Stannis is the One True King

[LuisDantas]

See what i did here?

Attempted to convince me that you don't particularly care about having a clear and coherent point?

That would be my best guess.

[StannisandDaeny]

I'm not ignoring information just because it suits me or drawing senseless comparisons so yeah, I don't feel that biased at all.

Stannis held Storm's End. If they had surrendered (something that could have happened considering the dire circumstances) the entire Tyrell horde would have converged on Robert's armies and the rebels would have had to take Storm's End. I don't know about you, but to me this *seems* like a more important and brave act than effin' Tywin betraying his King, sacking King's Landing and killing a bunch of defenseless children. Stannis was always loyal, Tywin only converted to Robert's side when he saw it could further his gains. His reward, is that Robert married Cersei. Stannis got nothing. Nothing. Zero. Since you refuse to use the knowledge we have, you also have to rule out Tywin's claim to putting a Lannister on the throne, since Joffry was a Baratheon from that point of view. You see, the knife cuts both ways, as long as you don't wish to ignore information that's not beneficial to your argument. As for Ned Stark, he wasn't aspiring to become King so I don't see how he matters.

That there are both men who believe in the Red God and those who don't in his ranks is a clear indication to me that Stannis tolerates it. How it is not honest for Stannis to use a weapon at his disposal while others arrange stuff like the Red Wedding is beyond me.

What follows is the most horrible bit of text I've ever read on this forum. First of, Power does not make Right. Second, Stannis' right to the throne should not suffer from Aerys' crimes. Even if you believe this, it should count for everyone from this point on and doesn't make Stannis an unrightful King. Robert didn't have to fight off constant rebellions either simply because he rebelled himself, did he?

Legitimacy is gained by law, and though there are no written rules for it, also for protecting the realm and serving its best interests, something we can agree on Aerys failed to do. A Rightful King deserves the benefit of the doubt until he has proven otherwise, and Stannis has done nothing to prove he would make a bad King. People just hate him for no real reason.

We're not talking about the character's opinions, we're discussing our own. So we use the knowledge we have. This seems only logical to me.

Stannis doesn't have 100 percent certainty himself, as it is impossible in Westeros, with the technology they have. Even if there's only 1 percent of doubt, Stannis wouldn't wage war or worse tell his brother and have the deaths of 2 innocent (again, we don't care about Joffry) children as well as an entire war on his conscience, at least not in the situation he found himself in before Robert and Ned were murdered. If Joffry had been trueborn I don't think Stannis would have stood against him because he had a hard time convincing himself to fight Aerys anyway, but he might have eventually followed Renly like he did Robert if he didn't know he was the true king himself.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

Attempted to convince me that you don't particularly care about having a clear and coherent point? That would be my best guess.

I'm sorry, but do you get paid to lower the standards of this discussion or what? If so you deserve a bonus...

[LuisDantas]

Did you really need 3 posts in a row for that?

It seemed neater. I know that many people dislike that practice, but what would the advantage of a single, bigger post be?

You're very committed to bringing Stannis down aren't you?

That is correct. I am.

Hungry for power and prestige? And suddenly that's a negative thing, too...

It is when he (and his defenders on the board) claim that he is not, and paint him as some sort of honorable man that is only doing his duty. Particularly given how bloody and shameful is the price he is making others pay for his ambitions.

That's only your interpretation, and funny coming from someone who is quite fond of Renly, lol.

Why, if Renly is open about it and takes full responsibility for it, while Stannis is hypocriticaly denying it about himself?

Against these odds, chances are bigger he'll lose the power he had, so that argument doesn't really work either.

Of course, his odds were never that good.

Why does that mean that he is justified in resorting to treachery?

Stannis isn't emotionally fragile as you suggest, in fact, I'd say he's the most rigid character in the series when it comes to emotions, lol.

That is exactly why he is fragile. As Donal Noye said, he is unable to bend and has therefore broken.

Again, all this is irrelevant to his rightful claim, though, you're simply summing up the reasons you don't like him.

It is more like people who dogmatically assume that he has the One True Rightful claim color their perception due to that dogma, actually.

And wiling to look the other way, like when?

Like when the people who starved so much that they had to resort to cannibalism were sacrificed with his approval, for one. It was his command that led him to those dire straits, yet he refuses to take responsibility for their safety or the excesses of his own Knights. Or when he allowed his own former Hand to be burned out of sheer convenience.

