Stannis, Renly and kinslaying.

[The Drunkard]

The stain for kinslaying is if someone is not able to forgive/spare/trust their own blood why would they do that for anyone else?

A lot of reasons. I get that people in Westeros are superstitious about that sort of thing, but you have more reason to forgive/spare/trust some random guy off the street than you would certain family members. Being blood relatives doesn't change the sort of person you're dealing with, if they're deserving of forgiveness/trust/mercy, then they're deserving, but people like Ramsay wouldn't be no matter how closely related you are.

[chrisdaw]

Kingship as a tautology?

It certainly fits Stannis to a T.

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

Kingship by law, a simple reality.

[falcotron]

He clearly is, he is Lord of Storm's End, the ancestral seat of House Baratheon. If anything Renly is the head of House Baratheon, Robert giving him Storm's End basically says that. Stannis even changes his sigil, while Renly keeps the Baratheon sigil.

There's certainly an argument to be made there. Renly was the head of House Baratheon; Stannis was the head of the cadet branch House Baratheon of Dragonstone.

Either way, Stannis was obviously the heir to House Royal Baratheonbesides being Robert's primogenitive heir, being given Dragonstone traditionally marks someone as the heir to the Iron Throne. But is House Royal Baratheon the same as House Baratheon of Storm's End, or another cadet branch? (The wiki says it's a cadet branch, House Baratheon of King's Landing, but obviously that doesn't prove anything; clearly it could easily be argued either way.)

If they're the same house, Renly was usurping the head of his House; if not, Renly was, at worst, betraying his liege, in the same way as any House that does not rise on behalf of its liege House.

However, Renly never actually made that argument. When presented with Stannis's claim, he didn't make any kind of counter-claim except one based on right of conquest and quality of leadership. So, had he won, history almost certainly would have considered him a usurper, and might have blamed him for increasing the precedent for right of conquest and leading the kingdom into centuries of Byzantine-style successions. On the other hand, he still would have won, and been the lawful and also de facto king. Just like Aegon II.

[David Selig]

We have Stannis' POV and it makes certain he believes full well what we know to be truth, there is no burden of proof on belief, he doesn't have to prove he is the king to believe he is the king or to be right that he is the king. Stannis believes he is the king by law, he is correct, Renly knows he is not the king by law, he just doesn't care he is a usurper.

What version of the books do you have? Because in mine there certainly aren't any Stannis PoV chapters.

[falcotron]

Firstly, do you see how many exceptions/special cases there are just here, to this rule. A rule that often doesn't apply is not a rule, really. It's a generalization. That's how feudal succession works. There are various arguments presented, and unless there is a strong reason not to, people often agree to either abide by the will of the former ruler or follow a line of succession simply because it curtails some of the warring some of the time.

:agree: :agree:

In the specific case of Westeros, there was also one other option, to call for a Great Council, as happened twice before. (There's also precedent in real life, as with the council of barons deciding King John of England's successor.)

But yeah, the idea that there's some Law of Succession that handles every possible case unambiguously and that everyone submits to without question is ridiculous. The fact that there were multiple succession wars and Great Councils and side agreements even within a single dynasty over a couple centuries should be enough to prove that.

[falcotron]

Is the fact that is is "justified" in the realm's eyes make them not kinslaying?

Almost certainly not. Even people who were quite happy with Aerys's death (like, say, Robert) still referred to Jaime as a kingslayer and oathbreaker and looked down on him for it. Kinslaying is the one taboo in Westeros that's even worse and even more absolute than those.

And consider that Aegon II, Bloodraven, and others are considered kinslayers even by the people on their own side.

Even when it's justified, it's still a black mark that can't be erased.

Is Theon a kinslayer if the Miller's boys were his son's and he did order Reek to kill them?

Definitely. The fact that he didn't know that the youngest son was his bastard would make no difference; it's exactly the same as the Bael story.

Of course we don't know whether it actually was his bastard, which would make a difference if the taboo really is magical/divine (because presumably the Old Gods know the truth even if he doesn't). But if it's only a societal/personal taboo, he has enough information to guess that it might be true and think of himself as a kinslayer, and Ramsay and Mance's spearwives could easily have heard about the possibility, so it could be responsible for his downfall even if it weren't true.

