Stannis for King!

[Lord Godric]

Also, I think you are underestimating Stannis' focus on his role as Azor Ahai. He has accepted the responsibility of the future of the world, rightfully or not. Renly had no such higher ideals, nor does any of the pretenders. If you believed yourself to be AA born again, what would you do in Stannis' place?

I actually do not think Stannis believes that at that point in ACoK where he first decides to hear Selyse's plan on killing Renly. If you notice in the scene just before Stannis asks Cressen why the gods granted him brothers. Which clearly shows that Stannis is not a follower of R'hllor just yet, and does not buy into Melisandre's story she is weaving around him. He may have eventually become a victim of her religious zeal, but he isn't in this scene. Selyse is long under Mel's spell, but Stannis is not convinced yet. It is his duty and all that bull he whines about, but he does not yet think he is Azor Ahai.

[mormont]

You mean the twenty years that Tywin did everything? Yes, those were orderly.

Not sure that's a fair characterisation: as I recall, even Tywin admits it was a partnership at that time. But yes, appointing a competent Hand, and allowing him to get on with the job, is part of ruling too. One of Robert's flaws as a ruler was that he appointed first Jon and then Ned because he couldn't be bothered to rule himself, but ignored them or interfered whenever he felt like it or heard something he didn't like (like the word 'no'). It made their job impossible. Jon in particular might have been as good a Hand as Tywin, if he'd been allowed the same authority.

But what do you mean he failed to secure an secure sucession?

I mean that he failed to ensure an orderly succession. In fact, he contributed in a major way to the chaos that the succession actually became.

As it turns out, Joffrey was not his heir, and you're correct that Robert did not know that. I'm not blaming him for that, because it's far from clear that even if he had been a dutiful and considerate husband to Cersei that she would have borne him a legitimate heir. (She appears to believe so, but that's no guarantee it's true.) He should, however, take responsibility for the fact that his own brother and foster father felt unable to bring to him evidence of Joff's illegitimacy, because they didn't know how he would react.

But my point is that believing Joff to be his heir, he failed to secure Joff's succession. To being with, he died with the court in such a state that Renly would rather commit treason and rebellion than submit to Joff's rule - and one of the most powerful families in the realm were willing to openly support him. And although the immediate cause of Robb's rebellion was Ned's execution, it's telling that both the Northern lords and the Riverlands lords have such a weak allegiance to the crown that they're willing to contemplate the notion of separation.

Or, take his appointment of Ned as Joff's regent. It was done too late, for a start: he couldn't have predicted the time of his own death, of course, but if he had as many concerns about Cersei's parenting as he claimed he should have been thinking ahead and making it clear who would be Regent if something did happen. But, Robert is not good at thinking ahead.

OK, so it was late, but it could still have been done better: he could have summoned Cersei and Renly and all the others and made them sign up to it too. Only, as previously noted, his authority was so weakened by his careless rule that he couldn't make that stick, even if he could make it happen. So instead, he appointed Ned privately, though he must have known Cersei wouldn't take it lying down, and then left Ned with the problem of enforcing his will, armed with nothing more than a 'paper shield', as Cersei says. Too little, too late.

Robert's neglect of the politics of his court not only left him vulnerable personally, but was also a major cause of the War of Five Kings. His court was hopelessly split, rather than unified behind his heir, and this was what led to the war: and he has to take the responsibility for that. And that's without even getting into the issue of his neglect of his duty raise Joff as a competent heir... he may not have succeeded, of course, but the minimum expectation should be that he'd tried.

How Renly got it in his head that he deserved to be King is hardly Robert's fault. Only the gods know how that happened.

Not just the gods: that's pretty explicitly addressed by Renly himself. Of course, he thought that he deserved to be king because he was handsome and popular and intelligent and so on and was a better king than Stannis or Joff would be, but the real question is why he attempted to enforce that claim. The reasons were that he feared Joff and Cersei's rule as being personally a threat to him, and that he believed they did not have sufficient support to fight off his rebellion. And in both cases this was, at least partly, Robert's fault. He allowed these schisms and splits to fester.