When he gave Renly a choice to join him even after he'd become a condemned rebel, when he spared the lords who had become rebels fighting under Renly?

It was Renly who gave Stannis a chance, actually. And it was out of self-interest, in fact specifically to steal said lords from Renly, that he accepted them.

Next.

When he cut off Davos' fingers? If you think Stannis 'looks the other way' it's pretty clear to me you don't understand his character at all.

Yes, it would look that way to you, I must assume.

Obviously his convincing of the hill tribes proves he's also able to do more than simply say 'I'm the King, you should follow me!' as you're suggesting.

He has proven that he can bring Knights willing to put their lives on the line for him, yes. For whatever it is worth.

It's a known fact Stannis told Robert to get of rid of Janos Slynt's corruptness, and Robert simply laughed it off. So he hasn't simply 'convinced' himself of that, it's simply the truth he's against corruptness, something King's Landing could very well use.

Come back to me when he stops things like the burnings of innocent men to appease R'hllors' followers.

Stannis is a man who was despised already long before the start of the series despite his service to the realm, while everyone is unable to attribute *concrete* crimes to his name rather than their personal dislike of him: it was likely it was rather the Drunk King's (undeserved) dislike for him that caused everyone to follow this opinion like sheep.

That may have been true once. But then came the events in the books.

[StannisandDaeny]

Well, you may be committed to bringing Stannis down, but it's really like trying to pull a knot out of a rope simply by pulling the rope even tighter though the knot will only get tighter: similarly my belief in Stannis has only grown since I started posting in this thread, as I've started to think about his motivations more closely and nothing you've said has really shaken my belief, on the contrary. BTW Thanks for jumping right into my trap and admitting right then and there you're biased and only trying to bring Stannis down.

Being King is not an ambition of Stannis. He is King. Some rebels decided he wasn't. He gains no advantage from saying he doesn't want to be King, so saying he's lying doesn't really make a lot of sense.

'The one-armed blacksmith said it, it must be true!' Emotional instability means your mood changes from the one and you can't follow a constant path or form a coherent plan. Doesn't sound like Stannis to me.

We do not assume, for it is the Law. The Law in the real world protects your most basic rights, you wouldn't want anyone to take those from you either now would you?

If he allowed cannibalism, men would soon start slaughtering each other to eat each other. Discipline is key to military success. The blizzard was unforeseen. A good king listens to his subjects now and then, and they were demanding burnings. Well, they got them. Desertion cuts deeper than an enemy sword, and liberating the North from the scourge that is Ramsay Bolton is a cause that justifies many means, for Ramsay would commit worse atrocities for no reason at all. You're blaming circumstances entirely on Stannis. As someone who's criticizing his leadership, I would like to see you attempt to hold Storm's End and keep the discipline there.

The Hand was a traitor and a defeatist, he would have died a traitor's death. Whether he was burned or chopped to bits, he was going to die.

Renly was a Rebel according to the law who has nothing to offer to Stannis. Stannis showed him mercy with his terms, for the punishment for rebels is either death or being sent off to the wall. He did not steal those lords, they were his due to vow they swore, it was Renly who stole them so he could start a rebellion and kill his brother.

I don't recall him burning innocent men. It's just a different way of executing criminals. Maybe you recall Joffry got pretty inventive launching people with antlers nailed to their heads over the walls as well. People who weren't criminals, btw, but simply following the law and supporting Stannis.

The events of the books, yes. I might inform you you fell into another trap here: you basically admitted Stannis was already wronged at the start of the series ^__^ If people, as you suggest, should be convinced by those events, I suggest they compare Stannis' acts to his current adversaries, who engineered the Red Wedding and put Ramsay Snow the Butcher in a position of power in the North as the pinnacle of their goodness. Dear lord, it seems Stannis comes out on top again!

I'm going to repeat myself (again), whether you think these are crimes or not means nothing toward Stannis' rightful claim, it's just a list of reasons you don't like him.

