Renly was the biggest idiot.

[Lord Snowflakes]

Renly would probably not choose to invade King's Landing by Blackwater, however. Not to the degree that Stannis did. AND the Tyrells would be fighting at his side instead of for the Lannisters. So no, I don't think Tyrion's chain, awesome as it was, would be decisive against Renly.

With the Lannisters busy in the riverlands clashing with the wolves, and with the whole strength of the Highgardens on his side, Renly would be wise to starve Kingslanding in a siege. He would have ample strength to spare to keep Stannis' meager force at bay or face Tywin in case he decides to run to the rescue.

[The hairy bear]

And the Greatjon never swore an oath to Robb (at least, not before that rousing King of the North speech). Robb was still under the impression that as the rightful heir to Winterfell, he counted as the Liege Lord of his father's bannermen after his father died or was incapacitated/out of touch. Odd, that. You'd almost guess there was some sort of feudal system at play.

Well, the Umbers were sworn to Winterfell, and Robb was acting in Eddard's name. While Renly and Penrose were not Stannis' bannermen. Apples and oranges.

Baratheon succession =/= Iron Throne succession. The Iron Throne's succession does not work in the same way that garden-variety noble house succession works.

I don't think we can make blunt affirmations such as this one. The fact is, that in the Iron Throne succession there was an occasion when women wer set aside of the succesion. This sets a precedent. But it's a single one, far in the past, and in a very special situation:

• After the Dance with Dragons, many in Westeros saw women as unfit to rule
  
• The potential female heirs were actually unfit to rule, having been recluded for many years in the maidenvault without receiving the education needed to rule. Most importantly the actual heiress Daena was rebellious and had had a bastard son without a known father. That's as unfit to to rule as you can get,
  
• The male alternative was the Hand of the King, with plenty of experience.
  

So what would happen if a king died whitout male heirs? Well, I don't think all the maesters would agree here. If both sides had significant support there'd be war, and that'd settle it.

I believe that if not for cersei KL should have held, Stannis lost too many men crossing the river to successfully force his way against KL walls, take the city whole and the red keep. it was only after cersei recalled Joff to the red keep, that the defenders decided the battle is lost and routed by the hundreds.

Perhaps Joffrey leaving might have turned the tide in a particular side of the Walls, but KL was doomed to fall if external help wasn't received. The City Watch was not reliable and the people of KL hate the Lannisters.

With the Lannisters busy in the riverlands clashing with the wolves, and with the whole strength of the Highgardens on his side, Renly would be wise to starve Kingslanding in a siege. He would have ample strength to spare to keep Stannis' meager force at bay or face Tywin in case he decides to run to the rescue.

I agree completely. Renly should only wait and the people of KL would deliver him the city without fighting.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I don't think we can make blunt affirmations such as this one. The fact is, that in the Iron Throne succession there was an occasion when women wer set aside of the succesion. This sets a precedent. But it's a single one, far in the past, and in a very special situation:

• After the Dance with Dragons, many in Westeros saw women as unfit to rule
  
• The potential female heirs were actually unfit to rule, having been recluded for many years in the maidenvault without receiving the education needed to rule. Most importantly the actual heiress Daena was rebellious and had had a bastard son without a known father. That's as unfit to to rule as you can get,
  
• The male alternative was the Hand of the King, with plenty of experience.
  

So what would happen if a king died whitout male heirs? Well, I don't think all the maesters would agree here. If both sides had significant support there'd be war, and that'd settle it.

I'm just telling you how I understand the Iron Throne succession to work. It does not work the same way that normal house succession does, i.e. daughters before brothers, or how it works in Dorne, i.e. older daughters before younger sons. Call it blunt if you want, but that's how it works. Is it because of a single dynastic crisis, sure. But it's still the law and I see absolutely no evidence that Robert changed it or meant to change it — Stannis and Renly would still inherit before Myrcella had they not been attainted. And while the show is a separate entity from the books, its writers (who, as I understand, do work with Martin somewhat or would have clarified this to be sure) are under this same impression. Renly says he's fourth in line, which would put him after Joffrey, Tommen and Stannis but before Myrcella. When Sansa is in the throne room with Septa Mordane and asks what would happen if she only had girls, the septa says that the throne would pass to Tommen. If someone has any evidence from the books that says that Robert discarded the Iron Throne succession laws, I'm open to it.