[Yarl Snow]

I actually do not think Stannis believes that at that point in ACoK where he first decides to hear Selyse's plan on killing Renly. If you notice in the scene just before Stannis asks Cressen why the gods granted him brothers. Which clearly shows that Stannis is not a follower of R'hllor just yet, and does not buy into Melisandre's story she is weaving around him. He may have eventually become a victim of her religious zeal, but he isn't in this scene. Selyse is long under Mel's spell, but Stannis is not convinced yet. It is his duty and all that bull he whines about, but he does not yet think he is Azor Ahai.

You are arguing against yourself. If he did not buy into Melisandre's story, why would he put himself at risk and go confront Renly? He went there because he believed her when she said she had seen "Renly's end" in the fire. I believe it is around this time that he burns Dragonstone's statues of the seven to make his fake Lightbringer.

This might also be the time he tells the heartwrenching story of his pet falcon.

Something that just occurred to me is, "Renly's end", that'd be Melisandre and her shadow spawns. Did she see herself in the fires then?

Stannis is a pivotal character in the series, it is easy to forget that, because he feels so insignificant. He killed off all the contenders to the throne: Joffrey, Balon, Robb, Renly. He is a Targaryen by relation, and the rightful heir to Robert. He is also a man notoriously adamant about justice and doing his duty. It is a smoke screen that GRRM uses to obscure Stannis and make him seem whiny and bitter and not liked.

Still, my question remains. If you were Stannis, how would you have done things differently? You point out where he did something wrong (and I'm not saying he has a flawless record), but I am curious if you have explored what options he had.

[Talleyrand]

Lets take a quick look at the contenders in the War of Five Kings:

Joffery Baratheon

Renly Baratheon

Stannis Baratheon

Robb Stark

Balon Greyjoy.

Only one of them is left. Stannis rules.

I just noticed Stannis is the only one out of them to personally lose a battle

[chris.t.]

This conversation reminds me of Saturday Night Live's parody of the 2004 Vice Presidential debate between Dick Cheney and John Edwards, with Stannis in the role of Cheney and Tommen in the role of Edwards.

To paraphrase and put into Westeros terms...

Stannis: "When the Others come storming over that Wall, who do you want standing there? A nasty sunufabitch like me, who'll stick his flaming sword up their ice-cold asses as he sends him back to Hell, or... this guy?"

Tommen: <Smiles and waves at the camera.>

Really, Westeros could be faced with precisely that choice, and in those terms, it's really a no-brainer. Of all the possible claimants, is there anyone who will take his duty more seriously and be sure to fight to the very last drop of his own blood to protect Westeros than Stannis?

Stannis' big problem politically is that the rest of Westeros doesn't realize the threat yet. To his credit, he's followed Davos' advice and decided not to care about perception or credit and do his duty as King regardless of whether the people of Westeros know what he's doing or not.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I love Stannis as a character. Mainly because I cannot tell if he is a hero or a villain. Renly is a great example. Using magic to assassinate your brother is evil. Yet, Renly was more than willing to kill Stannis on the battlefield (and I would speculate do the same thing Stannis did if he were in his position). Stannis was at least partially motivated by his duty. Renly just wanted the power. As for whether or not he wanted to be king, I think he did... until he lost at the end of Clash of the Kings. That took out a lot of his personal motivation. But my biggest question is why did he wait for Robert to die before revealing the truth about the kids?

As for a king, I think Stannis would make a good king in different circumstances. Westros is too apart by war and needs a king who will unite them. This is not Stannis's speciality. I would not be surprised if Shireen is married to the new ruler to secure a line of succession. But that is as close as he will get I think.

Tommen could actually become a good king. He is young enough to still be molded (unlike Joffery who was pretty set to be the next Aerys), seems willing to learn, and does not have Joffery's "I'm king and that makes me better than everyone else" attitude. But I have a feeling he'll die in the next book.

[stannis for king]

see name for my thoughts on the matter

[DurararaFTW]

Not sure that's a fair characterisation: as I recall, even Tywin admits it was a partnership at that time. But yes, appointing a competent Hand, and allowing him to get on with the job, is part of ruling too. One of Robert's flaws as a ruler was that he appointed first Jon and then Ned because he couldn't be bothered to rule himself, but ignored them or interfered whenever he felt like it or heard something he didn't like (like the word 'no'). It made their job impossible. Jon in particular might have been as good a Hand as Tywin, if he'd been allowed the same authority.

