Who wants to be king for the 'right' reasons?

[Buried Treasure]

As for Stannis, all that talk about being "rightful heir" for Robert is not only unconvincing and of dubious legitimacy; it is also self-contradictory. As others pointed out, Robert was King because he had the armies and the political support to make him King, not because he had the right blood or the right laws saying that he was King. It is naive and unrealistic to expect laws of inheritance to be so influential.

Of course its naive to always expect laws to adhered to where 'might makes right'. That doesn't mean that the laws don't exist or that people that that break them aren't committing crimes just because they win.

Sure Robert won the throne by a war, but the difference between him & Renly is that Robert had a right to be fighting a war in the first place (because Aerys demanded his death without due course). But if your liege lord has done you no wrong and you decide fight a war and overthrow him just because you think you can win (as Renly did) then you are committing treason.

Going way back to Aegon; he didn't have a right to fight a war and take the throne, but he wasn't wrong to do so either - because he didn't owe allegiance to any of the kings that he overthrew. However once he had made the lords of the seven kingdoms swear oaths* to him they (and their successors) would be in the wrong to take up arms agains him again - unless he breaks his part of the oath of fealty.

*Ignoring for the moment the question of validity of oaths made at swordpoint.

[LuisDantas]

In what way is Stannis deluded? I think he's actually one of the more self-aware characters in the entire series.

He tries very hard, that much I will grant you.

He better try, since he is so self-indulgent with his ambitions.

Also, I don't see how he's hypocritical in believing himself to be the rightful heir-- Robert overthrew the former dynasty and won, and as he is the next true Baratheon in line, the throne technically belongs to him based on the system of primogeniture they follow.

By that measure, Renly's claim is at least as legitimate as his own. But Stannis, try as he does, is not a naive man. He knows full well that thrones are not really inherited so much as conquered by acquiring the proper support.

Renly had such support, which is why Stannis decided to steal it from him. His talk of being a rightful heir with no choice on the matter is just empty wind.

Slaying Renly was a deeply immoral act that stains his whole claim for the Throne. It doesn't help that he has been endorsing the burning of religious effigies, nor that he hasn't even truly attempted to prove that he is at least the rightful monarch according to the letter of the law. It doesn't really mean much, but it would take presenting a formal case that Robert had no trueborn sons to justify his claim. Of course, that would unavoidably become a political decision anyway, since Westeros has no DNA testing to speak of. Catelyn says as much in ACOK, and she is correct.

What Renly did is somewhat more applicable to Robert's Rebellion, in that Renly attempted to take the throne out of order.

And yet that is ultimately just a refusal to follow the letter of the law (a law whose interpretation remains controversial and unresolvable, no less) above the truth of political and military support.

Between that fact and that of Stannis' claim only existing in the first place because Robert's own rebellion was succesful, there is precious little to speak of for the idea of Stannis being the rightful King.

While I kind of agree with you that the shadow-assassins are morally difficult to defend, what Renly did was, in my opinion, a complete and utter disaster for the kingdom. Renly didn't challenge Stannis because he thought Stannis would be a bad king, but because he "kind of just wanted" to be king himself-- he thought it was a good sport.

Both Stannis and Renly seemed to believe that they would be better kings than the other. For what it is worth, Renly makes such a claim to Ned in AGOT.

Still, the difference is immaterial. Human nature is such that I'm not sure there is even a difference between the two rationales you offer.

But the main point is that while Renly certainly complicated the political situation of Westeros with his claim, it remains arguable and even likely that it would ultimately be for the best, since he was acquiring proper support and avoiding bloodshed as best as could reasonably be expected.

Far as disasters go, killing Renly in order to steal his bannermen was a far greater one. In a swift stroke, it shattered the level of war ethics in Westeros while at the same time giving the Tyrells to the Lannisters as decisive allies. Blackwater wouldn't be won by the Lannisters, or even happen in the first place, were it not for Renly's death. Stannis may well be acknowledged yet as the major cause of the fall of the Seven Kingdons.

