Did Stannis even have a chance? (Spoilers)

[Stag_legion]

I really think you`re projecting a lot with this moralistic stuff here. Martin has said repeatedly that the source of the show is basically world history mixed with a little magic, some undead and some dragons. I`ve had this debate at length with another projector on a different site, but the fact is that religious sacrifice, including quite obviously human sacrifice, was the norm in human societies until the practise was abandoned in the Christian west. This was Christ`s whole thing right, the final sacrifice God required was his own son. Prior to the adoption by the Roman Empire of Christianity no king anywhere would ever have gone to war without first sacrificing at least a lot of animals but usually also some people. And no one would ever have followed a general or a king into combat if he hadn`t appeased the gods with sacrifices. The more highborn the sacrifice the more favor the gods supposedly showed you. A major military undertaking is very likely to have included some form of human sacrifice, even in Rome or Greece before the conversion to Christianity.

So for limp wristed postmodernists to claim that "no one would ever have followed a man who burnt his own daughter" and similar things is historically very questionable. In fact the gods would have seen the burning of Stannis` daughter as a much more significant sacrifice than burning some pagan priests and recalcitrant nobles on Dragonstone. Firstly because she was royal and secondly because she was his daughter. Any soldier there who believed that sacrifices were a normal religious practise would have thought the same thing. You`re basically supposing that Stannis believed in human sacrifices while all his soldiers were human rights activists from the 21st century. But there is nothing supporting this. His soldiers even abandoned Stannis for the Boltons after Ramsey`s little raid and not necessarily because they minded his burning of little girls. The only one who ever minded burning people at all was Davos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

I agree with some of what you say, but I think you make some unsubstantiated claims. Human sacrifice did occur in history but it was a rare thing and in a lot of the cases the people sacrificed were captured enemies.

There is a degree of cultural bias in your post too, you make it sound like romans and greeks were objectively the best culture around at the time and the fact that they did human sacrifice on rare occasions does not necessarily mean all other cultures did as well.

The same with Christianity, Christianity really wasn't all that revolutionary, when you consider the preceding religions (namely Zoroastrianism) and cults who already had pretty much all of the ideas and ethics christianity later became known for. At the same time Christianity still maintain much of the mentality of the time in every respective region it was established. The Christianity practiced in the far past would seem very alien and immoral to our modern moral norms nowadays. So its not like there is a monolithic christian morality you can point to and say THAT is christian morality. Since the very beginning there have been numerous different sects and mindsets that contradicted and conflicted with one another. ITs the same with Islam. When people get all hysterical about Muslims and islam, because there are extremist Muslims, they fail to see that Islam and its followers are extremely varied. Muslims and their sects range from the secular, open minded and accepting to the most exclusionary and violent. In fact even in a specific sect of a religion there are always those who are more violent and aggressive and those who are more peaceful and cooperative. The R'hllor converts in stannis' army for instance also consist of both fanatics who are down for random human sacrifice and yet there are those converts also who dislike such acts.

[Blackwater Saint]

I really think you`re projecting a lot with this moralistic stuff here. Martin has said repeatedly that the source of the show is basically world history mixed with a little magic, some undead and some dragons. I`ve had this debate at length with another projector on a different site, but the fact is that religious sacrifice, including quite obviously human sacrifice, was the norm in human societies until the practise was abandoned in the Christian west. This was Christ`s whole thing right, the final sacrifice God required was his own son. Prior to the adoption by the Roman Empire of Christianity no king anywhere would ever have gone to war without first sacrificing at least a lot of animals but usually also some people. And no one would ever have followed a general or a king into combat if he hadn`t appeased the gods with sacrifices. The more highborn the sacrifice the more favor the gods supposedly showed you. A major military undertaking is very likely to have included some form of human sacrifice, even in Rome or Greece before the conversion to Christianity.

So for limp wristed postmodernists to claim that "no one would ever have followed a man who burnt his own daughter" and similar things is historically very questionable. In fact the gods would have seen the burning of Stannis` daughter as a much more significant sacrifice than burning some pagan priests and recalcitrant nobles on Dragonstone. Firstly because she was royal and secondly because she was his daughter. Any soldier there who believed that sacrifices were a normal religious practise would have thought the same thing. You`re basically supposing that Stannis believed in human sacrifices while all his soldiers were human rights activists from the 21st century. But there is nothing supporting this. His soldiers even abandoned Stannis for the Boltons after Ramsey`s little raid and not necessarily because they minded his burning of little girls. The only one who ever minded burning people at all was Davos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