Theon: not a kinslayer. Being someone's ward or hostage is not the same as being kin.

Unless the miller's youngest son was actually his bastard, as mentioned above.

Robb: not a kinslayer. Killing someone whose family branched off from your family 1,000 years earlier doesn't even come close to qualifying.

Agreed; I don't think anyone was really swayed by Karstark's accusation unless they were already ready to betray Robb.

Euron: Believed to have ordered the death of his brother Balon. No proof though. :/

If it's true, the Drowned God (or whoever punished Ironborn) knows it, and so does he, and the other important IB at least suspect it whether it's true or not, so proof is almost irrelevant to whether he's punished for it in the end.

And getting physically in a worse state can only happen to kinslayers? Drogo got worse from MMD's magic. Did that make him a kinslayer?

No, that was the punishment for, or at least the cost of, Dany's actions, not his own but it's still a magical(-appearing) punishment.

[James Arryn]

Kingship by law, a simple reality.

It's the exact opposite of reality. (think you missed my point, though, but never mind.)

Reality is what's real. If in your head you know you're the King of France, and no one else knows, you are not the King of France. Not really.

How reality works is a function. Political power is a constant communal choice. What's true is what society deems to be true.

Because...and this is going to be the weird part, I think...Stannis is not the center of the universe. The world is not judged according to whether or not it does Stannis a disservice. People, other people, matter just as much. And so, if they do not KNOW what Stannis thinks he knows, judging them according to Stannis' knowledge is unREALISTIC.

Forget for a minute the kazillion examples of Stannis' moral vagueries aligning to come up with the 'result = Stannis ' conclusion, and just, for a moment, think of a world where Stannis is not the same thing as Truth. Where a guy like Renly would and should reasonably apply a greater standard to divining truth than 'what does Stannis believe?' and where the rightness of his actions should...stay with me...be judged in the light of either his knowledge, or communal knowledge.

Stannis has constructed a world where everything centres on it's relationship with him, and assumes everyone else should be Stannis-centric too. And that's a cool interesting character study. But it's not actually 'simple reality'.

There may be countless unknown Targs out there right now with a better claim according to the applied laws of succession. Stannis could be illegitimate, or a non-stop happenstance of alternatives. You choose to forget the rules as they apply to anyone above Stannis but get down right Old Testament about anyone who goes past that, and it seems ridiculous to me.

Rules which are only defined after they are applied are not rules. If succession exceptions are created by people who choose to create them, then welcome to a world without real rules. Which might kinda sorta be GRRM's point in the maelstrom of political reality since Robert's rebellion ( more accurately Jon Arryn's) proved beyond a doubt that succession is just one consideration.

[chrisdaw]

Really? What version of the books do you have? Because in mine there certainly aren't any Stannis PoV chapters.

I have the version where he flatly states his POV. Are you suggesting he's lying?

[Nictarion]

I have the version where he flatly states his POV. Are you suggesting he's lying?

What someone says isn't the same as being in their head with an actual POV chapter.

[chrisdaw]

It's the exact opposite of reality.

No it's not, the laws are prescribed rules in accordance with which Stannis is king.

[James Arryn]

I have the version where he flatly states his POV. Are you suggesting he's lying?

He could be. Or Cersei could have lied, been mistaken or delusional about the real father of her children. There are soooooo many possibilities.

Which is why laws come down to more than what one person believes.

[James Arryn]

No it's not, the laws are prescribed rules in accordance with which Stannis is king.

Take out 'accordance with' and I would find this a more accurate/sincere post.

[chrisdaw]

What someone says isn't the same as being in their head with an actual POV chapter.

Ok well do you or anyone else wish to debate that what Stannis flatly represents as his POV regarding the parentage of Cersei's children is not his real POV?

[James Arryn]

:agree: :agree:

In the specific case of Westeros, there was also one other option, to call for a Great Council, as happened twice before. (There's also precedent in real life, as with the council of barons deciding King John of England's successor.)

But yeah, the idea that there's some Law of Succession that handles every possible case unambiguously and that everyone submits to without question is ridiculous. The fact that there were multiple succession wars and Great Councils and side agreements even within a single dynasty over a couple centuries should be enough to prove that.

Precisely.

