He has an honest concern for the realm, more than could be said of Robert, or Renly, or Tywin, or Balon, and, though Robb certainly seemed to care about Westeros, Stannis had experience up on him, and is more resistant to manipulation.

And, as harsh as he may seem, Stannis does acknowledge that innocents shouldn't have to pay for someone elses crimes. Edric Storm, most notably, and it gives me hope that, were Stannis ever to lay his hands on Tommen and Myrcella, he wouldn't blame them for what Jaime and Cersei did.

On Westeros, at least, Stannis is probably the best candidate for king actually vying for it.

With that said, though, I don't think he'll ever claim the Iron Throne, and probably won't even survive the series.

Because: Stannis is in a dangerous position. Melisandre is not a very nice person. Either his relationship with her is going to get strained...or his relationship with Jon will. Possibly both.

And we don't know if Mel is really on Stannis' side in any way...it very well may be she tries burning Stannis at some point for that "blood of kings" she keeps itching for. Or Jon may try to prevent Mel from burning Mance. And things will get ugly.

And from a literary standpoint, Stannis' role is more or less resolved. He took care of Renly, Robb, and Joffrey. He's the one king who actually did his duty and went off to the Wall. His story could end right now and it could feel 'complete.'

Jon, on the other hand, still has that sticking point of his parentage. Until it's revealed, I consider him to have plot immunity. Of course, it could very well be revealed in the next book, in which case, all bets are off.

But, then even excluding Jon...Stannis will then have to deal with Dany.

And with her, Stannis has one chink in his armor: he's continually said he has the throne because it's his by right. He doesn't want it, it's just that's the law, and that's all there is to it.

Daenerys, however, has the stronger claim. Stannis would have a difficult time trying to say the throne is his by anything other than strength of arms - that is, using the very same argument Renly did with Stannis. And Stannis likely won't have the strength of arms against Dany, either.

Though if you're looking for an unglamorous candidate for the throne, I'd be willing to give Tyrion a chance at it. Dany will reach Westeros, that much is pretty much guaranteed. But she very well might die once she reaches it. Tyrion's an unlikely candidate, but I wouldn't toss him out completely.

But also note: Dany, Tyrion, and Jon alike - all three who might, depending on how things work out, have a chance at the throne - also all have the ability to learn from their mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do actually have a sneaking suspicion that Stannis could end up as King by the end. With the Baratheon/Targaryen intermarriage details given in the latest book, Stannis appears to be Dany's heir as well as Robert's. I could imagine a scenario where Dany dies fighting the Others, with the remainder of her army then rallying around Stannis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a solid argument. I've noticed that Stannis is somewhat more perceptive than people give him credit for. When he is told that Tyrion has killed Joff, he comments that the dwarf is "a dangerous man". When he is shown the letter from the wall, he ends up in the thick of it two or three chapters later. He recognizes the worth of non-nobles like Davos and listens to them. For all the unpopularity of Mel, she does have powers. Stannis strikes me as a very cognitive individual; a man who really takes time to consider events around him. I think he is one of the most underrated characters in the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do actually have a sneaking suspicion that Stannis could end up as King by the end. With the Baratheon/Targaryen intermarriage details given in the latest book, Stannis appears to be Dany's heir as well as Robert's. I could imagine a scenario where Dany dies fighting the Others, with the remainder of her army then rallying around Stannis.

That's what i can forsee to (or atleast hope for). All it's needs is a lil 'accident' for Queen Selyse then the two can intermarry with Stannis providing stern leadership and Dany compasion make the perfect monarchy.

And lets not forget that GRRM said the end wouldn't be all this hugs and kisses and happily ever after stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And with her, Stannis has one chink in his armor: he's continually said he has the throne because it's his by right. He doesn't want it, it's just that's the law, and that's all there is to it.

Daenerys, however, has the stronger claim. Stannis would have a difficult time trying to say the throne is his by anything other than strength of arms - that is, using the very same argument Renly did with Stannis. And Stannis likely won't have the strength of arms against Dany, either.

Renly, Stannis and Dany, and every other would be king, claim to the throne arises from "strength of arms". Keep in mind, Aegon the Conqueror, from whom Dany derives her claim, wasn't the winner of a popular election.

When Alexander the Great was asked on his death bed who should inherit from him, he replied "the strongest". The same holds true in Westeros.

So.... All Hail King UnGregor!!!

Edit: Excellent analysis, BastardSword. Though I think ultimately wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renly, Stannis and Dany, and every other would be king, claim to the throne arises from "strength of arms". Keep in mind, Aegon the Conqueror, from whom Dany derives her claim, wasn't the winner of a popular election.

And you're forgetting the conversation Stannis had with Renly. Renly said he had strength of arms. Stannis said that doesn't matter - he had the right, so Renly should step aside.

If there's one thing Stannis isn't, usually, it's a hypocrite. While Stannis likely does have that sad little kid in him that still wants to be just as good as Robert, if not better, he's also strongly motivated by what's right, lawful, and traditional. He's repeatedly said he doesn't want the crown, but that it's his by rights.

Much of his ability to argue that will dissipate when Dany shows up. To do any less would turn him into Renly, who didn't care what was right, only how much power he could gather to his side. Which Stannis didn't seem to particularly care for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great posts, but one thing:

Stannis DOES have a better claim than dany. The targaryens conquered westeros by force;

Robert rebelled due to targaryen excessions and defeated them to take the crown by force in turn again. His cauyse to do so was LEGTIMATE, since the targaryens had become brutal murderers, which included their killing off children.