Jon convinced Robert to marry Cersei, to get Tywin on his side, he was the one that hired Janos Slynt and Littlefinger and he was the one that convinced Robert to pardon Pycelle and Varys when Ned advocated otherwise. Don't remember what side he took on whether Jamie Lannister should be sent to the Wall for breaking his oaths but all the same. Jon had just as much of an active part in turning King's Landing into the deathtrap it was for a man like Ned as Robert did. Also he did at least as poorpiss a job raising little Robert as King Robert did with his children. In fact Tommen and Bran are 10 times better raised then Robert.

I'm sorry, but we have little reason to think Jon Arryn was that capable a ruler, good intentioned sure but he was played like a fiddle and King Robert can't be blamed for that.

And no, it is quite explicietly stated that Tywin was much more capable then Aerys, as a result he much more better loved (despite openly being a Grade A douchebag) and Aerys was filled with jealousy and resented the crap out of him.

As it turns out, Joffrey was not his heir, and you're correct that Robert did not know that. I'm not blaming him for that, because it's far from clear that even if he had been a dutiful and considerate husband to Cersei that she would have borne him a legitimate heir. (She appears to believe so, but that's no guarantee it's true.) He should, however, take responsibility for the fact that his own brother and foster father felt unable to bring to him evidence of Joff's illegitimacy, because they didn't know how he would react.

Fair point.

Or, take his appointment of Ned as Joff's regent. It was done too late, for a start: he couldn't have predicted the time of his own death, of course, but if he had as many concerns about Cersei's parenting as he claimed he should have been thinking ahead and making it clear who would be Regent if something did happen. But, Robert is not good at thinking ahead.

Jon Arryn was probably named Lord-Protector until Joffrey came of age years ago. I agree that Ned or Stannis should have been named as such right after his death though.

Not just the gods: that's pretty explicitly addressed by Renly himself. Of course, he thought that he deserved to be king because he was handsome and popular and intelligent and so on and was a better king than Stannis or Joff would be, but the real question is why he attempted to enforce that claim. The reasons were that he feared Joff and Cersei's rule as being personally a threat to him, and that he believed they did not have sufficient support to fight off his rebellion. And in both cases this was, at least partly, Robert's fault. He allowed these schisms and splits to fester.

What page was this?

[apt54]

I do not think that makes what he did any better. Renly was willing to go to war with his brother, to have their armies fight and the better man would prevail. Instead Stannis had his shadowbaby assassinate Renly when no one was expecting it. There is nothing chivalrous about that, there is nothing honorable about that. And for a character that gets called honorable and good so often, it is a bit shocking that people try to rationalize Stannis' assassination of his brother.

Actually, when Renly started going after the crown, he did NOT know Stannis was the rightful king. At that point he thought Joffrey was Robert's son and Stannis was as much as a usurper as he was, and as Robb Stark was. It wasn't until Stannis marched his troops to Storm's End that Renly learned the truth about Joffrey.

So, what did he think happened to Renly? Why did he sent Mel and Davos into Storm's End to do?

No, No. Assassinating Renly was the best thing Stannis could have done to win the battle. Better kill the usurper himself rather than mindlessly slaughtering random soldiers who simply had the misfortune to be born in the lands of the usurper's vassals. There would be nothing chivalrous in exhausting two sides in a needless battle on a whim of a man-child.

Well, he learned it in the end, did he not? What kept him from pledging allegiance to his older brother?

I believe that was one of the "you should have told me" moments with Mel, he just found her "prophecies" to be extremely useful.

[mormont]

Jon convinced Robert to marry Cersei, to get Tywin on his side, he was the one that hired Janos Slynt and Littlefinger and he was the one that convinced Robert to pardon Pycelle and Varys when Ned advocated otherwise. Don't remember what side he took on whether Jamie Lannister should be sent to the Wall for breaking his oaths but all the same. Jon had just as much of an active part in turning King's Landing into the deathtrap it was for a man like Ned as Robert did. Also he did at least as poorpiss a job raising little Robert as King Robert did with his children. In fact Tommen and Bran are 10 times better raised then Robert.

