Stannis, Renly and kinslaying.

[chrisdaw]

What? Do you hear what you're saying.

You are CONCURRENTLY advocating a strict adherence to a rigidly defined rule of succession AND saying proof and law are meaningless if someone really really believes he's right.

Wow.

Purposeful misrepresent or poor comprehension?

[James Arryn]

Another Reason why Renly would not be leading anyone anywhere. Half the realm knows and makes complete fun of the situation.

That's TV show, not books. Few in the books seem to care, or think it's definitive.

[chrisdaw]

A supposedly just man like Stannis should have some proof if he plans on usurping his nephew. No one is going to believe his letter, it looks like a self serving lie. Honestly if I didn't know for fact Joff, Tommen, and Myrcella were bastards from Jaime and Cersei's POV I wouldn't believe Stannis either with his flimsy evidence.

It's not usurping when he is the king. Renly, you or whichever other rebel can choose not to believe the truth, it makes no difference to what is and no difference to the justice of the situation.

[James Arryn]

Purposeful misrepresent or poor comprehension?

I'll let you decide.

Here's a point: Stannis POV is no more important or meaningful than Joff's or Renly's or anyone else's. Joff truly, really believed he was king.

Stannis beliefs do not make him king. Nor does the fact that his suspicions are mostly correct. Kingship is a political act, not a natural state of being.

Unless you think the current king of England lives in Australia.

Do you?

[IRON BANK]

That's TV show, not books. Few in the books seem to care, or think it's definitive.

most people are aware its suttle nut most know and its definitive when it comes to perception in a closed minded society.

[Boarsbane]

It's not usurping when he is the king. Renly, you or whichever other rebel can choose not to believe the truth, it makes no difference to what is and no difference to the justice of the situation.

It does. Why should anyone accept him as king if he can't prove Robert's kids are bastards?

[IRON BANK]

Just his nephew with no proof. Remember we know for sure Robert's kids are bastards but Stannis does not, and his idea of proof is one of Robert's bastards having black hair and blue eyes, he doesn't even have this kid either.

Stannis is aware and has decided, on your same reasoning Renly should support Stannis or Joffrey. however he crowns himself based on a charade or pretension of power. Which he could not hold or had any right to.

[chrisdaw]

I'll let you decide.

Here's a point: Stannis POV is no more important or meaningful than Joff's or Renly's or anyone else's. Joff truly, really believed he was king.

His POV is more meaningful in that is correct, by law Stannis is king and by law Renly is a traitor and rebel and Stannis is justified by law in his actions. That it happens to be convenient for Stannis that he's correct is irrelevant obfuscation.

[James Arryn]

most people are aware its suttle nut most know and its definitive when it comes to perception in a closed minded society.

Not so.

It's not in any way linked to closed minded societies. It's linked to Judeo-Christian ethics. In the same closed minded societies of Europe pre-Constantine, people were not defined by their gender pretences. In fact, it was not even believed that people were either gay or straight. In Greece, Italy, Egypt, etc. etc. it was a non-consideration. And GRRM knows history. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the 300 Spartans, Achilles, etc. etc....any pre-JC hero you can think of, all at least partly 'gay' by our standards. And no one cared.

So unless Westeros has a Judeo Christian backbone, it's a non-event in exactly the same way it appears to be, rather than as a hidden but deep down understood criticism we read into what isn't in the text.

[Sullen]

Stannis is aware and has decided, on your same reasoning Renly should support Stannis or Joffrey. however he crowns himself based on a charade or pretension of power. Which he could not hold or had any right to.

A ) Renly's claim is not where based on succession, like Stannis's is, his claim is based on power, he has no reason to support Joffrey (who is a Lannister puppet) or Stannis (who doesn't have a claim at the time Renly crowns himself)

Renly sees himself like a smarter version of Robert, Robert sure didn't care about the succession when he crowned himself when technically Viserys was the rightful king, and still in Westeros.

