Stannis is the One True King

[mcb]

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!”

The poster you're replying to would be me, I believe. So since you've read my post, I cannot help but applaud your careful editing: you know that insult thrown by Renly was a direct riposte to another insult thrown by Stannis just one line of text earlier, yet you surgically cut that out to make Stannis look like the unoffending, injured party. When you well know that was not the case.

And that's why I'm not going to engage in discussing the issue with you.

[MadMage]

The poster you're replying to would be me, I believe. So since you've read my post, I cannot help but applaud your careful editing: you know that insult thrown by Renly was a direct riposte to another insult thrown by Stannis just one line of text earlier, yet you surgically cut that out to make Stannis look like the unoffending, injured party. When you well know that was not the case. And that's why I'm not going to engage in discussing the issue with you.

Yes, because Renly didn't at all insult Stannis before which was implied by the fact I stated Stannis issued multiple warnings, or that he never drew his sword with the intention to attack Renly without cause which you purported initially. In first instance, he reached to defend himself, the 2nd was issue an ultimatum.

Further, Stannis' insult was not one but calling Renly out on the fact he is gay. Which is heavily implied, and if anyone would know it's Renly, to be true. On the other hand, Renly is insulting Stannis' wife in the fact she is ugly, and that Stannis would order Patchface to pleasure her which he is purposefully doing to either A) deflect attention away from his homosexuality, B) insult Stannis, C) both.

Some of the earlier insults could be found quoted in the same post but I wasn't going to bother requoting it twice since it would be redundant. So please, spare us the false righteous indignation.

[bbqq]

The poster you're replying to would be me, I believe. So since you've read my post, I cannot help but applaud your careful editing: you know that insult thrown by Renly was a direct riposte to another insult thrown by Stannis just one line of text earlier, yet you surgically cut that out to make Stannis look like the unoffending, injured party. When you well know that was not the case. And that's why I'm not going to engage in discussing the issue with you.

Well, if we're not ignoring Stannis' insult, let's also not ignore the two pages of Renly being a complete and utter douchebag.

[mcb]

Well, if we're not ignoring Stannis' insult, let's also not ignore the two pages of Renly being a complete and utter douchebag.

OF COURSE he was a douchebag. He's a Baratheon, after all.

Have I ever claimed that Renly wasn't a douchebag?

[bbqq]

OF COURSE he was a douchebag. He's a Baratheon, after all. Have I ever claimed that Renly wasn't a douchebag?

I don't know whether you've claimed Renly wasn't a douchebag, and my post had little to do with whether you have or haven't. I was simply saying, we can't take Renly's last insult or Stannis' last insult from the conversation, without considering the rest of it - Stannis being moody, and Renly being a douchebag.

[StannisandDaeny]

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

A liege lord who is sworn to the King, hence tying them to Stannis.

[Talleyrand]

A liege lord who is sworn to the King, hence tying them to Stannis.

Except Renly never swore fealty to Stannis, hence your argument makes no sense.

[StannisandDaeny]

Stannis *is* King. Therefore they are his subjects. Refusing to swear fealty makes them rebels.

you were the one saying that a person who does things should expect to be rewarded.

Deserve to be rewarded. What King Stannis himself thinks of it is irrelevant to our judgement that he's received *nothing* for his loyalty to the realm.

I already told you Tywin got more than he deserved for his 'support' of Robert's rebellion (Cersei married Robert) and nowhere it is written supporting a new king you share no bloodline with somehow gives you the right to put siblings of your family on the throne. What kind of 'reward' to expect is also relevant. And how Tywin did it *is* relevant. Someone who commits the crimes Tywin committed deserves nothing at all, no matter how important they may have been. Besides he only chose sides when he knew which side was going to win.

