Viserys, Renly and the case of Kinslaying

[Suzanna Stormborn]

This again *sigh*

1) Viserys didnt die to increase Dany's claim to the throne. He died for breaking Dothraki custom and threatening to kill Dany and her child

2) Dany couldn't have stopped it. Drogo would NOT do anything she asked him to. See his refusal to invade Westeros in the very next chapter.

3) Dany did not ask for Viserys to be killed. Nothing in her thoughts even suggests it was something she wanted.

4) By contrast, the Stannis situation is more open to interpretation. Its a little ambiguous as to whether he was aware what Mel would do. If he was, that makes all the difference in the World and he is guilty of Kinslaying. If he wasn't aware then its pretty much the same situation as Dany and he isnt really guilty.

5) Also, saying Dany was in no danger is ridiculous. Viserys had a sword to her belly and noome had yet intervened. He could easily have stabbed her before anyone could act.

Basically this. Why do these threads come up so often and it's always the same answer... She was a lone woman in a room full of men, she had no say about anything that was happening. If you read the chapter you will see that she tried to save Viserys, tried to calm him, asked Jorah to help him. Viserys was inconsolable at that point and brought about his own death 100%..... Dany had nothing to do with it.

[Maia]

I always wondered if the shadow might simply look like the one who fathered the shadow, regardless of the intention. It's a shadow after all.

Well, I have to point out that Cressen picked up on the kinslaying intention when Melisandre counseled Stannis to sail to Storm's End and spoke up against it. So, there is no way that Stannis was as unaware as he likes to pretend.

After all, Cressen recognized Melisandre's advice for what it was, told Stannis that he considered it monstrous and sacrificed himself trying to stop Melisandre in order to save Stannis's soul.

Re: Jon, according to his thoughts on Axell, nobody who has relatives can be executed ever without it turning into a vendetta until the last drop of blood or kinslaying. IMHO, that was just completely nonsensical and contradicted everything that Ned ever taught and showed him. But hey, Jon had to justify his own family-related actions to himself at the time.

[Stormland's Fury]

Well, I have to point out that Cressen picked up on the kinslaying intention when Melisandre counseled Stannis to sail to Storm's End and spoke up against it. So, there is no way that Stannis was as unaware as he likes to pretend.

After all, Cressen recognized Melisandre's advice for what it was, told Stannis that he considered it monstrous and sacrificed himself trying to stop Melisandre in order to save Stannis's soul.

He was concerned that Stannis might start war with his own brother (who he also raised like a son) and knew that Mel has a bad influence on him. Stannis was vaguely aware that Renly might die because of the magic but appears to have hoped that this wasn't the case. He forced a parley after all. He might have even given Mel the ok to do something with her magic to ensure victory in the case it came to fighting or take out the Tyrells, but there is no indication he expected it while he slept and certainly not that it specifically meant Renly's death. He never asked (presumably because of denial) what "seeing his victory" specifically meant. He also clearly tries his or Davos' way first in general and always takes Mel as a last resort.

It's not like Mel said "Let's kill Renly" and Stannis answered "Fuck yeah" then they high-fived each other and were off on their way to Storm's End. Otherwise they just could skip the whole thing and let the shadow assassin loose while Renly was laying siege on KL. Stannis obviously had still a say in the whole thing.

[mormont]

1. Then "To suggest that incident was 'kinslaying' is not just pushing a point, it's giving it an almighty shove" is again, an opinion

Did anyone say it wasn't?

Of course it's my opinion. I happen to think it's a reasonable and well-supported one, but I'm sure you think the same about your view. I'll note that Jon's opinion about Axell is, quite evidently, one given about someone who he already dislikes and so should be taken with a substantial grain of salt.

2. The argument is not that one brother tried to prevent the other from commiting treason, it is that regardless of what the brother did, just standing there and doing nothing while he is being executed is, or is very close to, kinslaying.

So the argument is that we should ignore a difference that is inconvenient for your comparison, even though you don't offer any reason for us to do so. Not very persuasive.

3. When her son sat the Iron Throne, she would see that he had bloodriders of his own to protect him against treachery in his Kingsguard.

... and where's the evidence, then?

All this shows is that Dany expected her son to sit the Iron Throne one day - either because she thinks of him as Viserys' heir, or (at worst) because she expected Viserys to fail in his quest. Well, we know that last already: she says it quite openly.