[Inara]

I'm not ignoring information just because it suits me or drawing senseless comparisons so yeah, I don't feel that biased at all. Stannis held Storm's End. If they had surrendered (something that could have happened considering the dire circumstances) the entire Tyrell horde would have converged on Robert's armies and the rebels would have had to take Storm's End. I don't know about you, but to me this *seems* like a more important and brave act than effin' Tywin betraying his King, sacking King's Landing and killing a bunch of defenseless children. Stannis was always loyal, Tywin only converted to Robert's side when he saw it could further his gains. His reward, is that Robert married Cersei. Stannis got nothing. Nothing. Zero. Since you refuse to know the knowledge we have, you also have to rule out Tywin's claim to putting a Lannister on the throne, since Joffry was a Baratheon. You see, the knife cuts both ways, as long as you don't wish to ignore information that's not beneficial to your argument.

I don't dispute that Stannis played a big part in Robert's rebellion. But you were the one saying that a person who does things should expect to be rewarded. And then you also said that Stannis is taking the throne out of duty, not because he wants it. If a man is so dutiful as to wage a war to get something he doesn't even want, then why should he expect a reward for doing his duty as Robert's brother?

Joffey is also Tywin's grandson, even as a Baratheon heir. It's the same as Mace wanting a grandson on the throne, though he'd be a Baratheon (Lannister) in name, but half Tyrell in blood. As for Ned not wanting the throne, neither did Stannis at the time of the rebellion.

I'm also not certain why you keep trying to point out how awful the Lannisters are. We all know that. No one is trying to pin the courage and honor badge on Tywin. But just as Robert couldn't have won the rebellion without Storm's End, he couldn't have done so without taking King's Landing, which is why Tywin did. How he did so is irrelevant - the point is that Tywin played a huge role in how things turned out for Robert, and he's justified in believing he deserves a share of the reward.

As for Ned Stark, he wasn't aspiring to become King so I don't see how he matters.

At the end of the Rebellion, Stannis wasn't aspiring to be king either. Storm's End was still Robert's because he was still head of House Baratheon. Storm's End should have gone to Tommen since Joffrey was going to be King while Joffrey should have been made Prince of Dragonstrone, which was usually held by the King's heir. Stannis and Renly weren't owed any titles. That Robert chose to give it to them was a mark of his generosity.

That there are both men who believe in the Red God and those who don't is a clear indication to me that Stannis tolerates it. How it is not honest for Stannis to use a weapon at his disposal while others arrange stuff like the Red Wedding is beyond me.

If Stannis wants to use magic and treachery to become king, that's fine. Because you're right, other people do far worse things. But that takes away from Stannis's moral high ground and instead confirms his hypocrisy.

What follows is the most horrible bit of text I've ever read on this forum. First of, Power does not make Right. Second, Stannis' right to the throne should not suffer from Aerys' claims. Even if you believe this, it should count for everyone from this point on and doesn't make Stannis an unrightful King. Robert didn't have to fight off constant rebellions either simply because he rebelled himself, did he? Legitimacy is gained by law, and though there are no written rules for it, also for protecting the realm and serving its best interests, something we can agree on Aerys failed to do. A Rightful King deserves the benefit of the doubt until he has proven otherwise, and Stannis has done nothing to prove he would make a bad King.

But power does make right. That's the whole point of the series. Whether we agree with it or not, how else does someone come into leadership? Do you think all kings are voted to the throne by a fair and democratic forum? Aegon took the throne because of his power and forced six of the seven kingdoms to swear him fealty. No one chose Aegon as their king. And because his descendants were able to enforce that authority, they were able to stay in power for 300 years.

Same goes for the Starks - sure, they were loved by the people of the North. But they still need power to maintain their hold on the north because there will always be people (in their case, the Boltons) who want to bring them down. Ned did that by ensuring the love of his bannerman. Some Stark predecessors used force. But the point is, they had to back up their right with might. If they hadn't been able to, then they would have fallen. Same goes for the Martells. The Florents felt that by blood, it was their right to rule the Reach. But that didn't matter because the Tyrells had the power of the Targaryens behind them.

And Robert did face rebellion. The Greyjoys rebelled, and Dorne never quite accepted Baratheon rule. But Robert was able to maintain his power because his supporters were still behind him. Lannisters, Tullys, Starks, and Baratheons all had a hand in putting down Balon Greyjoy, and Doran Martell never openly rebelled because he knew Robert's allys were far too strong for Dorne to face alone. Most people liked Robert because he was, for lack of a better word, likable. It doesn't matter that he was a horrible king who accomplished nothing in his 17 year reign. He still had power by virtue of the alliances he had forged. But if Robert had lost their support, then Balon would have succeeded, perhaps Dorne would have seceded as well, and he would have been overthrown.