I understand that a lot of people like Renly because he "has the love of the people," and for sure, he's a really affable guy, but some of the reasons "the people" love him are precisely what makes him self a disaster-- for instance, holding a jousting tourney in the eve of war. If he really understood statecraft and wanted what was best for the kingdom, he would have united his Highgarden (i.e. food provisions) alliances with Stannis, thereby cementing an adequate force against Cersei/ Joffrey, who were neither the rightful heirs, nor competent rulers.

And how exactly could he do that without Stannis' cooperation? Renly was as surprised as anyone else when Stannis's fleet turned out in Storm's End. Stannis forced Renly's hand, not the other way around.

[James Arryn]

Based on what I've read, of kings or potential kings so far in the rough timeline of the books I'd rank them like this:

1) Rhaegar

2) Renly

3) Ned (I think a lot of his 'weaknesses' go away if his power becomes real rather than deferred.)

4) Robb

5) Stannis or Tywin. Both would rank much higher if not for a couple extreme weaknesses. I don't understand why Stannis' absolute obsession with wrongs done him, by commission or omission, doesn't strike more people in here as the stuff of fairly dangerous kings. I agree that outside of the Westeros' Rodney Dangerfield routine and personal unlike-ability he's potentially a great king, but those are 2 fairly large drawbacks, imo. It's possible that as I said about Ned, his actually being King would do away with some of number 1, but I'm not all that convinced.

[LuisDantas]

Of course its naive to always expect laws to adhered to where 'might makes right'. That doesn't mean that the laws don't exist or that people that that break them aren't committing crimes just because they win.

That is only true in the most technical of senses, however. Inheritance laws just barely justify their own existence, because people are rarely foolish enough to pay heed to them without considering who exactly they will have to deal with. And that is how it should be. The role of law is to communicate what people consider to be fair, not to establish it.

Sure Robert won the throne by a war, but the difference between him & Renly is that Robert had a right to be fighting a war in the first place (because Aerys demanded his death without due course). But if your liege lord has done you no wrong and you decide fight a war and overthrow him just because you think you can win (as Renly did) then you are committing treason.

Except that rebelling against an order of being killed is still treason, albeit a very understandable kind of treason. Also, Stannis was never Renly's liege lord. Stannis' claim never went beyond a challenge to the Lannister's own, and even its lawfulness (unimportant as it really is) is defensable but not proven. It is in fact impossible to prove it; if Stannis hopes to ever be recognized as the rightful king he will have to earn that title by either using much the same means that Renly did, or by succesfully appealing to some sort of arbiter that would weight his inheritance claim against Cersei's and her sons'.

Going way back to Aegon; he didn't have a right to fight a war and take the throne, but he wasn't wrong to do so either - because he didn't owe allegiance to any of the kings that he overthrew. However once he had made the lords of the seven kingdoms swear oaths* to him they (and their successors) would be in the wrong to take up arms agains him again - unless he breaks his part of the oath of fealty.

*Ignoring for the moment the question of validity of oaths made at swordpoint.

I don't think it is quite right to give that much weight to oaths. Oaths can be broken, and often must.

Still, I can't help but notice that Renly never swore fealty to Stannis, either. Or for Joffrey, for that matter. So by that token, Renly is free to choose to oppose either, or both.

[James Arryn]

To further the point re: Renly, in much the same way that seeing past actions allowed Jon Arryn to anticipate the fates of Robert and Ned should he send them to KL, and thus have a 'just' cause for breaching the Feudal contract...which btw is almost always seen as a result, not predeterminer...Renly was absolutely smart enough to have seen Cersei deal with Robert (and Jon Arryn?) and be able to anticipate his fate if he was still hanging around with a claim to the Iron Throne after Cersei/Joff took power. We can see in his conversation with Ned that he absolutely had his finger on the pulse of where things were headed.

Being prescient and intelligent shouldn't devalue your moral high ground.

[The Drunkard]

No one seems to want to be king for the right reasons.

Robert wanted it as a way of ending the Targaryen's. Pure revenge.