You're implying Robert was generous to King Stannis and should put children in command of the Kingdom's frontiers with the Targaryen threat at their doorstep? Hahahaha. Sorry, give me a second. *breaks into maniacal laughter* Dragonstone *was* given to the heir (Stannis) so I don't see what's your problem.

other people do far worse things

That gives King Stannis his moral high ground. Also, open your eyes to the amount of choice Stannis has compared to the other players: Team Lannister / Tyrell / Frey / Bolton had the means to fight an honest war and win, yet they still resorted to the Red Wedding. Stannis on the other hand, has always been extremely limited in the choices he's able to make. Even after he had gathered some of Renly's host he had virtually no army (he was still outnumbered more than 1 to 4), yet he chooses to fight fairly and leave Melisandre behind.

power does make right

Following this is again, something that makes me wonder how it can possibly be conveyed by someone who actually wants to believe in it. Basically what you're saying is the Nazis were also right in killing the Jews simply because the Jews couldn't protect themselves. Power does not make right. Law makes right. Law is there to make sure man is not locked into an eternal violent struggle. That people do not respect the law doesn't make them right.

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?

I'm sure putting the people whose family you've just murdered on the throne will ensure lasting peace!

Aerys lost his legitimacy due to his incompetence and his crimes. King Stannis on the other hand, has done nothing wrong. That is the difference.

People's reasons for hating him are no less valid than your reasons for loving him.

Yes they are. I was talking about the characters in the books: they have no concrete things to hold against King Stannis save a general dislike based on... well, nothing other than bias and the fact they know nothing about him because he's not a public figure.

Thanks for those last paragraphs, I'm going to redirect anyone who accuses Stannis' behaviour there. Because as it stands, you're pretty much admitting he'd be a better King and saying anything he might have done wrong is irrelevant. Then there's his blood and his rightful claim to top it off. What I was saying was that I think it was his realization of just how bad the Lannisters were (especially after they murdered his brother and Ned Stark) to finally make his claim. Before that he showed them mercy like Ned did and didn't tell Robert.

[Talleyrand]

I'm not a Targ supporter but some of Stannis fans' arguments against Dany sitting on the throne baffle.

She should have to prove herself before she has a right to sit on the throne? How has Stannis ever proven himself to be a good leader? He spits in the face of the vast majority of his subjects by burning their Septs and Idols. He allows men like Ser Hubbard and his sons to be cut down or burned to death simply for standing up for their faith. He allowed this war to happen by keeping the information about Joffrey's parentage to himself until after everything had already kicked off, when it could benefit him the most. Either he knowingly uses dark magic to kinslay, breaking previously made agreements and traditions, similar to the things that Frey and Bolton get so much hassle for. Or he is strategically and idiot.

None of these things sound like stuff I'd like in a king.

[Talleyrand]

Stannis *is* King. Therefore they are his subjects. Refusing to swear fealty makes them rebels.

No it doesn't. Someone cannot be your subject if they never swore fealty to you. Simply saying you are King does not mean everyone owes you fealty, especially when your entire argument for why you should be King is something you have no evidence for.

[StannisandDaeny]

The books and the law in the books is my evidence. You're simply seeing past it because you don't like Stannis. Swearing fealty to Robert means you're also swearing (future) fealty to his heirs, otherwise there would be war after each succession. It's the law, meant to prevent conflicts like the War Of Five Kings when narcissistic bastards like Renly think they would make a better King and declare war for no reason.

Eh, I've already covered most of that in previous posts, not going to repeat myself. I'm currently not considering Daeny a player because she hasn't moved to Westeros yet. When she does, I hope Stannis will be on the throne and forge some sort of truce with her rather than fight her. As rigid as you may think he is his hesitation to fight Aerys actually hints this might be possible. Daeny has several more problems to overcome if she wants to rule, but that's for another topic.

[CrypticWeirwood]

C.J. Chesterton once observed that children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.

Stannis offers commoners and children the face of justice, but it is a harsh and even a cruel justice that is untempered by mercy.

It is therefore no wonder that so few flock to his banners. Justice is not a virtue, but mercy is.