B ) How is Renly's army a "pretension of power"? It was genuine power, and he most likely would have defeated all of his competitors were it not for Stannis diabolus ex vagina.

C ) He could hold on to the power, he had a ginormous army loyal to him, and who's to say that anyone has the right to the Throne? The Lords of the Reach and Stormlands chose Renly as their King, that is enough for him to have a legitimate claim.

[chrisdaw]

It does. Why should anyone accept him as king if he can't prove Robert's kids are bastards?

Their beliefs don't matter. That some do not believe it does not require he prove it to them, what is required of him as the lawful king is that which is required of any monarch, the defense of their realm and reign.

Rebels and traitors will believe what they will.

[James Arryn]

His POV is more meaningful in that is correct, by law Stannis is king and by law Renly is a traitor and rebel and Stannis is justified by law in his actions. That it happens to be convenient for Stannis that he's correct is irrelevant obfuscation.

No, wrong. He is not king by law. Law is not the result of a non-existent 3rd party's omniscient POV.

Law is, in it's entirety, about what can be established in fact based on the observances of the deciding body. Joff/Tommen have the only legal claim to the throne, by strictly successive rule.

How about this...what if Stannis' father wasn't the same man as Robert/Renly's? Based on the exact same legally obtainable evidence, the claim is as strong as Stannis'.

More, even we readers don't 'know' it's not true. We have never seen inside their mother's head, so it could be. Might explain the bald Baratheon killjoy.

Would it be more true if Renly really, really believed it was true?

[IRON BANK]

A ) Renly's claim is not where based on succession, like Stannis's is, his claim is based on power, he has no reason to support Joffrey (who is a Lannister puppet) or Stannis (who doesn't have a claim at the time Renly crowns himself)

Renly sees himself like a smarter version of Robert, Robert sure didn't care about the succession when he crowned himself when technically Viserys was the rightful king, and still in Westeros.

B ) How is Renly's army a "pretension of power"? It was genuine power, and he most likely would have defeated all of his competitors were it not for Stannis diabolus ex vagina.

C ) He could hold on to the power, he had a ginormous army loyal to him, and who's to say that anyone has the right to the Throne? The Lords of the Reach and Stormlands chose Renly as their King, that is enough for him to have a legitimate claim.

No, wrong. He is not king by law. Law is not the result of a non-existent 3rd party's omniscient POV.

Law is, in it's entirety, about what can be established in fact based on the observances of the deciding body. Joff/Tommen have the only legal claim to the throne, by strictly successive rule.

How about this...what if Stannis' father wasn't the same man as Robert/Renly's? Based on the exact same legally obtainable evidence, the claim is as strong as Stannis'.

More, even we readers don't 'know' it's not true. We have never seen inside their mother's head, so it could be. Might explain the bald Baratheon killjoy.

Would it be more true if Renly really, really believed it was true?

Thats based on things so far fetched we might as well not read the story, the facts are this Renly by every way over stepped, If he followed the rules of his own society the choice of Joffrey or Stannis is the only decision. Renly decided not to do this and was executed assinated or killed by his brother.

[corbon]

How many of you honestly believe the Stannis/Renly situation would've counted as kinslaying?

I personally do not. I don't believe Stannis was present, nor had votive power at the event. Wanting his brother dead is not kingslaying.

This is an often repeated idea put falls apart when you look at it closely. If he'd used poison he isn't striking the blow himself would that make it not kinslaying? When Tyrion shot Tywin he didn't strike the blow himself is that not kinslaying? Ultimately I believe if you are responsible for the act you are guilty of the crime, you don't necessarily have to be the one to strike the blow personally.

Edit: If Euron had paid a faceless man...

One can be responsible for the actions of another in the sense of having authority over them, but that does not mean that you are guilty of everything they are guilty of.