Renly wanted it because he thought it would be fun. (My view, don't hurt me)

The Lannisters want it purely for the power.

Stannis wants it because it is his 'right'. He doesn't care he is fighting a seemingly doomed cause, or that he is fighting against stability, he just wants what is 'his'.

Dany/Viserys are the same as Stannis, really.

Balon just wanted to be king out of pride and insecurity.

Actually, now that I think about it, Robb was probably doing it for the right reasons. He just didn't want to attach the north to the south that killed his dad, his uncle, his grandfather, his aunty, and continually dragged the north into conflicts it didn't really have a part in.

[butterbumps!]

By that measure, Renly's claim is at least as legitimate as his own. But Stannis, try as he does, is not a naive man. He knows full well that thrones are not really inherited so much as conquered by acquiring the proper support.

Renly had such support, which is why Stannis decided to steal it from him. His talk of being a rightful heir with no choice on the matter is just empty wind.

And yet that is ultimately just a refusal to follow the letter of the law (a law whose interpretation remains controversial and unresolvable, no less) above the truth of political and military support.

Between that fact and that of Stannis' claim only existing in the first place because Robert's own rebellion was succesful, there is precious little to speak of for the idea of Stannis being the rightful King.

Far as disasters go, killing Renly in order to steal his bannermen was a far greater one. In a swift stroke, it shattered the level of war ethics in Westeros while at the same time giving the Tyrells to the Lannisters as decisive allies. Blackwater wouldn't be won by the Lannisters, or even happen in the first place, were it not for Renly's death. Stannis may well be acknowledged yet as the major cause of the fall of the Seven Kingdons.

And how exactly could he do that without Stannis' cooperation? Renly was as surprised as anyone else when Stannis's fleet turned out in Storm's End. Stannis forced Renly's hand, not the other way around.

I think I'm really confused by your definitions of "legitimacy" and "rightfulness." Look, I'm with you in believing that the best man for the job gets to have the title (all hail Mance, President of the United States of Westeros), but given the context of primogeniture we have in ASOIAF, legitimacy is based on dynastic continuity, i.e. 1 family in power where title is passed through a specific familial order regardless of the actual quality of the person holding the title. While this means that there will be good kings/ bad kings, it does ensure a degree of stability, in that the issue of "who will rule," is not usually up for debate, except in the most egregious of circumstances, such as Aerys' complete abuse of his power.

I like Renly immensely, but I can't overlook the fact that what he did was no less than up-end whatever stability the system of primogeniture could offer. You can't have the office of King contested indiscrimminately, because that leads to complete civil unrest. That would mean every time a king dies, anyone has the right to make a move for power. This is not good, because in Westeros at present, there are no democratic elections, so the vehicle by which such claims are made is through military force.

That said, if Renly truly wanted what was best for the kingdom, he would have backed up Stannis with his alliances. If we are going to appeal to issues of "legitimacy," then it's equally true that the onus is on Renly to make common cause with Stannis and not the other way around. Besides, Renly would have been next in line, given the fact that Stannis doesn't have sons.

[James Arryn]

I think I'm really confused by your definitions of "legitimacy" and "rightfulness." Look, I'm with you in believing that the best man for the job gets to have the title (all hail Mance, President of the United States of Westeros), but given the context of primogeniture we have in ASOIAF, legitimacy is based on dynastic continuity, i.e. 1 family in power where title is passed through a specific familial order regardless of the actual quality of the person holding the title. While this means that there will be good kings/ bad kings, it does ensure a degree of stability, in that the issue of "who will rule," is not usually up for debate, except in the most egregious of circumstances, such as Aerys' complete abuse of his power.

I like Renly immensely, but I can't overlook the fact that what he did was no less than up-end whatever stability the system of primogeniture could offer. You can't have the office of King contested indiscrimminately, because that leads to complete civil unrest. That would mean every time a king dies, anyone has the right to make a move for power. This is not good, because in Westeros at present, there are no democratic elections, so the vehicle by which such claims are made is through military force.