I'm not projecting anything. I'm just doing exactly what most have correctly done when reading the books: use the ethics of this world to better understand and evaluate the similar and different ethics of ASOIAF. If we don't use our ethics then we can't say any of these actions are wrong:

1. The mountain raping and killing Elia and killing her children

2. Theon's killing of the baker's's boys

3. The hound's slaying of the butcher boy

4. The slaughter of Robert's bastards.

Using your silly logic, we couldnt' condemn any of these because we would be "projecting our morality." So, If you condemn any action in ASOIAF, then you're just a pious hypoicrite. And your Christian sacrifice argument is ridiculous as well. Rape was extremely allowed and even encouraged in those days as well; using your logic rape...and slavery in Esseros...would be ok as well. They're not.

And you clearly don't know anything at all about Postmodernism, and you clearly haven't read it's main thinkers Lyotard, Jameson, Derrida, and Foucault. If you did you wouldn't have made your erroneous (and homophobic) comment about "limp-wristed" postmodernists. A postmodernist wouldn't make the comment you suggested, a person believeing it real, unchanging ethics would...and that's not postmodern. And spare me the "people made sacrifices all the time" argument. They didn't. And you didn't have to be a human rights activist to believe burning your own daugher alive was wrong. Many in Westeros and Esseros would feel the same. And you have no idea some of Stannis' men didn't leave because of that sacrifice. They had stayed with him all the way up to that point, and the looks on many of his men's faces showed disgust and repugnance. Apparently, you weren't paying attention.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

Needless to say this episode has generated a big reaction from many people, myself included. The question I'd like to ask is, with the way D & D set up the (supposed) Battle of Winterfell, did Stannis even have a chance to win and could he have done anything that would have given him even a slightly better chance at all? For example,giving a rousing speech describing how if they win a castle full of food and shelter is within a days walk and how these men fought for him against Renly,

None of these men fought with him against Renly. Renly was assassinated by black magic. So, no, there is little change for Stannis to rouse the men with that. I don't think there was much chance for Show Stannis to win at Winterfell and as several posters have mentioned in this thread, Book Stannis may win the initial battle but is facing a nearly impossible task if he hopes to lay siege against Winterfell. Unless someone opens the gates, which is possible, he will more than likely face doom in the books as well. However, there is a great deal of dissension within Winterfell and that will be one of the few (possibly the only?) ways for him to have success at Winterfell. Well, unless there's more magic, which is very possible as well.

This is exactly my point. I am aware of Stannis' reputation and behavior--how could anyone miss it--but the key difference is Renly wouldn't have gone out of his way to kill Stannis as Stannis did to Renly. Renly is not cold-blooded, didn't share Stannis' taste for bloodshed, and didn't despise Stannis the way Stannis despised Renly...Renly had no idea how bad that Peach joke went.. ;)

This is true. Renly had formed his alliances and called his banners with little thought of Stannis.

That's kinda the point.

Renly knew he'd have to kill Stannis. Otherwise you'd have every stable boy in the Seven Kingdoms whispering about the rightful elder brother.

Even if Renly didn't murder him, the Tyrell's would have, to secure the Throne. Anyone who thinks Stannis would just meekly accept Storm's End and forgo his right to the Throne is lying to themselves. Is there really a difference between consciously entering a battle with the intent to murder your brother, and having an assassin accomplish the same task? Stannis accomplished exactly what Renly wanted to, without exhausting his new army.

This is not true. Renly wasn't paying ANY attention at all to Stannis until he was forced to contend with him by Stannis himself. Renly did not want to harm Stannis and was going to bypass him completely in his bid for the throne.

"He is still your elder brother. If either of you can be said to have a right to the Iron Throne, it must be Lord Stannis."

Renly shrugged. "Tell me, what right did my brother Robert ever have to the Iron Throne?" He did not wait for an answer. "Oh, there was talk of the blood ties between Baratheon and Targaryen, of weddings a hundred years past, of second sons and elder daughters. No one but the maesters care about any of it. Robert won the throne with his warhammer." He swept a hand across the campfires that burned from horizon to horizon. "Well, there is my claim, as good as Robert's ever was.

Renly was going to try for the throne by conquest, as Robert had done. Several people claim that Renly was purposefully being treasonous and I've even seen that allowing him to take the throne would upset Westeros' stability established through primogeniture but that was jeopardized by Robert and it was no more treasonous than Robert's Rebellion:

"You served Robert, why not me?"

"Robert was my elder brother. You are the younger."