[Talleyrand]

The books and the law in the books is my evidence. You're simply seeing past it because you don't like Stannis. Swearing fealty to Robert means you're also swearing (future) fealty to his heirs, otherwise there would be war after each succession. It's the law, meant to prevent conflicts like the War Of Five Kings when narcissistic bastards like Renly think they would make a better King and declare war for no reason.

And Joffrey is Robert's heir. We know otherwise but Stannis can't prove so, to everyone else he's just a grumpy ambitious uncle who is telling everyone a tale that happens to benefit him hugely.

Legal right means nothing in Westeros and RL Middle Ages.

Aegon didn't become King of the Seven Kingdoms because it was his right, he became King for the same reason Daeron retained his throne against Daemon and for the same reason Robert took the throne: Because his armies defeated his enemies. And if Stannis wants to be King he's going to actually have to start winning.

[Jayaris]

The books and the law in the books is my evidence. You're simply seeing past it because you don't like Stannis. Swearing fealty to Robert means you're also swearing (future) fealty to his heirs, otherwise there would be war after each succession. It's the law, meant to prevent conflicts like the War Of Five Kings when narcissistic bastards like Renly think they would make a better King and declare war for no reason.

Your Lord swears fealty to the King, you swear fealty to your Lord. If your Lord goes against the King you are supposed to follow your Lord, since Renly was the Lord of Storm's End his men were right in supporting him.

[fassreiter]

I know I am going to get my ass kicked for this post by Stannis-fans, and I won't be able to make them share my doubts (I already tried a couple of times), but here it goes anyway: I don't think GRRM wants us to think Stannis is the one true king. Maybe he is the next best thing among all the contenders, but I believe that GRRM strategically threw in some interesting tropes to make us doubt if Stannis is indeed the king he thinks he should be. I am not trying to make up a theory that Stannis is evil or has bad intentions. But as a modern reader, who shares basic knowledge of the common depictions of totalitarian regimes of our times (in historiography, iconography and literature), reading ASOIAF made me wonder why GRRM uses so much of them when writing about Stannis. Here they are:

- Stannis stages elaborately organized public executions that are not only particularly gruesome, but also meant to 'teach' a lesson to his enemies (show trials)

- Stannis has a secret intelligence force in Melisandre, who can see "into the hearts and minds" of people. She can tell who is going to stand against his cause even before they do. People know that in her presence they have to control their thoughts (thought police?).

- Stannis demands all-encompassing surrender to his cause (black and white politics, "who is not with me is against me")

- Stannis stages himself as the only one who holds true to morality in a world full of corruption. He wants to end corruption by building up a new state of law and order (which is, and has always been, the standard line of argument in every single dictatorship of the 20th century, by the way), while at the same time is merrily creating fake relics and comitting adultery (for the greater good, of course, which is also a standard argument of your common modern dictator).

- Stannis relies on a personal cult, claiming he is Azor Ahai. He is supposedly the only one who can save mankind.

- Stannis has an inner circle of fanatic followers who perform regular, nightly rituals that include flaming torches and chanting in unison (reminds me of something...)

- Stannis does not only demand personal obedience from his subjects, he plans to actively reform their private life, from dictating the religion they have to follow to banning brothels. He wants to monitor his subjects as closely as he can.

- Last but not least, the slogan "one god, one king, one realm" is all I needed to hear. Combined with people marching up, bearing flaming torches and chanting that slogan in unison - seriously, this is about as subtle as... I don't know, a little moustache maybe?

Now, before you throw yourselves at me in fury: I didn't claim that Stannis is actively trying to establish a totalitarian regime or a dictatorship. This is a medieval story, after all. I am just struck by all the tropes of totalitarian societies that seem to come up in his presence. Is GRRM really that ignorant that he wouldn't recognize this imagery? I don't think so. On top of the dictatorship-imagery, we also have:

- murdering your own brother (yeah, I know: Renly deserved it and all is fair in love and war. Still, I am not impressed)

- attempting to murder three further contenders for the throne by blood magic (I don't care if it worked or not, he hoped it would)

- thinking about burning a child alive (yeah, in the end he didn't, but what do you think is the reason GRRM made it such an important point that Stannis refused to call the boy by his name?)