That said, if Renly truly wanted what was best for the kingdom, he would have backed up Stannis with his alliances. If we are going to appeal to issues of "legitimacy," then it's equally true that the onus is on Renly to make common cause with Stannis and not the other way around. Besides, Renly would have been next in line, given the fact that Stannis doesn't have sons.

You are overlooking precedents.

Or was Maester Aemon king in disguise? If so, I'm getting fed up with GGRM's need for multiple personas.

[Buried Treasure]

That is only true in the most technical of senses, however. Inheritance laws just barely justify their own existence, because people are rarely foolish enough to pay heed to them without considering who exactly they will have to deal with. And that is how it should be. The role of law is to communicate what people consider to be fair, not to establish it.

Inheritance law has a big place. We don't hear much about the vast majority of cases where the inheritance passes smoothly, because in those cases wars aren't fought.

Except that rebelling against an order of being killed is still treason, albeit a very understandable kind of treason. Also, Stannis was never Renly's liege lord. Stannis' claim never went beyond a challenge to the Lannister's own, and even its lawfulness (unimportant as it really is) is defensable but not proven. It is in fact impossible to prove it; if Stannis hopes to ever be recognized as the rightful king he will have to earn that title by either using much the same means that Renly did, or by succesfully appealing to some sort of arbiter that would weight his inheritance claim against Cersei's and her sons'.

The murkiness of when a rebellion is justified is the reason the Targaryen heirs also have rightful claim, as well as Robert. It's not clear cut, but there is at least some justification in rebelling against a king that has committed a crime against you.

You are right that Renly never believed Stannis to be the rightful king (he did not learn of Joff's bastardy until he received the letter and then didn't believe). Renly believed Joffrey was the lawful heir, but decided to not follow the law because he saw an advantage in it. The fact Joff was not lawful king has no bearing. Had Renly won the war he could have forced everyone to ignore the fact he won it by illegally taking up arms and after a few generations that would have been forgotten - it doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime.

I

don't think it is quite right to give that much weight to oaths. Oaths can be broken, and often must.

Still, I can't help but notice that Renly never swore fealty to Stannis, either. Or for Joffrey, for that matter. So by that token, Renly is free to choose to oppose either, or both.

Not just oaths, the feudal contract on which the whole society is based. It's massively abused all the time (especially the part about protecting the smallfolk) but that doesn't mean it isn't in place. The expectation is that you loyally serve the person above you in the hierarchy and they protect you, if either breaks it the aggrieved party has a right of response. The system existed before Aegon arrived in Westeros, but he wasn't a part of it until he took oaths from his new subjects.

Renly did not swear an oath to Stannis or Joffrey, but he did to Robert. So should have transferred his loyalty to Roberts heir. When a lord dies his subjects usually renew their oaths before his successor, but the are not free agents before doing so - the authority transfers automatically.

[butterbumps!]

You are overlooking precedents.

Or was Maester Aemon king in disguise? If so, I'm getting fed up with GGRM's need for multiple personas.

What precedents am I overlooking? That there have been challenges to the throne, like the Blackfyre Rebellion? I think my point is that if we're operating in the system of government as shown in Westeros, challenging the throne comes at a great cost, and war is the only available method to stake your claim. So unless you're positing that Renly was proposing some form of lasting democracy as part of his platform, I'm not sure how Renly's actions could be seen as anything but disastrous for the stability of the kingdom. Stannis is actually a pretty able ruler, and I'd argue a better man for the job anyway.

If nothing else, I just see an inherent discontinuity of logic in the arguments for "legitimacy" that also support the idea that leaders should somehow be elected democratically, because those two issues are in complete contradiction.

Maestor Aemon had taken the black ("I shall wear no crowns and win no glory"). The crown simply passed over him (he turned it down, technically) in an otherwise conventional succession. I'm not sure of your point. EDIT: Sorry I confused myself-- He took the black after passing it up.

[James Arryn]

Maestor Aemon had taken the black ("I shall wear no crowns and win no glory"). The crown simply passed over him (he turned it down, technically) in an otherwise conventional succession. I'm not sure of your point.