Fair points. Our impressions of Jon Arryn are necessarily second-hand and filtered by the opinions of those who knew him, and that's possibly leading me to be rather too kind to him. None of this makes Robert a better king, though, and that's the topic.

And no, it is quite explicietly stated that Tywin was much more capable then Aerys

That's not really incompatible with it being a partnership. Not every partnership is between two equally capable people. The question is really whether, in the early years of his reign, Aerys contributed more than Robert did, not whether Aerys contributed as much as Tywin did. (Aerys' jealousy, by the way, is explicitly linked to the time after the Duskendale incident.

Jon Arryn was probably named Lord-Protector until Joffrey came of age years ago.

Possible, but we've no particular reason to think so.

What page was this?

Various pages in AGOT and ACOK: don't have page numbers right now, I'm at work. When Renly speaks to Ned, it's quite clear from what he says that he considers a Cersei regency to be a personal threat to him. (That's why he flees, after all.) It's also clear that seizing Joff and ruling through him is his first and preferred plan. He only rebels after this option falls through. When he speaks to Cat, it's quite clear that he considers that Joff lacks the support to fight off his rebellion - and this is with him discounting the issue of Joff's bastardy.

[Carter209]

Stannis is the best of the five kings, IMO. He wanted to be king until he lost on the Blackwater to me because, at that time, he was in the position of power in that area of the realm after killing Renly. Stannis had gotten ahold of some serious forces to take KL, and at that time, more than likely, he had gotten it into his head that he should be king, not just because it's his duty, but because he now he had a serious shot at winning.(20,000 men vs. 5,000 men)

But after the Blackwater, he seems like a broken man trying to find a way to continue his fight. And the battle at the Wall is that opportunity: believing himself to be AA Reborn he rationalized that his true battle is at the Wall, against the Others, while also being able to possibly unite the North behind him to 1-counter the threat of the Others and 2-to continue his struggle for the Iron Throne. Going to the wall is what made him the best of the five because, like he said, he had what it meant to be a king backwards.

Now, if Stannis can unite the North he will be in the same position he was after killing Renly. He will have forces powerful enough to contend again, especially if the Tyrells and Lannisters start another civil war. He's the wild card and always has been(Tywin was only concerned by Stannis when the war started). He may turn out to be the only true contender to Dany, due to him being one of the few commanders that has true battle experience in Westeros at the moment. Or, he could be killed defending the Wall during the first attack by the Others. Even better, he could become the Night's King.

Stannis may be a straight-edge asshole who does what he speaks out against in his private time, but still, what king would you want at the Wall right now?(Not meaning in terms of power, but in terms of personality)

[Wouter]

Stannis is a pivotal character in the series, it is easy to forget that, because he feels so insignificant. He killed off all the contenders to the throne: Joffrey, Balon, Robb, Renly.

Only Renly. Melisandre's leeches was a mummer's show much like with the flaming sword she made for him - magic was probably used for those instances but things are not the way she makes Stannis think they are. The sword isn't really Lightbringer as master Aemon found out, even if it is an impressive trick/magic act in itself. And the leeches likely helped Melisandre to predict the future of the 3 kings in question - so she could claim with certainty they would die, and more importantly, that her ritual was what would kill them.

However, we've seen that Joffrey was poisoned by Littlefinger and some of the Tyrells, Balon was murdered by a suspected faceless man, and Robb was killed by the traitor Roose Bolton. All of them were the work of people, not of any leeches magic. Melisandre does some very real stuff, but she isn't beyond using conjuror illusions if she can gain from it.

[smidget25]

Although I don't like Stannis personally, I do think he should be King - he is at the end of the day, the rightful heir. But I'm supporting him now for a lack of a better option.

I tend to support actions that would cause the least bloodshed (and therefore less chance of my favorite characters dying, lol) and so I originally wanted Renly to be King. He may have been copper, but out of the choices presented imo he was always one of the better options. He was likable, clever, had a good enough head on his shoulders to play the game (thus his retreat from Kinglanding upon Robert's death), and was neither cruel or psychotic. He looked out for his own interests, certainly, but at the end of the day that is what you have to do in the game. And so as someone who wants the fall of the Lannisters (partically Cersei) at all costs, I was in despair when Stannis marched against his brother instead of joining him and destroying the Lannisters once and for all.