- human sacrifice (HUMAN SACRIFICE, for gods' sakes!)

- a bunch of stupid, greedy and/or cruel counselors and administrators (just look at that disgusting Florent who watched his brother being burned at the stake with glee - why didn't he sent that one to some place far away instead of relying on his advice?), with Davos being the one and only exception.

- holding some very annoying sentiments about what women should do or not do (yeah, I know it's supposed to be 'normal' medieval misogyny, but please note that none of our favourite role models in the series think that way: look at Ned and Jon supporting Arya in her wish to fight with weapons etc.)

- being a lousy husband and an emotionally distracted father.

- being pouty and easily offended, holding grudges and feeling cheated all the time.

So I like Stannis as a character, he provides a very interesting persona, and I won't deny he does what he does with all the best of intentions. Still, how does anyone expect him to be a good king???? Where does the love come from all of a sudden? Is it the law-and-order-mentality, or because he is the only one still fighting the fight, or... I can't come up with any reasons, really. I think GRRM made Stannis claim to the thone legitimate not to make him sit upon the throne, but to show us just another aspect of power-discourse (which is the underlying theme to the series, I believe): Stannis is the role model for good intentions gone bad, a legitimate claim being corrupted by power struggles, a sense of justice being turned into a rule of tyranny. I can't think of any other reason GRRM would spend so much time depicting Stannis' questionable political framework, from burning people (screaming for mercy for pages and pages!) to his fake signs of saviourism. I think he is heading for Night's King on a direct road. After he crushed the Boltons (and he will), I think we might come to wish he didn't. I also believe there is a little something to be settled between him and Jon, concerning Robb and a certain burning leech Jon still has to learn about.

[Jayaris]

I know I am going to get my ass kicked for this post by Stannis-fans, and I won't be able to make them share my doubts (I already tried a couple of times), but here it goes anyway: I don't think GRRM wants us to think Stannis is the one true king. Maybe he is the next best thing among all the contenders, but I believe that GRRM strategically threw in some interesting tropes to make us doubt if Stannis is indeed the king he thinks he should be. I am not trying to make up a theory that Stannis is evil or has bad intentions. But as a modern reader, who shares basic knowledge of the common depictions of totalitarian regimes of our times (in historiography, iconography and literature), reading ASOIAF made me wonder why GRRM uses so much of them when writing about Stannis. Here they are:

- Stannis stages elaborately organized public executions that are not only particularly gruesome, but also meant to 'teach' a lesson to his enemies (show trials)

Since when did burning someone alive requite elaborate organization, all of the crimes he killed people for are punishable by death - Personally I think burning them alive is the preferred method, it keeps people warm during Winter time and you don't have the body to clean up afterwards.

- Stannis has a secret intelligence force in Melisandre, who can see "into the hearts and minds" of people. She can tell who is going to stand against his cause even before they do. People know that in her presence they have to control their thoughts (thought police?).

Haha, Melisandre might be able to predict some things - But, there is nothing to suggest she can accurately read minds or thoughts. There are plenty of posts talking about how incompetent she is. Melisandre has been a good friend to Stannis, she provides him with sex, advice and useful prophetic intelligence it would be very ungrateful for him to get rid of her.

- Stannis demands all-encompassing surrender to his cause (black and white politics, "who is not with me is against me")

Yet when Jon refused to support him he didn't kill him, most of the people who weren't with him were against him. And you have to kill people who are against you in Westeros.

- Stannis stages himself as the only one who holds true to morality in a world full of corruption. He wants to end corruption by building up a new state of law and order (which is, and has always been, the standard line of argument in every single dictatorship of the 20th century, by the way), while at the same time is merrily creating fake relics and comitting adultery (for the greater good, of course, which is also a standard argument of your common modern dictator).

I missed the speech where Stannis said he would start a new world order, all I saw was him saying he would clean out Kings Landing - I think you're letting your imagination run wild with these dictatorship comparisons.