That's not my understanding. I thought he refused the throne because he felt others were better suited.

(Which I guess would be my point.)

Edit: to clarify after your edit, if in fact suitability has superseded order of succession in the past, order of succession is not the be-all and end-all think you were trying to portray. And as with any of these kinds of legalistic concepts, precedent of exception automatically means exceptions become party to the rule.

Edit II: Holy crap do I sound pompous on re-read. Sorry...it's late.

[butterbumps!]

Oh- I think I understand what you're saying now, but I'd call both Robert's Rebellion and Aemon's taking of the Black to extreme exceptions to an otherwise prevailing system of order. So I think what you're getting at is that you think Stannis should have allowed himself to be passed over in favor of Renly, who you believe is a better suited king.

I disagree with your assessment of Stannis and Renly's suitability for kingship, but appreciate your point that the throne can (and has been) electively passed up.

[Jaehaerys Sand]

Do people really think that Renly would make a better king than Stannis? Because I honestly don't see it.

When Renly was commanding his army, he showed himself to be impatient (rode to Storm's end without all of his forces), a wasteful spender (threw tourney's in the middle of a war, carried a bunch of unneccessary equipment), and overconfident (gave Stannis every advantage he could before the battle). Plus, Stannis is the one who helped Jon Arryn rule, not Renly.

[James Arryn]

Oh- I think I understand what you're saying now, but I'd call both Robert's Rebellion and Aemon's taking of the Black to extreme exceptions to an otherwise prevailing system of order. So I think what you're getting at is that you think Stannis should have allowed himself to be passed over in favor of Renly, who you believe is a better suited king.

I disagree with your assessment of Stannis and Renly's suitability for kingship, but appreciate your point that the throne can (and has been) electively passed up.

Not necessarily 'should' have, but rather could have, without upsetting the order of things all that much more than they were going to be one way or another. So to me it means 'who would be better?' is a legit horse in the race, though I get that many don't even think Renly rings that bell.

[Kate Poem]

Luis Dantas, can I ask You questions:

- why Kevan Lannister never said Tywin Lannister "I will not obey you"?

- why Ned Stark said one time to Bran "You become Robb's bannerman...", no "You become Lord of Winterfell.."?

- why Arianne Martell, firstborn child of Prince of Dorne got angry and hurt after reading her father's letter to her brother, Quentyn?

- Why Stannis was'nt Renly's liege lord?

If You can, answer me in other way than:

- Tywin, older brother of Kevan, was Kevan's liege;

- Robb, oldest son of Ned Stark, after his father's death, become Lord of Winterfell;

- in Dorne firstborn child of ruler, boy or girl will be ruler after her/his father death;

- Ee?

Edit: Joffrey WAS Renly's king and his "nephew". Renly did'nt know about incest, when he crowned himself... even if he renounced rights of his brother as oldest from Baratheons.

[LuisDantas]

Inheritance law has a big place. We don't hear much about the vast majority of cases where the inheritance passes smoothly, because in those cases wars aren't fought.

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer; I meant throne inheritance laws specifically. They are, probably unavoidably, barely of any use at all.

The murkiness of when a rebellion is justified is the reason the Targaryen heirs also have rightful claim, as well as Robert. It's not clear cut, but there is at least some justification in rebelling against a king that has committed a crime against you.

I'm not sure what you consider enough justification for rebellion against a King.

Or for that matter, why justification would be needed at all.

In my mind it is a matter of being aware of and willing to go through the risks and prices involved, not of justification. Justification is rationalized after the fact in the songs and history books, but it doesn't change the facts or make them any more or less fair.

You are right that Renly never believed Stannis to be the rightful king (he did not learn of Joff's bastardy until he received the letter and then didn't believe). Renly believed Joffrey was the lawful heir, but decided to not follow the law because he saw an advantage in it.

My take on it, supported by his speech to Catelyn from right before he learned of Stannis' arrival at Storm's End, is that Renly didn't care one way or another about the letter of the law.