As for Aerys's "claims" - of course they are relevant. Once again, neither Robert nor Stannis ever disputed the right of the Targaryens to rule Westeros. This is different than if Robert had overthrown Aerys because the Targaryens had no right to the kingship (which he didn't). Robert based his claim on his Targaryen grandmother. When Aerys was murdered, it was Aegon and then Viserys who were the rightful claimants to the throne. If Stannis deserves the benefit of doubt, why didn't they?

Why was it okay for Robert to remove the rightful claimants to the throne, but it's not okay for Stannis to be denied his rightful claim?

That is why I keep bringing up Aerys. Stannis wants it both ways - he knows he rebelled against the rightful king during Robert's rebellion, and yet now he wants people to acknowledge his right despite not having anything to back up his claim besides his word.

People just hate him for no real reason. We're not talking about the character's opinions, we're discussing our own. So we use the knowledge we have. This seems only logical to me.

People's reasons for hating him are no less valid than your reasons for loving him. This is a forum where people debate. Not everyone has to love Stannis to see qualities, and not everyone has to hate Stannis to see his faults.

Stannis doesn't have 100 percent certainty himself, as it is impossible in Westeros, with the technology they have. Even if there's only 1 percent of doubt, Stannis wouldn't wage war or worse tell his brother and have the deaths of 2 innocent (again, we don't care about Joffry) children as well as an entire war on his conscience. If Joffry had been trueborn I don't think Stannis would have stood against him because he had a hard time convincing himself to fight Aerys anyway, but he might have eventually followed Renly like he did Robert if he didn't know he was the true king himself.

But again, you are contradicting yourself. Stannis decided to rebel against the Targaryens despite knowing that Aerys was the rightful king. Part of his reasoning was that Aerys was a bad king and no longer deserved to sit on the throne. But Stannis doesn't want to be king because he would be a better king than Aerys/Joffrey/Tommen (this was actually Renly's reason for seeking the kingship). Stannis wants to be king because he feels it is his right. That is the only reason. He would be waging this war even if he were as bad as Joffrey, and what's more, he would expect his people to accept him despite any cruelty he might possess. And that's only natural. Kings are the first people to believe in their own legitimacy.

And that is my point. Stannis's right to the throne has nothing to do with whether he would be a good king. Westeros is a not a meritocracy. It's irrelevant to his claims. He's not telling people to support him because he's got a strong sense of justice, because he hates corruption, or because he's just a swell guy. He's demanding fealty because of his blood. So whether he's better or worse than Joffrey is not relevant to Stannis himself.

[Kate Poem]

/bang her head in the Wall/

Renly"I am god of rain, look at me" was selfcenterd, brattish, impatient traitor.

Stannis is king of Seven Kingdoms, because Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella are'nt Robert's children - they aren't Heirs to Iron Throne then.

Stannis is'nt liar. It is known.

Renly did'nt respect laws of succession from his hunger for power. He wanted sit on Iron Throne, he crowned himself and made feasts and tourneys in his way on war.

After that he met Stannis, offered him nothing except insults and hurtful jokes.

Stannis offered him title of Crown Prince, Heir to Iron Throne. Before that he said "you are usurper and thief" and said Margaery will die as maid in his bed. Is it some difference between words about Margaery and Renly's wonderful, cheerful joke about unhappy marriage of Stannis and completely innocent Renly's niece?

Renly had'nt no right to Iron Throne before Stannis's death. He was usurper then.

Stannis is rightful king of Westeros after Robert's death and liege lord of Renly after death of oldest male Baratheon. Renly was a thief then.

Stannis did'nt deserve for all this disliking, joking etc. etc. He did nothing wrong before Robert's death. War of Five Kings is'nt his fault. It could be War of Four Kings and it could be shorther, but Renly "I am wizard, look at me" choose other path and crowned himself by pretty crown.

He had every reason to bend a knee: knowledge about Stannis's marriage, his marital habits, his character, he knew Selyse will be wife of Stannis until her death.

But Renly was what Renly was and he ended like he ended.