- Stannis relies on a personal cult, claiming he is Azor Ahai. He is supposedly the only one who can save mankind.

Stannis doesn't believe he is AA, the northmen don't believe he is AA - Him being AA is not integral to anything, I've never seen him walk up to someone and say "Support me, or the world will end - For I am Azor Azhai come again."

- Stannis has an inner circle of fanatic followers who perform regular, nightly rituals that include flaming torches and chanting in unison (reminds me of something...)

It's winter, ofcourse you need flaming torches and fires - Chanting is good for keeping morale up. Do you want Stannis' people to be miserable? I forgot the High Septon doesn't do any craaaazy stuff.

- Stannis does not only demand personal obedience from his subjects, he plans to actively reform their private life, from dictating the religion they have to follow to banning brothels. He wants to monitor his subjects as closely as he can.

Banning brothels? Oh my! You realize brothels are outlawed in plenty of countries? Talk to me again when he starts forcing Northmen to worship R'hollor

- Last but not least, the slogan "one god, one king, one realm" is all I needed to hear. Combined with people marching up, bearing flaming torches and chanting that slogan in unison - seriously, this is about as subtle as... I don't know, a little moustache maybe?

Laff, hyper-hyperbole is all you're spouting.

Now, before you throw yourselves at me in fury: I didn't claim that Stannis is actively trying to establish a totalitarian regime or a dictatorship. This is a medieval story, after all. I am just struck by all the tropes of totalitarian societies that seem to come up in his presence. Is GRRM really that ignorant that he wouldn't recognize this imagery? I don't think so. On top of the dictatorship-imagery, we also have:

That kind of looks like what you're trying to do, Stannis' current situation requires a dictatorship - He offered his brother his place on the small council, which means he meant to retain the existing government structure beyond removing those within it who are obviously corrupt.

- murdering your own brother (yeah, I know: Renly deserved it and all is fair in love and war. Still, I am not impressed)

I was impressed, that's some neat magic tricks Mel!

- attempting to murder three further contenders for the throne by blood magic (I don't care if it worked or not, he hoped it would)

The same way Jon Snow hoped that something bad would happen to Benjen? He was in a desperate situation and you can look at that and think 'my life would be easier with these Kings' dead, but at the end of the day he didn't think it would work - And it didn't. Mel predicted what would happen and staged the whole process as per usual.

- thinking about burning a child alive (yeah, in the end he didn't, but what do you think is the reason GRRM made it such an important point that Stannis refused to call the boy by his name?)

He didn't want to humanize the situation because he coudn't possibly consider doing it otherwise, as you say he didn't do it.

- human sacrifice (HUMAN SACRIFICE, for gods' sakes!)

What what, killing people is killing people.

- a bunch of stupid, greedy and/or cruel counselors and administrators (just look at that disgusting Florent who watched his brother being burned at the stake with glee - why didn't he sent that one to some place far away instead of relying on his advice?), with Davos being the one and only exception.

He doesn't really have time to find better ones and his pool of candidates is small, when he meets Jon he takes his advice.

- holding some very annoying sentiments about what women should do or not do (yeah, I know it's supposed to be 'normal' medieval misogyny, but please note that none of our favourite role models in the series think that way: look at Ned and Jon supporting Arya in her wish to fight with weapons etc.)

That's the way he was raised and the world he was raised in, Ned grew up with Lyanna.

- being a lousy husband and an emotionally distracted father.

That's a product of arranged marriages.

- being pouty and easily offended, holding grudges and feeling cheated all the time.

Character flaw.