To answer your question, they would exhaust all possible male candidates and then if that failed, the female would inherit. It's not that women can't inherit the Iron Throne, it's that all possible male claimants have to be exhausted before they do.

[The hairy bear]

Apple Martini,

My point is that I don't think there's a clear and definite way Robert's succession would work. There wasn't a published official list of succesion determining it. Renly may believe he came before Myrcella, but perhaps Great Maester Pycelle thought otherwise. I don't see why a single precedent in the previous dinasty would necessarily take prevalence over Andal law.

Robert had already rejected some of the Targaryen succesion uses by not naming Joffrey the new Prince of Dragonstone when he was born. And being as negligent as he was, I don't think he would have thought about leaving the succesion order clearly defined before dying.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Apple Martini,

My point is that I don't think there's a clear and definite way Robert's succession would work. There wasn't a published official list of succesion determining it. Renly may believe hecame before Myrcella, but perhaps Great Maester Pycelle thought otherwise. I don't see why a single precedent in the previous dinasty would necessarily take prevalence over Andal law.

Robert had already rejected some of the Targaryen succesion uses by not naming Joffrey the new Prince of Dragonstone when he was born. And being as negligent as he was, I don't think he would have thought about leaving the succesion order clearly defined before dying.

Like I said, I'm telling you what I believe to be the case based on actual precedent and what we've been told in the books and in two separate instances on the show (which I'm aware isn't ironclad but it's something; I don't think it would've been included without Martin's input and may have deliberately been included to tell the audience how succession worked). If you have anything in the books that actually shows that Robert was planning to disregard the Targaryen succession practices in terms of Stannis and Renly coming before Myrcella, I'd be open to it. But Robert's negligence and a vague idea about Pycelle's (why him?) motivations aren't terribly convincing, sorry.

[Nev yn]

Well, the Umbers were sworn to Winterfell, and Robb was acting in Eddard's name. While Renly and Penrose were not Stannis' bannermen. Apples and oranges.

Renly and Penrose were sworn to the Iron Throne. Stannis was Robert's lawful heir. Two can play at nitpicking details.

[David Selig]

Renly and Penrose were sworn to the Iron Throne. Stannis was Robert's lawful heir. Two can play at nitpicking details.

Stannis claimed to be the lawful heir, but had zero proof.

[Nev yn]

Stannis claimed to be the lawful heir, but had zero proof.

That doesn't make it not treason to refuse to follow him, although it could be a mitigating factor (not that Stannis generally believes in those, aside from the case of the Onion Knight). The King isn't required to provide paperwork demonstrating the source of his lawful authority in triplicate before taking a royal dump, or ordering an execution. A lawful citizen like Ned would not leave Stannis's cause for him exerting his lawful claim, up to and including execution of those who committed treason (and in their case it was knowingly, as the proclamation about Cersei's kids had already gone out -- just because it wouldn't pass muster in our court system does not mean it was not sufficient for these purposes in Westeros -- it's not like Ned intended to circulate Robert's bastards around the kingdom to provide the "proof", his word and that of the rightful heir was considered sufficient). Recall that this sort of vengeful justice was why everyone other than Ned wanted to keep Stannis from the throne, but Ned intended to give Stannis the throne knowing his temperament on these issues.

[David Selig]

Stannis's claim is only lawful in the eyes of others if he could prove the twincest story, which he could not. You can't just claim that everyone in front of you in the succession order is illegitimate and expect people to believe and treat you as the lawful king.

Ned was in completely different situation than Renly - Cersei herself admitted about the twincest to him.

[Nev yn]

Ned was in completely different situation than Renly - Cersei herself admitted about the twincest to him.

Ned's word against the queen's. That's no better evidence than Stannis's word against the queen's. Do they have tape recorders in Westeros?

[SerFelixCulpa]

Like I said, I'm telling you what I believe to be the case based on actual precedent and what we've been told in the books and in two separate instances on the show (which I'm aware isn't ironclad but it's something; I don't think it would've been included without Martin's input and may have deliberately been included to tell the audience how succession worked). If you have anything in the books that actually shows that Robert was planning to disregard the Targaryen succession practices in terms of Stannis and Renly coming before Myrcella, I'd be open to it. But Robert's negligence and a vague idea about Pycelle's (why him?) motivations aren't terribly convincing, sorry.

You're correct here, of course, but I am unclear as to what evidence you have that Targaryen succession works differently from any other kingdom's besides Dorne? It seems to me unless otherwise stated, Targaryen succession is presumably the same as any other kingdom's.