"Younger, bolder, and far more comely . . . "

" . . . and a thief and a usurper besides."

Renly shrugged. "The Targaryens called Robert usurper. He seemed to be able to bear the shame. So shall I."

Of course, the victor is always the one that writes the history books so Renly's death cements him being called traitor.

The purpose of using the shadow to assassinate Renly was to prevent the battle and minimize any unnecessary casualties. Stannis had the smallest army, and he saw an opportunity to win over Renly's bannermen to his cause. Only Renly needed to be dealt with, as it became clear to Stannis that his brother was a complete egomaniac. Renly's claim was fueled by arrogance and vanity and delusions of grandeur, and he would gladly betray his own brother and dismiss the law to bring him glory. Stannis sees things for what they are and he saw that an egomaniac with the largest army is a dangerous thing. Hundreds, if not thousands of soldiers would have been killed they went to battle.

Well, yes, thousands would have been killed had they gone to battle but it was Stannis who attacked Storm's End on Melisandre's council that put the two armies in the position in the first place. She told him going to Storm's End would allow him to win Renly's men. He consoled himself about Renly's murder by saying the fires showed Renly attacking him later in KL, but that was Melisandre misinterpreting the visions of the fire again. Stannis recognizes some of the truth of his actions as he discusses it with Davos but it's clear that it's about winning an army, not about Renly being dangerous:

"Melisandre told me that if I went to Storm's End, I would win the best part of my brother's power, and she was right.

"B- " but," Davos stammered, "Lord Renly only came here because you had laid siege to the castle. He was marching toward King's Landing before, against the Lannisters, he would have—"

Stannis shifted in his seat, frowning. "Was, would have, what is that? He did what he did. He came here with his banners and his peaches, to his doom . . . and it was well for me he did. Melisandre saw another day in her flames as well. A morrow where Renly rode out of the south in his green armor to smash my host beneath the walls of King's Landing.

It was an opportunistic moment for Stannis, and fine for him to take advantage of it. Such is war. But it is not true that Stannis was responding to an egomaniac.

Stannis is a man who thinks about the big picture and will ultimately do the right thing. He would never put his honor or reputation over the good of the realm. Killing 1 man to prevent a thousand deaths is better than rolling the dice to see who wins while gambling with the lives of many good men, Basic math really.

Stannis is not willing to do the right thing and not put his honor or reputation before the good of the realm. His interactions with Ser Courtnay are far from honor and all about reputation and council from the Red Witch.

There is a need. If I leave Storm's End untaken in my rear, it will be said I was defeated here. And that I cannot permit. Men do not love me as they loved my brothers. They follow me because they fear me . . . and defeat is death to fear. The castle must fall."

----------

This was Stannis, his just lord, to whom he owed all he was. Gods be good, what has she done to him?

"You are quiet," Stannis observed.

And should remain so, Davos told himself, yet instead he said, "My liege, you must have the castle, I see that now, but surely there are other ways. Cleaner ways. Let Ser Cortnay keep the bastard boy and he may well yield."

"I must have the boy, Davos. Must. Melisandre has seen that in the flames as well."

Davos groped for some other answer. "Storm's End holds no knight who can match Ser Guyard or Lord Caron, or any of a hundred others sworn to your service. This single combat . . . could it be that Ser Cortnay seeks for a way to yield with honor? Even if it means his own life?"

A troubled look crossed the king's face like a passing cloud. "More like he plans some treachery. There will be no combat of champions. Ser Cortnay was dead before he ever threw that glove. The flames do not lie, Davos."

Yet they require me to make them true, he thought. It had been a long time since Davos Seaworth felt so sad.

The flames don't lie but Melisandre can't read them very well. Anyway, we see that Stannis makes decisions that are not necessarily just but good for his image. Image is important, but it is clear that justice is not what Stannis is thinking about here. He is thinking about winning, pure and simple, and willing to do anything to win.

It is good to recognize that his conversation with Davos is all from one chapter and although it is only excerpts, it is all in the same chapter. So the reader understands that Melisandre is not interpreting her visions correctly yet Stannis is banking on them completely due to the magic that Mel has performed, some real, some tricks and once we realize the truth about Renly's "attack" in KL, the reader is meant to see Stannis' doom from his very beginning.

[TheCasualObserver]

<snip>

I agree with some of this, but Renly not thinking of Stannis is quite clearly either willful ignorance or gross negligence of the political picture.