So I like Stannis as a character, he provides a very interesting persona, and I won't deny he does what he does with all the best of intentions. Still, how does anyone expect him to be a good king???? Where does the love come from all of a sudden? Is it the law-and-order-mentality, or because he is the only one still fighting the fight, or... I can't come up with any reasons, really. I think GRRM made Stannis claim to the thone legitimate not to make him sit upon the throne, but to show us just another aspect of power-discourse (which is the underlying theme to the series, I believe): Stannis is the role model for good intentions gone bad, a legitimate claim being corrupted by power struggles, a sense of justice being turned into a rule of tyranny. I can't think of any other reason GRRM would spend so much time depicting Stannis' questionable political framework, from burning people (screaming for mercy for pages and pages!) to his fake signs of saviourism. I think he is heading for Night's King on a direct road. After he crushed the Boltons (and he will), I think we might come to wish he didn't. I also believe there is a little something to be settled between him and Jon, concerning Robb and a certain burning leech Jon still has to learn about.

Stannis wouldn't be the best King ever, but he's above average and that's good enough for me.

[Fearsome Fred]

C.J. Chesterton once observed that children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.

Chesterton has a point, particularly in the context he was discussing, which was taste in stories/literature. However, that point was NOT to argue against the idea of mercy.

Stannis offers commoners and children the face of justice, but it is a harsh and even a cruel justice that is untempered by mercy.

I don't think Chesterton would necessarily disagree that Stannis has shown inadequate appreciation for the virtue of mercy.

It is therefore no wonder that so few flock to his banners. Justice is not a virtue, but mercy is.

Both are virtues, in the right context. Especially when you are King, justice is a duty.

[CrypticWeirwood]

Chesterton has a point, particularly in the context he was discussing, which was taste in stories/literature. However, that point was NOT to argue against the idea of mercy. I don't think Chesterton would necessarily disagree that Stannis has shown inadequate appreciation for the virtue of mercy. Both are virtues, in the right context. Especially when you are King, justice is a duty.

I don’t see how merely doing your appointed duty can be considered a virtue.

[Buried Treasure]

C.J. Chesterton once observed that children are innocent and love justice, while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.

Stannis offers commoners and children the face of justice, but it is a harsh and even a cruel justice that is untempered by mercy.

It is therefore no wonder that so few flock to his banners. Justice is not a virtue, but mercy is.

Certainly this is a factor in why he wins few followers, as is his generally dour personality (from the CoK prologue we know he does not permit laughter during his feasts). The greater reason nobody chose him when they were picking sides is that nobody knew he wanted to play. He sat on Dragonstone for months doing nothing but brooding and thinking how everybody not supporting him was a traitor when maybe four people not on Dragonstone even knew he was the rightful king. Robb had time to call his banners, march south, fight battles and send out ravens proclaiming his kingship before Stannis got around to sending out his letter. Robb gave the lack of a right to the Iron Throne as his reason for not backing Renly. Had he known Stannis, not Joffrey, was Robert's heir he would have backed him as king and they would not have reached the impasse of not having a king to support which was broken by the Greatjon.

I know I am going to get my ass kicked for this post by Stannis-fans, and I won't be able to make them share my doubts (I already tried a couple of times), but here it goes anyway: I don't think GRRM wants us to think Stannis is the one true king. Maybe he is the next best thing among all the contenders, but I believe that GRRM strategically threw in some interesting tropes to make us doubt if Stannis is indeed the king he thinks he should be....

You make a decent argument for Stannis making bad choices as a ruler but thats not the same GRRM demonstrating Stannis is not the true king. I know some people like to argue that the best ruler is the one that should be the rightful ruler but usually the competence of a ruler is not the same discussion as whether they have the right to be wearing the crown.

[Silent_Hero]

Aegon the Conqueror United the Seven Kingdoms and won the right of ruling and fealty for himself and that of his HEIRS. Robert did the same m, and everyone swore their fealty for him and his HEIRS.

Stannis finds out Joffery is a incest twisted Bastard and can't tell Robert because Robert doesn't like him so Stannis tells Jon Arryn, Jon Arryn dies Stannis leaves Stannis sends letters to everyone no one believes him.

Renly the YOUNGER brother of Stannis declares himself a pretender king which silently means the other Kings have to die as there can be one king. As of that moment Stannis isn't a brother so Renlys fair game. Alls fair in love and war right.