If Melisandra was proven guilty, to Stannis, of Renly's death, and then Stannis lauded her instead of punishing her, he'd be guilty of the crime by responsibility too. But not necessarily a kinslayer unless he approved of it at the time. If he punished her, then he'd not be guilty of the crme. IMO he was unaware of it at the time (and still not competely aware of it, though he probably has strong suspicions now) and I'm not certain whether he would have sanctioned it at before hand or not - I rather suspect not, but real-politik can be a powerful master even for someone like Stannis, so I'm not sure.

Stannis DID go back on his word - until dawn there was a ceasefire in place that both Baratheon brothers had agreed to. Stannis broke that ceasefire. That puts the act in the 'murder' category. It cannot be argued that it was a killing in the heat of combat.

Stannis DID direct the actions of the shadowbaby. The shadowbaby LOOKED like Stannis and ACTED with Stannis' intentions. He wanted to kill his brother, HE killed his brother - with Melisandre's sorcerous assistance. This is especially clear if you put together the description of the act as it was taking place, Stannis' statements to Davos after the fact, Catelyn's recollections of witnessing the event, and Brienne's recollections. In that respect Stannis, not Mel, killed Renly.

I don't believe any of this is true.

I believe the shadowbaby was a force independent of Stannis operating under Mel's will or direction, not Stannis'. I don't think he was even aware of its creation, or that his life force was used by Mel to do so.

Therefore Mel killed Renly, and broke the truce, and I don't think she had permission to do so or that Stannis had foreknowledge of her plan. We may get new information later that proves me wrong, if so I'll adjust my beliefs accordingly. But thats what I think based on the data we have currently.

I think the dreams he had were sorcerous feedback, not an indication of his conscious presence.

Renly's death

Stannis claims to have been asleep at the time. He brings Mel and Devan as two people who saw him asleep at the time. He dreams of Renly's death later, and remembers details he could not see (if we interpret a woman screaming as Brienne), which implies that he saw through the shadow. We have no idea if he was directing the shadow, or if he was in spectator mode. Considering that Mel had to pass Storm's End's magical defenses to use the shadow, and Stannis does not mention similar visions regarding Penrose, one could assume that the shadow operates by itself or by Mel (seems most likely, considering that she is a SHADOWBINDER. Binding shadows is literally in her title). The magical defenses of SE likely stopped Stannis from getting feedback, the same way they prevent Mel's control or even the shadow itself from entering to SE.

This.

That's a pretty good effort at bringing together the facts, but I would differ with you on a couple of points.

The way I read it, (and he describes to Davos some time after the fact) he dreamed of the shadow assassination while it was taking place. Now, that could be a matter of interpretation, or possibly it could be determined by a closer reading of that passage. Knowing GRRM, I'd guess that you could read it over and over and there'd still be room for doubt. He just doesn't do definitive.

Even less definitive, and dependent on how you interpret they former point, is whether Melisandre bound the shadow to HER will or to Stannis' will. We don't really know enough about shadowbinding to say.

Just to add something that I might have said above, not responding to your post Nyrhex -

If it had been the other way around and Renly had ended up killing Stannis, I would not have hesitated to call Renly a kinslayer.

I think it's important to apply the same standard of judgment to all the characters, rather than to pick one and act as their advocate.

I think its pretty clear, even if not absolutely definitive, that Stannis didn't have any conscious presence in the bound shadows, nor control. His own statements and actions make it clear I think, even though we can't tell exactly how the magic works.

Bloodraven is considered a kinslayer for leading the archer company that killed his half-brother Daemon Blackfyre, thus likely yes.

The thing about kinslaying is that everyone uses the term differently according to their emotional or PR needs at the time. Sometimes directly doing the deed is relevant, sometimes not. Sometimes 1000 years of split families is relevant, sometimes not. No one calls Robert kinslayer for killing his first cousin.

If there is a true kinslayer curse, then no doubt there are actually some metaphysical rules for how it works. But I don't believe that just because one person calls another "kinslayer" means that any such curse will be relevant.