It is known.

[bbqq]

Come back to me when he stops things like the burnings of innocent men to appease R'hllors' followers.

I thought I'd commented on this earlier in the topic? He has.

edit: It appears I didn't, my apologies.

[Urien the Ragged]

/bang her head in the Wall/ Renly"I am god of rain, look at me" was selfcenterd, brattish, impatient traitor. Stannis is king of Seven Kingdoms, because Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella are'nt Robert's children - they aren't Heirs to Iron Throne then. Stannis is'nt liar. It is known. Renly did'nt respect laws of succession from his hunger for power. He wanted sit on Iron Throne, he crowned himself and made feasts and tourneys in his way on war. After that he met Stannis, offered him nothing except insults and hurtful jokes. Stannis offered him title of Crown Prince, Heir to Iron Throne. Before that he said "you are usurper and thief" and said Margaery will die as maid in his bed. Is it some difference between words about Margaery and Renly's wonderful, cheerful joke about unhappy marriage of Stannis and completely innocent Renly's niece? Renly had'nt no right to Iron Throne before Stannis's death. He was usurper then. Stannis is rightful king of Westeros after Robert's death and liege lord of Renly after death of oldest male Baratheon. Renly was a thief then. Stannis did'nt deserve for all this disliking, joking etc. etc. He did nothing wrong before Robert's death. War of Five Kings is'nt his fault. It could be War of Four Kings and it could be shorther, but Renly "I am wizard, look at me" choose other path and crowned himself by pretty crown. He had every reason to bend a knee: knowledge about Stannis's marriage, his marital habits, his character, he knew Selyse will be wife of Stannis until her death. But Renly was what Renly was and he ended like he ended. It is known.

so what if Renly wasn't the next in the line of succession? Robert wasn't either. Renly also wasn't asking for the Iron Throne, he was taking it with an army.

Renly had about as much right to Throne as Robert did when he took it. Stannis has no more right to it than someone who can take it before he does. This is not about right, it is about might. if it were about right, then Rhaegar, the First of His Name, would sit the Iron Throne.

[Jayaris]

Attempted to convince me that you don't particularly care about having a clear and coherent point?

That would be my best guess.

I think 'what he did there' was to reverse your argument

You made an assertion with nothing to back it up

He made an assertion with nothing to back it up

You've also done something even lamer (taking a single line from an argument and making a childish reply)

Now that you know, you can avoid such forum behaviour in the future

You'll never take Stannis Baratheon down anyway, he survived the War of the Five Kings he defeated the King beyond the Wall and he's going to destroy the Boltons with ease then go on to kill The Great Other in single-combat.

[fassreiter]

A good king listens to his subjects now and then, and they were demanding burnings. Well, they got them.

Did I really read this???

[Jayaris]

But again, you are contradicting yourself. Stannis decided to rebel against the Targaryens despite knowing that Aerys was the rightful king. Part of his reasoning was that Aerys was a bad king and no longer deserved to sit on the throne. But Stannis doesn't want to be king because he would be a better king than Aerys/Joffrey/Tommen (this was actually Renly's reason for seeking the kingship). Stannis wants to be king because he feels it is his

right

. That is the

only

reason. He would be waging this war even if he were as bad as Joffrey, and what's more, he would expect his people to accept him despite any cruelty he might possess. And that's only natural. Kings are the first people to believe in their own legitimacy.

And that is my point. Stannis's right to the throne has nothing to do with whether he would be a good king. Westeros is a not a meritocracy. It's irrelevant to his claims. He's not telling people to support him because he's got a strong sense of justice, because he hates corruption, or because he's just a swell guy. He's demanding fealty because of his

blood

. So whether he's better or worse than Joffrey is not relevant to Stannis himself.

Do you have a quote where Stannis says that he rebelled because Aerys was a bad guy? As far as I understood it he choose to support his brother it had nothing to do with Aerys' eligibility as a ruler.

[Vandalism]

One for the unsung, one for the profoundly badass, one for Stannis Baratheon! Stannis FTW! His is the Fury!

The rescue of the Night's Watch was what made him true King. Stannis FTW!

[David Selig]

Renly was a Rebel according to the law who has nothing to offer to Stannis. Stannis showed him mercy with his terms, for the punishment for rebels is either death or being sent off to the wall. He did not steal those lords, they were his due to vow they swore, it was Renly who stole them so he could start a rebellion and kill his brother.