It's sort of entertaining to watch people make an absolute argument for the divine right of a guy who ranked ~ 7th by right of succession and ~ 3rd-6th by right of conquest, and damned be he who comes before or after.

Better still is when there's a Dubya-esque 'simple-is-better' delivery attached. I used to think fans were actually parodying Stannis, but now I know better. :(

[IRON BANK]

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.

Nope, you associated Robert with Stannis and Renly this is why your wrong. each instance is different. In renly's case he was literally DEAD wrong.

[falcotron]

Precisely.

It's sort of entertaining to watch people make an absolute argument for the divine right of a guy who ranked ~ 7th by right of succession and ~ 3rd-6th by right of conquest, and damned be he who comes before or after.

Better still is when there's a Dubya-esque 'simple-is-better' delivery attached. I used to think fans were actually parodying Stannis, but now I know better. :(

I don't think it's fair to lay the blame on Stannis fans; the same fairy-tale reasoning comes up in discussions of fAegon, R+L=J, Bran as Robb's heir, Tyrion as Tywin's, or really anything else related to succession and inheritance.

I don't know if people are really thinking in fairy-tale terms, or if they're just misapplying their knowledge of modern constitutional monarchies to the very different historical feudal systems that preceded them. But either way, the problem is that people think there has to be a Right Answer, a One True King that no one can honestly dispute, and the only tricky part is working out what the Right Answer is in each case.

[James Arryn]

Nope, you associated Robert with Stannis and Renly this is why your wrong. each instance is different. In renly's case he was literally DEAD wrong.

Ah, yes, the moral rectitude of the shadow baby assassin.

For your sake, I hope your consequentialism survives or thrives in the event of Stannis' demise.

[James Arryn]

I don't think it's fair to lay the blame on Stannis fans; the same fairy-tale reasoning comes up in discussions of fAegon, R+L=J, Bran as Robb's heir, Tyrion as Tywin's, or really anything else related to succession and inheritance.

I don't know if people are really thinking in fairy-tale terms, or if they're just misapplying their knowledge of modern constitutional monarchies to the very different historical feudal systems that preceded them. But either way, the problem is that people think there has to be a Right Answer, a One True King that no one can honestly dispute, and the only tricky part is working out what the Right Answer is in each case.

I might be wrong, but I see it more earnestly avowed by Stannis fans. I used to count myself mildly amongst them, but have been sadly driven away by the phlegmatic rigidity of the moral rightness of all things Stannis, whatever that happens to be at any given moment.

I think the aspect you identify collides brilliantly with the cult of anti-hero in this case. Any perceived wrongness is viewed as a result of the world Not Getting It, and therefore is actually more Rightness.

I do agree the the aspect you observe is significant, and not exclusive to Stannis fans in isolation.

[IRON BANK]

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.

No the aged based premise, is not wrong. Most of the Nobilty in early Geece and Rome did not take a man seriously if they openly engaged in homosexual activity especially when reaching adult hood this was to not only show somewhat of a morl code but also that he took his progeny or chances to carry on his family line sriously. Commoners not so much. Must people in Greece and Sparta did not enegage in homosexual practice. The Grecian tribes had their own rituals most spartans engaged in what activity they saw fit however the majority were more into extending bloodlines to bring in more soldiers to extend their war mchine, that takes women. Sex with lots of women. Spartans had almos a xenophobic charisma when i came to Spartan excellence and regarded non noble partan women as a purpose of almost breeding. King Phillip Alexanders father was rumored to be killed by a gay lover, some say this is part of the story to show that his morals of such an act are degrading to the kings character and not held to the normal regard of what actions should be that is why the jealous act got Phillip killed. Alexander was rumored to have a gay lover, even though he produced multiple heirs, Julius Ceasar is known to be a man who slept with mutiple womenm, historicly speaking we know of two wives, but no gay lovers and as stated before Achilles is of ancient orgin no one can be certain. In asoiaf being Gay is not acknowledged as a norm in westeros society, we are aware of this because no one has expressed their love openly to the same sex. I do not see how you could miss this. name one character within the story in westeros who openly shows afftection for someone of the same sex while in public.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Can you find ONE WORD in the text of the novels that indicates Renly intended to kill Stannis before Stannis besieged Storm's End?

IN FACT, no-one in Westeros hears from Stannis from the time the novels begin until shortly before he shows up at Storm's Landing with the Red Witch. For all Renly knows, he's taken himself out of the game.