Tywin, Tyrion and Cersei all give Stannis considerable thought towards the end of AGOT - Tywin in particular considers him the greater threat in a conversation with Tyrion. Many try to predict how he will behave and all conclude that he is a danger to a greater or lesser extent. To say that Stannis' own brother wouldn't be able to predict his claim to the throne is a little difficult to swallow.

On this point, the issue of whether or not Renly knew about Joffrey's parentage becomes critical. Whilst dismissive of Stannis' letter at their meeting, I find it unlikely that Renly wasn't fully aware of what Cersei was up to - every other member of the council had found out, his plan to replace Cersei with Margery doesn't work without it and until Stannis is dead he has a vested interest in ignoring the story, because to ackowledge it would be to admit that Stannis is the heir, (whcih he does in private with Catelyn anyway.)

Renly's failure to consider his brother's actions is indicative of his status as a Summer Knight; to assume that everything will go his way. In his slow march to KL he is hoping that everything will pan out for him - he doesn't need to consider changing allegiances or how the war is progressing for multiple factions. In his plan against Stannis at Storm's End he envisions a glorious charge which will scatter Stannis' forces in a single fell stroke. Renly always assumes the best even when he should know better... and he absolutely knew better than to think that his rigid and lwaful minded brother would take offence at him seizing the crown. But it was an inconvenient thought which interfered with his play for the throne, so he ignored it.

[Blackwater Saint]

I agree with some of this, but Renly not thinking of Stannis is quite clearly either willful ignorance or gross negligence of the political picture.

Tywin, Tyrion and Cersei all give Stannis considerable thought towards the end of AGOT - Tywin in particular considers him the greater threat in a conversation with Tyrion. Many try to predict how he will behave and all conclude that he is a danger to a greater or lesser extent. To say that Stannis' own brother wouldn't be able to predict his claim to the throne is a little difficult to swallow.

On this point, the issue of whether or not Renly knew about Joffrey's parentage becomes critical. Whilst dismissive of Stannis' letter at their meeting, I find it unlikely that Renly wasn't fully aware of what Cersei was up to - every other member of the council had found out, his plan to replace Cersei with Margery doesn't work without it and until Stannis is dead he has a vested interest in ignoring the story, because to ackowledge it would be to admit that Stannis is the heir, (whcih he does in private with Catelyn anyway.)

Renly's failure to consider his brother's actions is indicative of his status as a Summer Knight; to assume that everything will go his way. In his slow march to KL he is hoping that everything will pan out for him - he doesn't need to consider changing allegiances or how the war is progressing for multiple factions. In his plan against Stannis at Storm's End he envisions a glorious charge which will scatter Stannis' forces in a single fell stroke. Renly always assumes the best even when he should know better... and he absolutely knew better than to think that his rigid and lwaful minded brother would take offence at him seizing the crown. But it was an inconvenient thought which interfered with his play for the throne, so he ignored it.

It's simply illogical to assume Renly "knew what Cersei" was up to, or think he could be sure she did so because Joffrey was a bastard. So, since nobody, including Stannis, had proof of Joffrey's bastardhood, there was no reason for Renly to honor Stannis' claim, particularly since he knew he would be a better, more humane king.

And very few, including myself, claim Renly was a briliant military leader. Who cares. One doesn't have to be a brilliant military leader to be a great king and many brilliant military leaders make terrible rulers...just like Stannis. And he didn't have to care a bit about "offending" Stannis...Stannis was a big boy. And, as I noted above, Stannis had no proof to back his claim, so he had no right to demand others--including Renly--submit to it.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

I agree with some of this, but Renly not thinking of Stannis is quite clearly either willful ignorance or gross negligence of the political picture.

Tywin, Tyrion and Cersei all give Stannis considerable thought towards the end of AGOT - Tywin in particular considers him the greater threat in a conversation with Tyrion. Many try to predict how he will behave and all conclude that he is a danger to a greater or lesser extent. To say that Stannis' own brother wouldn't be able to predict his claim to the throne is a little difficult to swallow.

It was ignorance of Stannis. Renly believed Stannis and his bannerman from Dragonstone would rally behind him in his conquest for the throne. As for Tywin, Tyrion and Cersei, Stannis is on their radar (in A Clash of Kings not Game of Thrones) because they have received his letters and Stannis moves against Renly. That is what attracts their attention to Stannis. I think that Renly believed Stannis would always be the "lesser" brother and wouldn't attack him, especially since Stannis' army was significantly smaller than Renly's. A logical assumption if one is not aware of Melisandre's mission.