No they weren't, they swore a vow to Renly who was their liege lord.

[bbqq]

No they weren't, they swore a vow to Renly who was their liege lord.

Yeah, they went to Stannis and swore a vow to him, after Renly died. What on earth do people mean by 'steal them'? He didn't grab them from the noble house shelf and stuff them down his breeches.

[Inara]

Do you have a quote where Stannis says that he rebelled because Aerys was a bad guy? As far as I understood it he choose to support his brother it had nothing to do with Aerys' eligibility as a ruler.

You might be right. I stated that from memory and don't remember the exact details of his conversation with Davos. But if that is the case, then it makes Stannis's ground much more shaky because that means he rebelled not out of a moral duty to save the people of Westeros from an insane king (which certain people have asserted on this thread) but because of loyalty to his elder brother. That is understandable in nine men out of ten. It would be difficult for anyone to fight against family, which may be why Stannis felt especially betrayed by Renly. It's the same as when minor lords obey their liege lord and not the king (example - House Mallister rebelled with Hoster Tully against Aerys while House Darry did not).

However, the problem stems from the fact that Stannis himself expects people to follow him regardless of what their families and liege lords are doing. I don't have my copy with me, but I recall someone explaining to Stannis why most Stormlords followed Renly despite Stannis having a better claim by blood.

[MadMage]

Some major misconceptions throughout the thread, it never ceases to amaze me when people claim the right based on the book while never even bothering to confirm if they were in the first place.

Firstly, in a feudal society, a lord also has responsibilities to those beneath him. It is part of the social contract that allows that society to exist. Aerys II broke the social contract between himself and the Starks when he killed Eddard's father without cause and Rhaegar left with Lyanna without her family's consent. When the king demanded Ned and Robert to be brought before him, Jon Arryn broke the contract because he (most likely rightfully) believed a similar fate was waiting for them. He was responsible for their well-being as they were his wards. Robert's betrothal to Lyanna being compromised by Rhaegar's actions caused Robert to be considered wronged by his liege and thus potentially free of the social contract. So the Starks have a strong case for "rebellion" while the Baratheons case was somewhat weaker. Jon Arryn's rebellion was based on what he thought was his moral right.

To the poster that stated that Stannis drew his sword on Renly after Renly's insult, here is the passage in question:

Renly’s hand slid inside his cloak. Stannis saw, and reached at once for the hilt of his sword, but before he could draw steel his brother produced . . . a peach. -ACOK p415

Stannis reached for his sword in reaction to his belief that Renly was drawing his own sword. He later drew his sword after giving Renly multiple warnings to stop insulting him which he did not heed. The last straw being the comment that Patchface fathered Shireen. And even then it was to issue his ultimatum and not swung to kill nor injure:

“As to your daughter, I understand. If my wife looked like yours, I’d send my fool to service her as well.”

“Enough!” Stannis roared. “I will not be mocked to my face, do you hear me? I will not!” He yanked his longsword from its scabbard. The steel gleamed strangely bright in the wan sunlight, now red, now yellow, now blazing white. The air around it seemed to shimmer, as if from heat.

Catelyn’s horse whinnied and backed away a step, but Brienne moved between the brothers, her own blade in hand. “Put up your steel!” she shouted at Stannis.

Cersei Lannister is laughing herself breathless, Catelyn thought wearily.

Stannis pointed his shining sword at his brother. “I am not without mercy,” thundered he who was notoriously without mercy. “Nor do I wish to sully Lightbringer with a brother’s blood. For the sake of the mother who bore us both, I will give you this night to rethink your folly, Renly. Strike your banners and come to me before dawn, and I will grant you Storm’s End and your old seat on the council and even name you my heir until a son is born to me. Otherwise, I shall destroy you.