The timeline (not canon, but there is no canon timeline) has Jon Arryn dying in the second month of 298 AL, which is presumably the time that Stannis leaves King's Landing and Robert takes his ponderous expedition to Winterfell.

It's over a year later (299, 3rd month) and after Robert is dead that Stannis (aka Mr. Duty) sends out his "Joffrey is a bastard" letters.

Two months later Catelyn reaches Bitterbridge.

Two months after that is when Renly first treats with Stannis. It's the first time he has heard of the twincest allegation, and the first he's seen or talked to his brother in a year and a half.

So where is your theory of Renly's intent to kill Stannis written in the novels?

We're supposed to be discussing THE NOVELS in this forum, not your wild conjecture.

Nice use of caps. Heres the line of succession as Renly knows it; Robert - Joffrey - Tommen - Myrcella - Stannis - Renly. There it is, and no amount of "but please miss, Stannis hadnt crowned himself yet" makes that untrue. What if any of the following that Renly queue jumps after hes let them live has children? Those children or their children, having a better claim than Renlys children may rebel, declaring themselves King. They might even prove popular enough.

Much like Renly, you're only thinking short term, but a monarch has to consolidate his dynasty. The Tyrells want their kids on the Throne, what happens when Loras whispers that inevitable truth in Renlys ear? Aemon joined the NW so Eggs enemies couldnt use him, because he can grasp the reality of a situation, if Renly lets all those people live, his dynasty will not be safe. Just because Renly never said it, doesnt mean Stannis, Joffrey or any of the others are wrong for feeling this way.

WILD conjecture, or application of COMMON sense?

Renly was asking for it by not magically knowing Stannis had crowned himself.

I was kidding, I think it is stupid to claim it was self defense by Stannis when he instigated the confrontation.

No, I knew we were in agreement.

I was just taking the absurdity one step further, the whole 'Renly, who thought Joff represented the succession argument for Kingship, and was therefore challenging based on other grounds for the crown, like Robert had before him, was somehow betraying Stannis because of...succession'....? thing.

Sorry if my phrasing was unclear.

Must be tough being as smart as you guys.

Hell, the fact that he thinks that Stannis is about to join him before Stannis sneak attacks Storm's End shows he expected them to work together, with Stannis paying him respect as his king.

Shows his niavete. Stannis fought a war to put Robert on the Throne, is he going to turn his back on his heir, whether that be Joffrey or himself?

It's the exact opposite of reality. (think you missed my point, though, but never mind.)

Reality is what's real. If in your head you know you're the King of France, and no one else knows, you are not the King of France. Not really.

How reality works is a function. Political power is a constant communal choice. What's true is what society deems to be true.

Because...and this is going to be the weird part, I think...Stannis is not the center of the universe. The world is not judged according to whether or not it does Stannis a disservice. People, other people, matter just as much. And so, if they do not KNOW what Stannis thinks he knows, judging them according to Stannis' knowledge is unREALISTIC.

Forget for a minute the kazillion examples of Stannis' moral vagueries aligning to come up with the 'result = Stannis ' conclusion, and just, for a moment, think of a world where Stannis is not the same thing as Truth. Where a guy like Renly would and should reasonably apply a greater standard to divining truth than 'what does Stannis believe?' and where the rightness of his actions should...stay with me...be judged in the light of either his knowledge, or communal knowledge.

Stannis has constructed a world where everything centres on it's relationship with him, and assumes everyone else should be Stannis-centric too. And that's a cool interesting character study. But it's not actually 'simple reality'.

There may be countless unknown Targs out there right now with a better claim according to the applied laws of succession. Stannis could be illegitimate, or a non-stop happenstance of alternatives. You choose to forget the rules as they apply to anyone above Stannis but get down right Old Testament about anyone who goes past that, and it seems ridiculous to me.

Rules which are only defined after they are applied are not rules. If succession exceptions are created by people who choose to create them, then welcome to a world without real rules. Which might kinda sorta be GRRM's point in the maelstrom of political reality since Robert's rebellion ( more accurately Jon Arryn's) proved beyond a doubt that succession is just one consideration.

This is a nice post. Is Stannis wrong for pressing his claim do you feel?