Since Stannis is the eldest brother of obert, and robert has no legtimate children, the throne is stannis'sw by rights. Not only that, he would make a much better ruler than dany, since stannis has had to earn everything and fight for it as well, which is still doing.

All dany has done was just fuck the right people, hatch her dragons, and BOOM! suddenly people kiss her ass because since she has 3 dragons, she must obviously be suited for leader ship.

Yeah, right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tried to post this earlier, right under Grumpy's first post, but got booted offline before it 'took'...

Grumpy, I'm inclined to agree that Stannis's "Well I don't want it but it's my duty because I have the strongest claim" stance may evaporate when someone shows up and says "Hiya! I got a better one, you can go home now."

For one thing, Dany's a grrrl, Stan could dig his heels in on that; he could also claim the Targs lost the throne fair 'n' square to the Barratheons and no do-overs will be granted.

The bottom line is, the description in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" of the King as "the one who 'asn't got shit on him" is as good as any, likewise the line about accepting swords from watery tarts being no basis for a

government. All blather about divine right, laws of succession, etc. aside, the King (or Queen) is the one who can get and hold the throne, convince enough people he's got the right to sit on it.

From what I've seen Dany actually seems to get this better than Stan--he's in kind of a permanent sulk because everybody in Westeros didn't just go "Yup, he's

got the better claim, all hail King Stan" and go back to business as usual....ignoring the fact that he never actually PROVED Cersei's kids aren't Brother Bob's. Again, he thinks sending a raven with that claim is good enough. Dany realizes that claim or no claim, the 'usurper's dogs' are going to be trying to eat her lunch.

I kind of hope Stan survives so we see them collide face to face.

"Hi, I'm King Stannis, of Dragonstone." "Hi, I'm Queen Danaerys, I've got 3 dragons, and if you're not totally stoned you'll get the hell out of my way."

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stannis seemed until his move to the Wall a person more concerned about what the world owed him that he didn't receive. His move to the Wall, perhaps born out of desperation was his first act as an independent thinker freed from the slings and arrows of his past.

As an aside based on the Mother Theresa comment, she was not a humanitarian. Her philosophy and the practices of her order are abominable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside based on the Mother Theresa comment, she was not a humanitarian. Her philosophy and the practices of her order are abominable.

I'm sorry to say this, but you should have never made this comment. It's just going to derail this thread, it happens on every messageboard when something about real world religion and/or politics are mentioned. :rolleyes:

Now back to the topic at hand:

How would Westeros and the North accept Stannis? He did side with the Lord of Light, and with Melisandre's help, burned their "gods".

SPOILER: AFFC
Let's not forget the "The Faith Militant reborn" too. So now we got Stannis and The Others fighting in the North, and the The Warrior's Sons & Poor Fellows waiting for him in King's Landing, and soon to be in other areas of Westeros.

Just read Cersei chapter VI.

Lady Merryweather shared the queen’s delight, though she had never heard of the Warrior’s Sons or the Poor Fellows. “They date from before Aegon’s Conquest,” Cersei explained to her. “The Warrior’s Sons were an order of knights who gave up their lands and gold and swore their swords to His High Holiness. The Poor Fellows . . . they were humbler, though far more numerous. Begging brothers of a sort, though they carried axes instead of bowls. They wandered the roads, escorting travelers from sept to sept and town to town. Their badge was the seven-pointed star, red on white, so the smallfolk named them Stars. The Warrior’s Sons wore rainbow cloaks and inlaid silver armor over hair shirts, and bore star-shaped crystals in the pommels of their longswords. They were the Swords. Holy men, ascetics, fanatics, sorcerers, dragonslayers, demonhunters . . . there were many tales about them. But all agree that they were implacable in their hatred for all enemies of the Holy Faith.”

Lady Merryweather understood at once. “Enemies such as Lord Stannis and his red sorceress, perhaps?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The claim is Stannis's.

Or better : the claim and crown belongs to the one who is able to hold it.

Kingship was taken from the Targs by force. the usurpers chose a new king. Dany has no more birthright. Kings lines change even when familymembers are still around.

This is probably worth its own thread: one of the very few things that bother me about ASOIAF is that again there is an elite caste (the nobles) who seem to be the only ones priveleged to power or noble thought. Even the nightwatch falls under this. Just look at al their Lord comanders in recent years.

A few exceptions are there of course... Davos for one, but he almost goes out of his way to explain just why he is not worthy....

On a side note relating to the original post, Davos is Stanis's man. And Stannis is the only one who doesn't give a damn about the heritage of those around him but goes with ability.. although this admittadly leads to some problems.

If R+L=J is correct, we don't even have a bastard hero, but another pureborn.

There are a few bronns and Kettleblacks in the book who are of no special descent and get to a position of power ... but they are few ...and btw, can usually not be counted as "good" characters.

Varys is probably another example of this, and maybe littlefinger , though he is a noble, even if of no considerable standing, but nobleman none the less. He would not have been a ward of the Tullys if he were a millers son.

But even if yopu consider characters like Varys Davos, Littlefinger as examples of peoe who have risen high.... they did so before the books timeline. OK, they continued to rise ...considerably in the timeline of the book. But they started as already elevated .

All this is probably realistic, but still...... I'm just a bit dissapointed that it's not more mixed. Most fantasy revolves around the theme lowborn but virtuous gets the princess and saves the world. Others revolve around the theme let your betters rule and decide what is best for the world (LotR anyone? How about Star Wars?)

ASOIAF is not as "bad" , and mixes up better... or at least seems to on first reading. But it is definately going in a distinct direction.

(I haven't read AFFC yet, I'm on my last hundred pages of my reread of ASOS... so if I made a fool of myself because of that .. well , I'll live with it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...