On this point, the issue of whether or not Renly knew about Joffrey's parentage becomes critical. Whilst dismissive of Stannis' letter at their meeting, I find it unlikely that Renly wasn't fully aware of what Cersei was up to - every other member of the council had found out, his plan to replace Cersei with Margery doesn't work without it and until Stannis is dead he has a vested interest in ignoring the story, because to ackowledge it would be to admit that Stannis is the heir, (whcih he does in private with Catelyn anyway.)

I went back and forth on what and when Renly knew about Cersei and her children but after a rereading, I don't think he knew very early. From what I've read, Renly decides to ride against Joffrey because he thinks Joffrey will be a horrible king and Cersei will be a huge problem for the throne. By his own words, he is definitely rebelling or committing treason, depending on the outcome of his efforts, and is comfortable with usurping the throne from the Lannisters. He moves long before Stannis ever dreams of doing so. In fact, the text strongly suggests that Stannis does not act until Melisandre convinces him he will win Renly's army. That is logical. Stannis does not have the alliances or the manpower to rebel against the throne. Once Stannis sends his birds with the news of the parentage of the Baratheon children (which he sends after Renly has already amassed his forces and begun to march) then everyone has at least heard the rumors. It does seem that Renly believes them but the text does not point to him knowing about this before Stannis' letter.

Renly's failure to consider his brother's actions is indicative of his status as a Summer Knight; to assume that everything will go his way. In his slow march to KL he is hoping that everything will pan out for him - he doesn't need to consider changing allegiances or how the war is progressing for multiple factions. In his plan against Stannis at Storm's End he envisions a glorious charge which will scatter Stannis' forces in a single fell stroke. Renly always assumes the best even when he should know better... and he absolutely knew better than to think that his rigid and lwaful minded brother would take offence at him seizing the crown. But it was an inconvenient thought which interfered with his play for the throne, so he ignored it.

I don't think that Renly not considering Stannis a threat shows he expects things to go his way. Stannis isn't a threat until he gains Renly's army. He doesn't envision any glorious charge at Storm's End. He's just counting on the armies to do their thing and he has the larger, more dedicated army. That is not him assuming the best. The minute Renly moves against the throne, he is no longer working within the law. Why would he worry about his brother's claim when it didn't exist when Renly makes his claim? For those who say he should have folded his forces with his brother's once he brother does declare, that is not being realistic. He had all his bannermen as well as the Tyrell's and their bannerman. The Tyrells would not have agreed to just switch sides. Once Renly began, it was impossible to stop. Even Stannis realized that and recognized he could only stop Renly by killing him. Renly was not thinking of killing Stannis because the balance of power was heavily tilted in his favor and Stannis would not have acted against his brother were it not for Melisandre.

[Bronn Urgandy]

It was ignorance of Stannis. Renly believed Stannis and his bannerman from Dragonstone would rally behind him in his conquest for the throne. As for Tywin, Tyrion and Cersei, Stannis is on their radar (in A Clash of Kings not Game of Thrones) because they have received his letters and Stannis moves against Renly. That is what attracts their attention to Stannis. I think that Renly believed Stannis would always be the "lesser" brother and wouldn't attack him, especially since Stannis' army was significantly smaller than Renly's. A logical assumption if one is not aware of Melisandre's mission.

Pretty much the only point I disagree on. Varys tells Ned that Cersie fears Stannis the most, Tywin openly states that Stannis is the bigger danger (since Tywin fears nothing and no man) and all this goes down in Game. And as to the second point about Renly assuming Stannis' support, while true, isn't a point in Renly's favour and perhaps his only failing during TWOFK, since everyone else, from Cat to Tyrion all wonder just what Stannis' reaction would be to his younger brother attempting to cut him out of the succession line. As it stands, Renly should've swatted Stannis like a bug, so I wont fault him for it, but if he knew his brother as well as he says, he should've been (and perhaps was) drawing up plans to keep Stannis out of the way.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

Pretty much the only point I disagree on. Varys tells Ned that Cersie fears Stannis the most, Tywin openly states that Stannis is the bigger danger (since Tywin fears nothing and no man) and all this goes down in Game.

Context is everything:

The queen would not have waited long in any case. Robert was becoming unruly, and she needed to be rid of him to free her hands to deal with his brothers. They are quite a pair, Stannis and Renly. The iron gauntlet and the silk glove."

------------------------

"Cersei is frightened of you, my lord . . . but she has other enemies she fears even more. Her beloved Jaime is fighting the river lords even now. Lysa Arryn sits in the Eyrie, ringed in stone and steel, and there is no love lost between her and the queen. In Dorne, the Martells still brood on the murder of Princess Elia and her babes. And now your son marches down the Neck with a northern host at his back."