It doesn't show anything about Dany planning or intending to get rid of Viserys. You haven't presented any evidence of that - because there isn't any.

4. The argument that Jon makes is that regardless of the actual ability to make a difference, just standing there and watching is very close to, if not outright kinslaying.

No, it isn't.

That's your interpretation of what Jon says. What Jon actually says is written above. It doesn't address the issue of whether Jon thinks Axell could or could not have made a difference: in fact it can equally (I would argue, more validly) be read as implying that Jon thought Axell could have made a difference.

Axell has far less pull in Stannis' court than Dany has over Drogo.

A highly disputable claim, but irrelevant. As others have pointed out, Drogo had far less room to show mercy (even if he were inclined, or persuaded, to show it) than Stannis did.

[Viserys - The last dragon]

Well, I have not read everything everybody wrote, but I would say, without doubt, that Dany is guilty of kinslaying. Some argue that since she did not do it, and it was Viserys actions caused the reaction-> but i do not believe in this argument. Dany could have stopped it, but she did not try to prevent it, after she knew what would happen.

Its like this; your kinsman is holding on to a cliff (his own actions which caused him to hang there), and you do nothing to help (you do not try), I would say that you would be a kinslayer. But if you do NOT agree with my logic, then of course its not kinslaying (its all about the definition of the word) :)

[HexMachina]

Well, I have not read everything everybody wrote, but I would say, without doubt, that Dany is guilty of kinslaying. Some argue that since she did not do it, and it was Viserys actions caused the reaction-> but i do not believe in this argument. Dany could have stopped it, but she did not try to prevent it, after she knew what would happen.

Its like this; your kinsman is holding on to a cliff (his own actions which caused him to hang there), and you do nothing to help (you do not try), I would say that you would be a kinslayer. But if you do NOT agree with my logic, then of course its not kinslaying (its all about the definition of the word) :)

I recommend you read the thread. Evidence shows dany did her best to stop it

[Lord Thornhart]

I don't see why Stannis is called a kinslayer for unconfirmedly allowing his brother to die, but no one thinks to call Dany a kinslayer for unquestionably allowing her brother to die. And Renly was certainly threatening Stannis' life as much as Viserys was to Dany.

[vox umbrarum]

Oh wow. Reading through this it's hard to believe no one brought up Dany killing her mother yet :bang:

But fine. If Kinslayer is what you want to call her, I'll gladly go with it. Viserys had to die.

Not that Drogo sparing him that day would have saved him in the long term. Guy should have stayed in Pentos like he was adviced to.

[Maester Pedant]

Well, I have not read everything everybody wrote, but I would say, without doubt, that Dany is guilty of kinslaying. Some argue that since she did not do it, and it was Viserys actions caused the reaction-> but i do not believe in this argument. Dany could have stopped it, but she did not try to prevent it, after she knew what would happen.

Its like this; your kinsman is holding on to a cliff (his own actions which caused him to hang there), and you do nothing to help (you do not try), I would say that you would be a kinslayer. But if you do NOT agree with my logic, then of course its not kinslaying (its all about the definition of the word) :)

The analogy is wrong. A more accurate analogy would be to someone who is already falling off a cliff after you did your best to pull him away from it.

[RoamingRonin]

Here's the big difference: Dany never expressed a desire to kill Viserys. Stannis flat-out said to Renly he was going to kill him, Melisandre just got there first.

Dany did everything she could to save Viserys's life up until that point. I don't understand why people still foolishly believe that Dany could have convinced Drogo not to kill Viserys at that moment. It took a lot of effort on her part just to convince Drogo to give Viserys back his horse after Viserys was confined to the carts. Everyone from the simple-minded Dothraki handmaidens to Ser Jorah realize Viserys crossed the point of no return when he drew the sword on Dany.

Stannis's lack of action regarding Robert. His assumption that he could sit on Dragonstone and brood until... who knows when (seriously, what was he waiting for?). All of that allowed Renly to rise up and take the crown. Then he pops up out of nowhere with Melisandre to tell Renly "Bow or die".

[Stormland's Fury]

Here's the big difference: Dany never expressed a desire to kill Viserys. Stannis flat-out said to Renly he was going to kill him, Melisandre just got there first.