Much of the time its just angry verbiage and/or blatant/desperate appeals to heartstrings/moral imperatives and nothing to do with the real "kinslaying" thing, if there is one.

[Sullen]

Thats based on things so far fetched we might as well not read the story, the facts are this Renly by every way over stepped, If he followed the rules of his own society the choice of Joffrey or Stannis is the only decision. Renly decided not to do this and was executed assinated or killed by his brother.

Robert overstepped his boundaries then, and should have either supported Aerys, Rhaegar, or Viserys.

[IRON BANK]

Not so.

It's not in any way linked to closed minded societies. It's linked to Judeo-Christian ethics. In the same closed minded societies of Europe pre-Constantine, people were not defined by their gender pretences. In fact, it was not even believed that people were either gay or straight. In Greece, Italy, Egypt, etc. etc. it was a non-consideration. And GRRM knows history. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, the 300 Spartans, Achilles, etc. etc....any pre-JC hero you can think of, all at least partly 'gay' by our standards. And no one cared.

So unless Westeros has a Judeo Christian backbone, it's a non-event in exactly the same way it appears to be, rather than as a hidden but deep down understood criticism we read into what isn't in the text.

I within the story there is alot of pretext that those actions are held in a negative light. Also lets remember that Renly tried to hide those actions so they were seen quite negatively. Most of the societies you mention only found those actions acceptable up to a certain age or upon slaves some found them negative all together and unnatural. And history cannot with a 100% confirm Julius, achilles, or alexander were gay. Alexander has had rumors, Julius has no open lovers, and achillies is ancient history.

[James Arryn]

I within the story there is alot of pretext that those actions are held in a negative light. Also lets remember that Renly tried to hide those actions so they were seen quite negatively. Most of the societies you mention only found those actions acceptable up to a certain age or upon slaves some found them negative all together and unnatural. And history cannot with a 100% confirm Julius, achilles, or alexander were gay. Alexander has had rumors, Julius has no open lovers, and achillies is ancient history.

What?

First off, where does Renly try and hide anything?

Secondly, your age-based premise is completely wrong. There was a defined, expected age-based sexual relationship in certain Hellenistic societies, but it's in opposition to how you are seeing it. It wasn't just acceptable at a certain age, but rather it was somewhat forcibly demanded of a certain age. As you aged, your sexual status changed, not your gender preference.

Slaves, no. I really think you don't know your history, here. Read up on the Spartans, the Theban Sacred Band, pedagogues, etc.

Achilles isn't history, in fact, but serves as a social archetype. And yes, Alexander is pretty universally conceded to have had homosexual lovers. Same goes for Caesar. What you need to get past is the idea that people of that time would have found it remarkable. There is little evidence for THAT, not little evidence for the practice itself. The only moral judgment was ascribed to whether someone was submissive or dominant within the sexual context...submissive was seen as more effeminate, dominant as more male.

[James Arryn]

Thats based on things so far fetched we might as well not read the story, the facts are this Renly by every way over stepped, If he followed the rules of his own society the choice of Joffrey or Stannis is the only decision. Renly decided not to do this and was executed assinated or killed by his brother.

No, wrong. According to you, if he followed the 'rules' of his own society, the choices were between Viserys and Dany, and between executing Stannis as a rebel or letting someone else do it.

I suspect another 'exception' will momentarily make it's way to the forefront.

[chrisdaw]

No, wrong. He is not king by law. Law is not the result of a non-existent 3rd party's omniscient POV.

The laws of Westeros are merely a prescribed set of rules that were created by the state and nothing more, entirely independent of your described fanciful method of application.

By those laws Stannis is king and irrelevant is who believes or knows it to be true.

[James Arryn]

The laws of Westeros are merely a prescribed set of rules that were created by the state and nothing more, entirely independent of your described fanciful method of application.

By those laws Stannis is king and irrelevant is who believes or knows it to be true.

Kingship as a tautology?

It certainly fits Stannis to a T.

Unless it doesn't, in which case it's obviously wrong.