He was unwilling to support either Joffrey or Stannis, and rightfully so IMO. He saw himself as a better ruler than either and acted accordingly, as is of course his right.

Sure, it goes against the letter of the law and is risky to the extreme, but that is how those things roll.

The fact Joff was not lawful king has no bearing. Had Renly won the war he could have forced everyone to ignore the fact he won it by illegally taking up arms and after a few generations that would have been forgotten - it doesn't mean he didn't commit a crime.

Actually, it does, since the law is established by the powers that rule. Law is a political tool. Renly wouldn't "force" anyone to "ignore" anything; he would decree that he is the lawful King and so it would be. Much as Joffrey did before him by way of Cersei. Much as Robert did before them. Much as Aegon and pretty much any King in either Westeros or in History ever did.

Not just oaths, the feudal contract on which the whole society is based. It's massively abused all the time (especially the part about protecting the smallfolk) but that doesn't mean it isn't in place. The expectation is that you loyally serve the person above you in the hierarchy and they protect you, if either breaks it the aggrieved party has a right of response. The system existed before Aegon arrived in Westeros, but he wasn't a part of it until he took oaths from his new subjects.

True enough, but you are forgetting that people have a right to rebel if they feel unconfortable against such arrangements. In fact, they must have such a right; loyalty can't be assumed until and unless one's subjects act to confirm it.

When Joffrey took the Throne, he had all sorts of people sworn fealty to him. Because it was foolish to simply assume that everyone who swore for Robert would agree to swear for him automatically and without exception. It is a grave thing if a major Lord refuses, but it is not an illegal act; on the contrary, the law is meaningless if it does not allow for such a possibility.

Renly did not swear an oath to Stannis or Joffrey, but he did to Robert. So should have transferred his loyalty to Roberts heir.

Unless the chose instead to rebel, which he did. That he wasn't quite sure on whether Joffrey or Stannis was supported by the law is inconsequential, since he did not want to support either anyway.

When a lord dies his subjects usually renew their oaths before his successor, but the are not free agents before doing so - the authority transfers automatically.

That is what most inherited crowns would have one believe, I suppose. But how exactly can that be made to work? It can't.

[Lord of Cheese]

For the right reasons? Stannis.

But i would separate 'for the right reasons' from 'ability to interpret the law and decide what is justice'. I think Stannis would make a woeful King. I think he is just too 'dumb'.

[LuisDantas]

Do people really think that Renly would make a better king than Stannis? Because I honestly don't see it.

I sure do. For one thing, he was possibly the most peace-oriented claimant. His one fault was his lack of desire to accept a separate Kingdom of the North.

When Renly was commanding his army, he showed himself to be impatient (rode to Storm's end without all of his forces),

True enough, but Stannis isn't any better in this regard.

a wasteful spender (threw tourney's in the middle of a war, carried a bunch of unneccessary equipment), and overconfident (gave Stannis every advantage he could before the battle). Plus, Stannis is the one who helped Jon Arryn rule, not Renly.

I'm not sure where you are coming from. Warfare is a very expensive activity, certainly far more than tourneying. I will grant you that Renly was overconfident, but from what I recall of Catelyn's ACOK chapters he had good reasons to assume that his forces would ravage Stannis'; he simply had far more soldiers (Stannis' strength was in his fleet, not his armies).

As for helping Jon Arryn, even assuming that it is that clear-cut, how can we gauge the relevancy to the current situation? Jon Arryn may well have relied on Stannis' help far more than on Renly's to rule as Robert's Hand. I don't know that he did, but it sounds quite believable; we know that they were fairly close, enough so to share their suspicions about the paternity of Cersei's sons.

Still, it doesn't follow that Renly can't choose good advisors of his own. In fact, it doesn't even follow that Jon Arryn did a reasonable job as Hand of the King. We must consider that Arryn failed to protect the Seven Kingdoms from Robert's excessive spending, as well as from the counsel of the likes of Petyr Baelish and Grand Maester Pycelle. He seems to have been a good enough man, but was he a good ruler? I don't think we can trust that he was.

