WeirwoodTreeHugger Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 -Offers to name him his heir until a son is born to him-Offers to give him his old seat back on the council-He'd be able to keep SEHow much more could Stannis have offered him? Offering does nothing, since Renly was seeking such a high position.Exactly. For those of you who are convinced that Stannis could've used negotiation to get Renly to drop his claim; What do you propose Stannis should have offered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Som Tin Wong Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Make Renly the King of the Storm Lands.ETA: And legalise same sex marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dornishman's Wife Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Make Renly the King of the Storm Lands.No way Renly would have accepted. He was confident he could be King of the Seven Kingdoms (and considering his pov, that was not an unreasonable expectation), why would he settle for just one of the seven? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Nastja Posted August 18, 2013 Author Share Posted August 18, 2013 And legalise same sex marriage.Stannis would never have agreed to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Lannister Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 my problem with renly's death is the way it went about. i can suspend disbelief for a lot of the things that happen in this series. but the shadow assassin thing was completely ridiculous. it was the most deus ex machina thing i'd ever come across, and i still resent it as a plot point more than anything else in the series.I didn't think it was that jarring. It was already established that the red witch has power; and that moreover, a guy like Stannis was convinced of it. There was always a sense foreboding about what exactly she brought to Stannis's arsenal that inspired his confidence, and we got a glimpse of it through the shadow children.OT, Renly was a massive tool and set a very dangerous precedent. He had it coming IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Nastja Posted August 18, 2013 Author Share Posted August 18, 2013 Exactly. For those of you who are convinced that Stannis could've used negotiation to get Renly to drop his claim; What do you propose Stannis should have offered?Precisely. He offered more than Renly deserved, there was nought else he could do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeirwoodTreeHugger Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Make Renly the King in the Storm Lands.And legalise same sex marriage.Renly didn't even want to settle for just king in the South with Robb as king in the North. No way would he settle for just king of the Stormlands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Urgandy Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Stannis believed he was the rightful King, Renly knew he wasn't the rightful King. The laws of succession are in place to prevent wars breaking out after a King dies, Stannis is already beating himself up by opening the floodgates to the likes of Renly when he helped Robert win the throne over the rightful King Rheagar. If he allows Renly to take the throne because "I have a bigger army, Robert did it, so can I" then what happens when all the Lords get bored of Renly or he dies and another handsome Lord with charisma and good connections decides to do a Renly? Stannis believes he is King by right, the only way to ensure a long-term peace is for him to sit the Throne, otherwise it is wide open to any Warlord with a vague claim.Plus the line of succession would go Robert - Stannis - Shireen - Renly. Even Maester Aemon had to go to the wall so that Egg's enemies couldn't use him against him, if Stannis abdicates then he has to go a long way away and take his family with him, or more likely he fights Renlys battles and ends up with Heartsbane shoved through his back due to nobody wanting him around, either way he risks someone deciding Shireen should be Queen and getting her killed, or more likely a Shireen poisoning from the Tyrells before anybody has a chance to act. Renlys already shown himself to be a monster more than once, he didnt give a fuck about Danearys, he casually talked about bumping Joffrey off should he prove troublesome when offering Ned the chance to control the kid he thought was his nefew. Stannis knows his brother, and he knows that if he abdicates or dies Shireen is in mortal danger as the real rightful Queen. Way I see it, he was backed into a corner.The only question to my mind is, did any of the above actually spring to Stannis' mind when dealing with Renly? Or was it just a blunt case of "I am King, you aint, fuck off!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Hero Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 So it is Renly's fault that Stannis does not have the sense to seek an understanding?I wish you people convinced my relatives with similar arguments. I could use them giving me everything I want.The elder does not bow to the younger, a king does not bow to the usurper or to a traitor, to break the law is to have no law, we have laws in place for a reason without them the world would be a more chaotic place. The one with no sense of reason is Renly, he knows Stannis is the rightful King, but because he thinks he is a better candidate he trumps Stannis?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Som Tin Wong Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 The one with no sense of reason is Renly, he knows Stannis is the rightful King, but because he thinks he is a better candidate he trumps Stannis?....He didn't know Stannis was the rightful king. As far as Renly was concerned they were both usurpers, so why should he step aside for Stannis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Red Melli Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 He didn't know Stannis was the rightful king. As far as Renly was concerned they were both usurpers, so why should he step aside for Stannis?He knew Stannis was his older brother but he didn't cared for the line of succession Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Som Tin Wong Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 He knew Stannis was his older brother but he didn't cared for the line of successionThere is no such thing as