As for Stannis' reasons to take the throne:

“I have no quarrel with Renly, should he prove dutiful. I am his elder, and his king. I want only what is mine by rights. Renly owes me loyalty and obedience. I mean to have it. From him, and from these other lords.” -ACOK: p401

“Why would you want it, then?” Davos asked him.“It is not a question of wanting. The throne is mine, as Robert’s heir. That is law. After me, it must pass to my daughter, unless Selyse should finally give me a son.” He ran three fingers lightly down the table, over the layers of smooth hard varnish, dark with age. “I am king. Wants do not enter into it. I have a duty to my daughter. To the realm. Even to Robert. He loved me but little, I know, yet he was my brother. The Lannister woman gave him horns and made a motley fool of him. She may have murdered him as well, as she murdered Jon Arryn and Ned Stark. For such crimes there must be justice. Starting with Cersei and her abominations. But only starting. I mean to scour that court clean. As Robert should have done, after the Trident. Ser Barristan once told me that the rot in King Aerys’s reign began with Varys. The eunuch should never have been pardoned. No more than the Kingslayer. At the least, Robert should have stripped the white cloak from Jaime and sent him to the Wall, as Lord Stark urged. He listened to Jon Arryn instead. I was still at Storm’s End, under siege and unconsulted.” - ASOS p473

His argument for his claim is that he is rightful king by the laws of the realm as Robert's children are not his own but Jaime's. What he wants to do once he is king is to bring justice to the realm and ferret out corruption. While one could argue that in the first passage he is trying to convince Catelyn of the righteousness of his cause, he has no reason to do so in private when speaking with Davos who just mere seconds before said he was Stannis' man and would allow his tongue to be cut off as it belonged to Stannis.

Contrast that to Renly:

“If you have proposals to make, make them,” Stannis said brusquely, “or I will be gone.”

“Very well,” said Renly. “I propose that you dismount, bend your knee, and swear me your allegiance.”

Stannis choked back rage. “That you shall never have.”

“You served Robert, why not me?”

“Robert was my elder brother. You are the younger.”

“Younger, bolder, and far more comely . . .”

“. . . and a thief and a usurper besides.”

Renly shrugged. “The Targaryens called Robert usurper. He seemed to be able to bear the shame. So shall I.” -ACOK p414

(snip)

“All this of snakes and incest is droll, but it changes nothing. You may well have the better claim, Stannis, but I still have the larger army.” -ACOK p415

(snip)

“That was amusing, if not terribly profitable,” he commented. “I wonder where I can get a sword like that? Well, doubtless Loras will make me a gift of it after the battle. It grieves me that it must come to this.”

“You have a cheerful way of grieving,” said Catelyn, whose distress was not feigned.

“Do I?” Renly shrugged. “So be it. Stannis was never the most cherished of brothers, I confess. Do you suppose this tale of his is true? If Joffrey is the Kingslayer’s get—”

“—your brother is the lawful heir.”

“While he lives,” Renly admitted. “Though it’s a fool’s law, wouldn’t you agree? Why the oldest son, and not the best-fitted? The crown will suit me, as it never suited Robert and would not suit Stannis. I have it in me to be a great king, strong yet generous, clever, just, diligent, loyal to my friends and terrible to my enemies, yet capable of forgiveness, patient—” -ACOK p416

So yes, Renly did not give much care for Stannis' well-being as he feigned distress at the end of the encounter unlike Catelyn.

To those blaming Stannis for not going to Robert directly:

“Lord Stannis,” she asked, “if you knew the queen to be guilty of such monstrous crimes, why did you keep silent?”

“I did not keep silent,” Stannis declared. “I brought my suspicions to Jon Arryn.”

“Rather than your own brother?”

“My brother’s regard for me was never more than dutiful,” said Stannis. “From me, such accusations would have seemed peevish and self-serving, a means of placing myself first in the line of succession. I believed Robert would be more disposed to listen if the charges came from Lord Arryn, whom he loved.” -ACOK p415

As for Stannis being a hypocrit, etc. As a Stannis fan, I recognize that he is. The difference between others and himself is he doesn't want to be but he is compelled to such acts. Stannis' story arc is that he must wage the moral battle between acting ethically right all the time vs doing what is right in the long run. This struggle is externalized since we aren't afforded a Stannis POV through Davos' counsel acting as his conscience and Melisandre's temptations. For those of you familiar with Dungeons and Dragons, Stannis tries or wants to act like a Paladin, but falls short (to varying degrees) of that almost impossible ideal. The other would-be kings with perhaps the exception of Robb make no such efforts so for that he is commendable.