[LuisDantas]

Luis Dantas, can I ask You questions:

- why Kevan Lannister never said Tywin Lannister "I will not obey you"?

Most likely he didn't feel that the consequences would make it worth the trouble. Tywin was a bad ruler, but Kevan may well have failed to realize that. Even if he did, odds are good that he saw no benefit in an open challenge to the fearsome Tywin.

- why Ned Stark said one time to Bran "You become Robb's bannerman...", no "You become Lord of Winterfell.."?

There are a lot of different, correct answers to that question. The most accurate and informative may be that he expected Robb to survive longer and he knew his sons well enough to expect them to support each other.

- why Arianne Martell, firstborn child of Prince of Dorne got angry and hurt after reading her father's letter to her brother, Quentyn?

Because she felt cheated out of what she understood to be her birthright. It turned out that she was wrong. Among other reasons, because birthrights are a very artificial concept to begin with.

- Why Stannis wasn't Renly's liege lord?

Because Renly never swore fealty to Stannis. I must assume that he once did swear fealty to Robert, at least implicitly.

But I have no doubt that he made a point of refusing to do the same to Stannis, as is his full right.

Do you think Stannis himself ever thought of himself as Renly's Liege Lord? I'm sure he was somewhat disappointed by Renly's refusal, but I don't recall he ever making the leap from being rightful heir to the throne to actually being automatically being the liege lord of any of Robert's previous subjects. He felt hurt that they refused fealty to him, sure, but he knew full well that they did refuse.

If You can, answer me in other way than:

- Tywin, older brother of Kevan, was Kevan's liege;

Oh, he was. But that matters far less than some people seem to want it to.

- Robb, oldest son of Ned Stark, after his father's death, become Lord of Winterfell;

Because the Starks are well loved in the North and by each other, with the sole (and somewhat minor) exceptions of Sansa vs Arya and Jon vs Catelyn.

That is not a very good example, however. All it shows is that Ned sees Robb as his heir apparent. There is no indication of just how likely he feels that it will come to pass, much less of how he would react to a rebellion between the brothers.

- in Dorne firstborn child of ruler, boy or girl will be ruler after her/his father death;

I very much doubt Dorne's throne is inherited all that swiftly by such a simplistic and barely useful criterium, myself. It is just not reasonable or realistic.

We know for a fact that it did not always happen that way in the short three centuries since Aegon I, and Dorne is far more ancient than Aegon.

Also, consider that the being heir to the throne of Prince of Dorne is somewhat less meaningful than being King of Westeros. Dorne is a smaller and far more homogeneous region than Westeros as a whole. The political tensions will hopefully be lesser as well, particularly seeing how it is both a fertile realm and an underpopulated one. People will care that much less about who exactly is the Prince or Princess in power.

- Ee?

Edit: Joffrey WAS Renly's king and his "nephew". Renly didn't know about incest, when he crowned himself... even if he renounced rights of his brother as oldest from Baratheons.

If I refuse to recognize someone as my King, is he still my King?

[butterbumps!]

@LuisDantas

I sure do. For one thing, he was possibly the most peace-oriented claimant. His one fault was his lack of desire to accept a separate Kingdom of the North.

Do you actually believe that? Renly was in the midst of a war march, intended to destroy his brother's army, and assured Catelyn he'd get around to defeating Robb as well. He specifically says that Robert won the throne using his warhammer to Catelyn, and that taking by force was he "claim" as well. He was more than willing to wage war, but didn't comprehend what war is really about, i.e. not something to be taken lightly (which he definitely thinks war = super fun game).

I guess if I were to apply your logic then Cersei made a 100% rightful move in making a claim for the throne (for Joffrey), because anyone who wants the throne should go ahead and take it despite the commonly accepted criteria for succession. I think what you're suggestion is really the recipe for anarchy.

Instead of trying to take the throne, I wish Renly took office as head of Stannis' Public Relations Ministry and remained in the story.