But despite him killing Renly, Stannis is one of the most interesting characters in the series, because I honestly don't know what to make of him. On one hand I admire his experience and his apparent strength, but on the other hand he lacks compassion and was fulling willing to murder his brother in his sleep. Basically, he confuses me and I'm sort of conflicted about what I want to happen to him. For what's coming, they need a strong King, but would he be too merciless and inflexible?

I don't know. I have confused even myself.

[Dedsquirrl]

Only Renly. Melisandre's leeches was a mummer's show much like with the flaming sword she made for him - magic was probably used for those instances but things are not the way she makes Stannis think they are. The sword isn't really Lightbringer as master Aemon found out, even if it is an impressive trick/magic act in itself. And the leeches likely helped Melisandre to predict the future of the 3 kings in question - so she could claim with certainty they would die, and more importantly, that her ritual was what would kill them.

However, we've seen that Joffrey was poisoned by Littlefinger and some of the Tyrells, Balon was murdered by a suspected faceless man, and Robb was killed by the traitor Roose Bolton. All of them were the work of people, not of any leeches magic. Melisandre does some very real stuff, but she isn't beyond using conjuror illusions if she can gain from it.

Well, she did warn him when he made her use leeches.

Something like, this will work but not in the way you think.

I like Stannis as king only as long as he has Davos with him.

His Onion Knight seems to be the only person that can talk sense into him.

In many ways, Stannis knows that Lord Seaworth is the only person that really understands him.

Stannis: "You are a knight now! But your fingers have to go."

Davos: "Let's do this thang!"

If Davos really is a wall ornament in White Harbor, the thought of Stannis as king is a little bit terrifying.

Stannis seems to me to be a hugely conflicted man. He sees both sides of the coin when it comes to decisions, and while either option is going to be laced with his Stannishness, someone has got to push him toward the merciful (or rather less merciless) option. And it seems like he secretly wants to get pushed that direction but can't admit it to himself. That is why he constantly sides with Davos when given the opportunity.

Without Davos to foil Mel though, the kingdom would/will run red with blood.

[Yarl Snow]

Only Renly. Melisandre's leeches was a mummer's show much like with the flaming sword she made for him - magic was probably used for those instances but things are not the way she makes Stannis think they are. The sword isn't really Lightbringer as master Aemon found out, even if it is an impressive trick/magic act in itself. And the leeches likely helped Melisandre to predict the future of the 3 kings in question - so she could claim with certainty they would die, and more importantly, that her ritual was what would kill them.

However, we've seen that Joffrey was poisoned by Littlefinger and some of the Tyrells, Balon was murdered by a suspected faceless man, and Robb was killed by the traitor Roose Bolton. All of them were the work of people, not of any leeches magic. Melisandre does some very real stuff, but she isn't beyond using conjuror illusions if she can gain from it.

How could she divine the future with the leeches and at the same time beforehand predict the future? I'll grant you that she could have "seen" in her fires that these kings would die, and that it might just be a trick from her side, but I get the feeling it was not. As she says, R'Hllor may use people to carry out his "magic", nothing odd about that.

You may recall that Arya's whisper kills also had "natural" explanations. Yet she whispered, and people died.

Even so, assuming the leeches were just show, Stannis intended to kill the pretenders, he made plans and executed them, and now thinks he succeeded. Whether or not he in fact did succeed is just a small addition to that point. In reality, no one but Stannis (and Mel and Davos) knows, so it is a "if a tree falls in a forest" question now.

What I meant was that GRRM paints Stannis out to be obscure, but he is in fact one of the greater characters in the book. He is where this whole mess started: He found out about the incest, which got Jon Arryn killed.

[Casso King of Seals]

I personally hope the series shows Stannis's gradual seduction by Melisandre more than the book did. I'd like to get to know the old school Stannis and get seduced along with him.

[Lord Godric]

How could she divine the future with the leeches and at the same time beforehand predict the future? I'll grant you that she could have "seen" in her fires that these kings would die, and that it might just be a trick from her side, but I get the feeling it was not. As she says, R'Hllor may use people to carry out his "magic", nothing odd about that.