To the poster that stated that Stannis only went to the Wall solely because Melisandre consented to it is wrong as was pointed out. However, remember that he wasn't aware of the plea sent by the Night's Watch:

"Davos suddenly realized just what he was reading. He turned the letter over, and saw that the wax that had sealed it had been black. “This is from the Night’s Watch. Maester, has King Stannis seen this letter?”“I brought it to Lord Alester when it first arrived. He was the Hand then. I believed he discussed it with the queen. When I asked him if he wished to send a reply, he told me not to be a fool. ‘His Grace lacks the men to fight his own battles, he has none to waste on wildlings,’ he said to me.” That was true enough. And this talk of five kings would certainly have angered Stannis. “Only a starving man begs bread from a beggar,” he muttered." -ASOS p696

This implies that Stannis was never made aware of the letter.

[LuisDantas]

I'm sorry, but do you get paid to lower the standards of this discussion or what? If so you deserve a bonus...

It was a very honest statement. Sorry if it did not come out that way, but it is the best I can make of that post.

[LuisDantas]

I think 'what he did there' was to reverse your argument You made an assertion with nothing to back it up He made an assertion with nothing to back it up You've also done something even lamer (taking a single line from an argument and making a childish reply) Now that you know, you can avoid such forum behaviour in the future You'll never take Stannis Baratheon down anyway, he survived the War of the Five Kings he defeated the King beyond the Wall and he's going to destroy the Boltons with ease then go on to kill The Great Other in single-combat.

If at this point you really think that way, there is really no chance of reaching any kind of meaningful agreement.

[MadMage]

As for Stannis being consciously complicit in Renly's murder, twice he denies it to Davos along with his feelings about it:

"He fell silent for a moment, brooding on his plans for justice. And then, abruptly, he said, “What do the smallfolk say of Renly’s death?”“They grieve. Your brother was well loved.”“Fools love a fool,” grumbled Stannis, “but I grieve for him as well. For the boy he was, not the man he grew to be.” He was silent for a time, and then he said, “How did the commons take the news of Cersei’s incest?” - ACOK p516

(snip)

Stannis only seemed to half hear him. “I have no doubt that Cersei had a hand in Robert’s death. I will have justice for him. Aye, and for Ned Stark and Jon Arryn as well.”“And for Renly?” The words were out before Davos could stop to consider them.For a long time the king did not speak. Then, very softly, he said, “I dream of it sometimes. Of Renly’s dying. A green tent, candles, a woman screaming. And blood.” Stannis looked down at his hands. “I was still abed when he died. Your Devan will tell you. He tried to wake me. Dawn was nigh and my lords were waiting, fretting. I should have been ahorse, armored. I knew Renly would attack at break of day. Devan says I thrashed and cried out, but what does it matter? It was a dream. I was in my tent when Renly died, and when I woke my hands were clean.”Ser Davos Seaworth could feel his phantom fingertips start to itch. Something is wrong here, the onetime smuggler thought. Yet he nodded and said, “I see.”“Renly offered me a peach. At our parley. Mocked me, defied me, threatened me, and offered me a peach. I thought he was drawing a blade and went for mine own. Was that his purpose, to make me show fear? Or was it one of his pointless jests? When he spoke of how sweet the peach was, did his words have some hidden meaning?” The king gave a shake of his head, like a dog shaking a rabbit to snap its neck. “Only Renly could vex me so with a piece of fruit. He brought his doom on himself with his treason, but I did love him, Davos. I know that now. I swear, I will go to my grave thinking of my brother’s peach.” -ACOK p517-518

(snip)

“Maester Cressen was your faithful servant. She slew him, as she killed Ser Cortnay Penrose and your brother Renly.”“Now you sound a fool,” the king complained. “She saw Renly’s end in the flames, yes, but she had no more part in it than I did. The priestess was with me. Your Devan would tell you so. Ask him, if you doubt me. She would have spared Renly if she could. It was Melisandre who urged me to meet with him, and give him one last chance to amend his treason. And it was Melisandre who told me to send for you when Ser Axell wished to give you to R’hllor.” He smiled thinly. “Does that surprise you?” -ASOS p474

So Stannis does express remorse for his brother's death, but he remains ignorant or unwilling to connect the dots as it were. Davos and Stannis often speak of truth being hard to swallow. This is a case of Stannis's ignorance or refusal to conclude the truth be it conscious or subconscious is a coping mechanism.