line of succession when you're usurping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Hero Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 He didn't know Stannis was the rightful king. As far as Renly was concerned they were both usurpers, so why should he step aside for Stannis?Oh he knew, Cat confirmed it for him right before he died, unless he's blindly ignored it or just didn't care, either way if he believed it or not he's still a traitor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Red Melli Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 There is no such thing as line of succession when you're usurping.That's why I said he didn't cared for the line of succession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeirwoodTreeHugger Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Renly knew Stannis wouldn't step aside for him. By declaring in the first place he put both brothers in a position where one of them was going to become a kinslayer.I really don't buy this notion that Renly had no idea Joffrey was illegitimate. Stannis wouldn't rebel against Joffrey for no good reason. Renly was a small council member. He would've know Jon Arryn and Stannis were investigating something. He known Ned was suspicious about the cause of Jon's death. He would've known Ned wouldn't attempt to throw out Joffrey for no reason. It's also hard to believe Varys and/or Littlefinger never included Renly in their missions to sow discord. Wouldn't they have said things to Renly that would lead him to believe something wasn't quite right? Renly may not have the most brilliant thinker of all time, but he wasn't as oblivious as Robert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dead Wolf Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Renly might have died in the battle anyway. He was going to attack at an hour chosen by Stannis, charging into the rising sun and being blinded, giving his vanguard to an inexperienced boy, and assumed that Stannis was just going to sit there and be slaughtered. I don't really fault Stannis, who showed obvious remorse about Renly's death, for letting Melisandre kill him, Renly was an idiot who went to war because he thought it would be fun and would have gotten thousands more killed in the process that needed to be had the battle gone ahead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucidize Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 I like Stannis as a character, I really do, but killing Renly in the way he did is just plainly wrong. And yes, I'm specifically talking about the method here because it really makes a difference.Yes, Stannis was ahead of Renly in succession, but that does not mean that Stannis was "in the right to kill him" or that they were "at war" at the time.Ok, so the punishment for treason is death, but Renly wasn't given a trial and he wasn't sentenced, obviously. He wasn't killed on the battlefield either, so you can't really argue that death is just something that happens in war.If Stannis had killed Renly either way, I would have been ok with it. Renly did not have a chance to defend himself. How is that fair? (If a cop poisoned a murder suspect in his sleep, would it be ok if the suspect was guilty? No!) Especially disturbing since Stannis is supposedly so just...And I don't buy the excuse that Stannis did not know what Melisandre would do. He knew exactly what he was bargaining for, and in that respect, he's just as guilty as if he had stabbed Renly himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent_Hero Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 I like Stannis as a character, I really do, but killing Renly in the way he did is just plainly wrong. And yes, I'm specifically talking about the method here because it really makes a difference.Yes, Stannis was ahead of Renly in succession, but that does not mean that Stannis was "in the right to kill him" or that they were "at war" at the time.Ok, so the punishment for treason is death, but Renly wasn't given a trial and he wasn't sentenced, obviously. He wasn't killed on the battlefield either, so you can't really argue that death is just something that happens in war.If Stannis had killed Renly either way, I would have been ok with it. Renly did not have a chance to defend himself. How is that fair? (If a cop poisoned a murder suspect in his sleep, would it be ok if the suspect was guilty? No!) Especially disturbing since Stannis is supposedly so just...And I don't buy the excuse that Stannis did not know what Melisandre would do. He knew exactly what he was bargaining for, and in that respect, he's just as guilty as if he had stabbed Renly himself.Why would there be need for a trial? Renly declared himself King and raised an army, he was fair game, and Stannis made him pay for that...cheaply. So he was assassinated, to the advantage and benefit of Stannis, would you rather he died on the privy? It's war and Renly would have done the same to Stannis, there are no rules in war, dead is dead, a kills a kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucidize Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Why would there be need for a trial? Renly declared himself King and raised an army, he was fair game, and Stannis made him pay for that...cheaply. So he was assassinated, to the advantage and benefit of Stannis, would you rather he died on the privy? It's war and Renly would have done the same to Stannis, there are no rules in war, dead is dead, a kills a kill.Still doesn't make it morally right. And you're wrong, there are rules in war, e.g. declarations of war and truces and so on. Of course, that doen't mean that everyone respects them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Selig Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 That is what stannis is preventing. All out war every time a king dies as all his kids scramble for the throne.Stannis winning the throne would increase the chance of this happening, any ambitious uncle or younger brother would feel he has a chance, Claiming his nephews or brothers aren't legitimate is the oldest trick in the book in such cases. Stannis had no proof for his claims.I would.Yes.Absolutely I would That's disgusting. Murdering your own brother for a crown and because of blatantly unfair and arbitrary law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.