You may recall that Arya's whisper kills also had "natural" explanations. Yet she whispered, and people died.

I think that is more because it was a faceless man who killed for Arya. Look at the four Kings that died, the only one who has a "natural" death is Balon who "fell off the bridge" and that was more than likely due to a faceless man on behalf of Euron. Being slaughtered or poisoned at at wedding feast, or mysteriously dying because of a shadow are not, by any means, "natural" deaths we can accredit to R'hllor or Mel and her leaches.

[Lord Bronn Stokeworth]

I think that is more because it was a faceless man who killed for Arya. Look at the four Kings that died, the only one who has a "natural" death is Balon who "fell off the bridge" and that was more than likely due to a faceless man on behalf of Euron. Being slaughtered or poisoned at at wedding feast, or mysteriously dying because of a shadow are not, by any means, "natural" deaths we can accredit to R'hllor or Mel and her leaches.

I disagree. Her magic could have twisted fate and lead to their deaths. A subtle magic that really cannot be said if it actually worked or not. Unless we know the specifics of what the spell did, we cannot say if it worked or not. Since Stannis accepted their deaths, I do believe it was simply used to twist fate. Hell, it may have been a spell that caused betrayal since everyone of them was betrayed by someone.

[Lord Godric]

I disagree. Her magic could have twisted fate and lead to their deaths. A subtle magic that really cannot be said if it actually worked or not. Unless we know the specifics of what the spell did, we cannot say if it worked or not. Since Stannis accepted their deaths, I do believe it was simply used to twist fate. Hell, it may have been a spell that caused betrayal since everyone of them was betrayed by someone.

Except that doesn't fit with the timeline. It is clear that Tywin is already planning The Red Wedding with the Boltons and the Freys before Stannis throws the leeches into the fire, and Sansa already had her hairnet that led to Joffrey's death. And if Balon was really killed by a faceless man someone had to be planning that long before that scene with Stannis since it happened shortly afterwards. Unless Mel's powers somehow ensured they all succeeded, then I think it was all a mummer's show she was putting on.

[Yarl Snow]

I think that is more because it was a faceless man who killed for Arya. Look at the four Kings that died, the only one who has a "natural" death is Balon who "fell off the bridge" and that was more than likely due to a faceless man on behalf of Euron. Being slaughtered or poisoned at at wedding feast, or mysteriously dying because of a shadow are not, by any means, "natural" deaths we can accredit to R'hllor or Mel and her leaches.

Except that doesn't fit with the timeline. It is clear that Tywin is already planning The Red Wedding with the Boltons and the Freys before Stannis throws the leeches into the fire, and Sansa already had her hairnet that led to Joffrey's death. And if Balon was really killed by a faceless man someone had to be planning that long before that scene with Stannis since it happened shortly afterwards. Unless Mel's powers somehow ensured they all succeeded, then I think it was all a mummer's show she was putting on.

You are thinking as a human, though. You need to think like a god. A god doesn't think "Oh look, a sacrifice, I must begin making preparations to honor this sacrifice." He thinks outside time frames, "I see Stannis making a sacrifice in the future. When this sacrifice will be made, these things must be synchronized to happen."

It reminds me of the Bird Guide from the last part of Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, where it is able to do "reverse engineering" on time. So that when Random wanted a ship, the guide simply travelled back in time and made sure someone had an errand that coinscidentally put them exactly where Random would be, at the time when she wanted the ship. The guide moves freely within any dimension, including time.

And "natural" causes in this case should be read "non-supernatural causes". Being attacked by your own dog is strange, but not supernatural. Having a shadow sword slice through your steel gorget and kill you, is. Being poisoned is natural, and it was "explained" as a natural event, namely Tyrion got blamed for it. As Walder Frey was blamed for the Red Wedding, and Euron was suspected of Balon's death (by Asha).

Either way, it only matters to us readers if Stannis' magic was real. No one in the books will be affected by this knowledge. Well, unless something like.. Davos admits to Jon that Stannis "murdered" Robb. And even then, it is a weak proposition, because magic in Westeros is not an established form of assassination.

What we can agree on is that it is not a sure thing at all that any magic was truly at work. It might just be chance, or a trick by Melisandre. Stannis, however, believed it was true, and that's what's important.