Dany did everything she could to save Viserys's life up until that point. I don't understand why people still foolishly believe that Dany could have convinced Drogo not to kill Viserys at that moment. It took a lot of effort on her part just to convince Drogo to give Viserys back his horse after Viserys was confined to the carts. Everyone from the simple-minded Dothraki handmaidens to Ser Jorah realize Viserys crossed the point of no return when he drew the sword on Dany.

Stannis's lack of action regarding Robert. His assumption that he could sit on Dragonstone and brood until... who knows when (seriously, what was he waiting for?). All of that allowed Renly to rise up and take the crown. Then he pops up out of nowhere with Melisandre to tell Renly "Bow or die".

Both brothers threatened each other and both also tried to save Robert from himself for years.

[Maester Pedant]

Oh wow. Reading through this it's hard to believe no one brought up Dany killing her mother yet :bang:

But fine. If Kinslayer is what you want to call her, I'll gladly go with it. Viserys had to die.

Not that Drogo sparing him that day would have saved him in the long term. Guy should have stayed in Pentos like he was adviced to.

Of course she did. It was all part of her evil plan to claim the Iron Throne.

[A Man Has Said]

I'm in the 'no comparison' camp. Viserys committed suicide by Khal, IMO.

The most prevalent form of logical fallacy is arguing a point by applying one standard to one situation and a completely different standard to another. I think everyone reading the OP should recognize that that's what's being done here. And I'm pleased to see that even a lot of people who regularly defend Stannis DO recognize that. I guess they're not on Team Whitewash, and actually appreciate that he is a complex, conflicted character.

Stannis killing Renly is about 1000X more an act of kinslaying as "Dany killing Viserys" which you can't even honestly type out without adding the quotation marks. My not so humble opinion: OP FAIL.

[Stormland's Fury]

I'm in the 'no comparison' camp. Viserys committed suicide by Khal, IMO.

"Suicide by Khal" is hardcore.

[RoamingRonin]

Both brothers threatened each other and both also tried to save Robert from himself for years.

No argument there.

[Nyrhex]

1. So the argument is that we should ignore a difference that is inconvenient for your comparison, even though you don't offer any reason for us to do so. Not very persuasive.

2. ... and where's the evidence, then?

All this shows is that Dany expected her son to sit the Iron Throne one day - either because she thinks of him as Viserys' heir, or (at worst) because she expected Viserys to fail in his quest. Well, we know that last already: she says it quite openly.

It doesn't show anything about Dany planning or intending to get rid of Viserys. You haven't presented any evidence of that - because there isn't any.


3. No, it isn't.

That's your interpretation of what Jon says. What Jon actually says is written above. It doesn't address the issue of whether Jon thinks Axell could or could not have made a difference: in fact it can equally (I would argue, more validly) be read as implying that Jon thought Axell could have made a difference.


4. A highly disputable claim, but irrelevant. As others have pointed out, Drogo had far less room to show mercy (even if he were inclined, or persuaded, to show it) than Stannis did.

1. No, the argument is that Jon calls Axell a kinslyer or close enough for not lifting a finger to help his brother after he knew he is going to die. Anything that Dany or Axell did before thier brothers had commited an offence that would cost thier lives is irrelevent, Jon is judging Axell based on his lack of action after he knew that his borther is going to die. Dany tries to stop her brother from doing something stupid, but then when Drogo is going to kill him and Viserys is begging her to help she does nothing.

2. Why would she be expecting her son to sit the IT? Her brother is young and there is no reason to think that he cannot have heirs. The "when" instead of "if" suggests that she does not expect her son to have opposition in line for the throne. The fact that her son is next after Viserys is a weak excuse, because it is so temporary. It should have been an "if" if Dany had considered that her 23 year old brother can have children who would come before her son. Hell, he can father children on the way to Westeros already, by the time they gather slaves and return to Slaver's Bay to sell slaves for gold to buy ships. The fact that it's a "when" seems to indicate that Dany had made up her mind that she will see her son on the throne.

3. Jon is calling Axell a kinslayer or close enough based on the fact that Axell had done little and less to stop the burning.

He disregards what happened before Alester was sentanced to death, and only complains on the in-action of Axell to prevent his brother's execution. Axell was not promoted since that time. In fact, one can argue that he was demoted. From holding the responsibility of Castellan to being "queen's hand" - an empty self-styled title. Axell has little and less pull with Stannis, and if you get that Jon thinks that he does, you are going to need to explain that one. We keep seeing how he has none. Dany on the other hand clearly does, but that is besides the point. The point is that after she realises that her brother is going to die, after her brother realises it and begs her to help, she does nothing but stare idly and thinks that he was no true dragon. This is exactly the same with Axell, who stands by idly when his brother dies screaming, and what Jon is criticizing.

4. Highly disputable? He feels the need to threaten Davos's life to have Davos back him up as Hand. Even Davos does'nt give a shit about him, and ignores him. He begs Stannis on his knees and is ignored like Selyse. He is removed from the duty of Castellan and is currently holding an empty self-styled title that has zero authority. He is left with Selyse and is not even in Stannis' war council. The only advice he gives in an attempt to gain the Handship is dismissed with Stannis saying that the man understands as little of justice as he does war. But you are right that it is irrelevant. Since the pull one has with his king, or the king's ability to change the sentance is not what Jon is talking about, it's the lack of any effort to help his brother after he knows that he is going to die and simply standing idly by.

[RoamingRonin]

I don't see why Stannis is called a kinslayer for unconfirmedly allowing his brother to die, but no one thinks to call Dany a kinslayer for unquestionably allowing her brother to die. And Renly was certainly threatening Stannis' life as much as Viserys was to Dany.

I consider Stannis responsible for Mel in the same way Dany is responsible for Drogon. Kinslaying might be a little dramatic but can we really absolve him of blame? It'd be like washing Dany's hands of Hazzea.

He hired Mel specifically for aid against his enemies. He changed a lot for her before he even met with Renly. So if he declares "Come the dawn, we shall see" and Renly dies by Mel's hands... it makes him guilty.

It's the same as Oberyn blaming Tywin for Elia even though Tywin never ordered his men to kill her.

[HexMachina]

Of course she did. It was all part of her evil plan to claim the Iron Throne.

She also warged Robert from her Mother's womb and smashed her brother Rhaegar with a war hammer. Sometime later she warged Jamie to kill her father, and silmultaneously warged Gregor and Amory to slay Elia and her children. When she was finally born she emerged from the womb with claws and fangs and slew her mother, before calling down the storms to smash the Targaryen fleet at anchor. And last but by no means least, she killed Willam Darry using the Tears of Lys to bring about the chain.of events which lead to her marriage to Drogo and the ultimate demise of Viserys, the final barrier to her claim to the throne.

To come.in the Winds of Winter - How.Dany brought the Wall down from Dragonstone to crush Jon Snow, the rival claimant to the throne

[Stormland's Fury]

I consider Stannis responsible for Mel in the same way Dany is responsible for Drogon. Kinslaying might be a little dramatic but can we really absolve him of blame? It'd be like washing Dany's hands of Hazzea.

He hired Mel specifically for aid against his enemies. He changed a lot for her before he even met with Renly. So if he declares "Come the dawn, we shall see" and Renly dies by Mel's hands... it makes him guilty.

It's the same as Oberyn blaming Tywin for Elia even though Tywin never ordered his men to kill her.

He actually feels guilty himself and is even expecting to die for his sins, so he doesn't really absolve himself.

We actually don't know why Mel came into his service, it was Selyse who brought her to Dragonstone though.

[Maester Pedant]

She also warged Robert from her Mother's womb and smashed her brother Rhaegar with a war hammer. Sometime later she warged Jamie to kill her father, and silmultaneously warged Gregor and Amory to slay Elia and her children. When she was finally born she emerged from the womb with claws and fangs and slew her mother, before calling down the storms to smash the Targaryen fleet at anchor. And last but by no means least, she killed Willam Darry using the Tears of Lys to bring about the chain.of events which lead to her marriage to Drogo and the ultimate demise of Viserys, the final barrier to her claim to the throne.

To come.in the Winds of Winter - How.Dany brought the Wall down from Dragonstone to crush Jon Snow, the rival claimant to the throne

You forgot how she murdered her own unborn son, so that she could be the last of all Targaryens. And then she used blood magic to make it rain on Maester Aemon just to be sure.