"Robb is only a boy," Ned said, aghast.

"A boy with an army," Varys said. "Yet only a boy, as you say. The king's brothers are the ones giving Cersei sleepless nights . . . Lord Stannis in particular. His claim is the true one, he is known for his prowess as a battle commander, and he is utterly without mercy. There is no creature on earth half so terrifying as a truly just man. No one knows what Stannis has been doing on Dragonstone, but I will wager you that he's gathered more swords than seashells. So here is Cersei's nightmare: while her father and brother spend their power battling Starks and Tullys, Lord Stannis will land, proclaim himself king, and lop off her son's curly blond head . . . and her own in the bargain, though I truly believe she cares more about the boy."

Cersei feared many things, particularly both Baratheon brothers because she assumes there will not be another rebellion and that Stannis will find out or already knows her secret and move on to the throne in the normal pattern of succession. But the readers know that only Renly was acting and Stannis wasn't doing anything on Dragonstone until Melisandre arrived. Renly was actively trying to get Robert to set the Lannisters aside and even planned on brokering a marriage between Robert and Margaery. In fact, the text seems to indicate that Renly is only motivated by the desire to remove the Joffrey and Cersei from KL and that's why he eventually rebels against them. That is the only reason we're given for Renly's early actions, not a desire for the throne for himself. Interesting to ponder. Anyway, Cersei worried about everyone because she could have been easily toppled if her secret was known and believed. She expected Stannis to act and his reputation was definitely the more frightening one of the two brothers but she had no idea that Stannis was not a threat at the time. Renly was and had been doing everything in his power to get Robert to get rid of the Lannisters.

And as far as I can tell, Tywin mentions Stannis after the war begins which is the point I was making. (I thought the war happened in ACoK, sorry for any confusion). But as I said in my earlier post, it's after Stannis moves with Renly's army that all attention falls on him. Of all the kings in the Wo5K, Stannis is the one that everyone fears. The first time Tywin mentions him, he is thinking of Stannis' well-earned reputation but is commenting on his surprise that it is Renly that is the problem not Stannis:

“My daughter commands us to ride for King’s Landing at once, to defend the Red Keep against King Renly and the Knight of Flowers.” His mouth tightened. “Commands us, mind you. In the name of the king and council.”

“How is King Joffrey taking the news?” Tyrion asked with a certain black amusement.

“Cersei has not seen fit to tell him yet,” Lord Tywin said. “She fears he might insist on marching against Renly himself.”

“With what army?” Tyrion asked. “You don’t plan to give him this one, I hope?”

“He talks of leading the City Watch,” Lord Tywin said.

“If he takes the Watch, he’ll leave the city undefended,” Ser Kevan said. “And with Lord Stannis on Dragonstone . . . ”

“Yes.” Lord Tywin looked down at his son. “I had thought you were the one made for motley, Tyrion, but it would appear that I was wrong.”

“Why, Father,” said Tyrion, “that almost sounds like praise.” He leaned forward intently. “What of Stannis? He’s the elder, not Renly. How does he feel about his brother’s claim?”

His father frowned. “I have felt from the beginning that Stannis was a greater danger than all the others combined. Yet he does nothing. Oh, Varys hears his whispers. Stannis is building ships, Stannis is hiring sellswords, Stannis is bringing a shadowbinder from Asshai. What does it mean? Is any of it true?” He gave an irritated shrug.

Ultimately Stannis was doing none of that. He didn't even send for a shadowbinder from Asshai, Melisandre sought him out. And it's not until she convinces him that he will get Renly's army that Stannis finally acts and moves against his brother.

And as to the second point about Renly assuming Stannis' support, while true, isn't a point in Renly's favour and perhaps his only failing during TWOFK, since everyone else, from Cat to Tyrion all wonder just what Stannis' reaction would be to his younger brother attempting to cut him out of the succession line. As it stands, Renly should've swatted Stannis like a bug, so I wont fault him for it, but if he knew his brother as well as he says, he should've been (and perhaps was) drawing up plans to keep Stannis out of the way.

I never implied that it was a point in Renly's favor and while everyone wondered what Stannis' response to Renly would be, the text shows there was no response until the fires claimed he'd gain an army. That shows that Renly had the right of it when he assumed Stannis would not act with the few bannermen he had in his command. It's black magic that empowered Stannis in this quest for the throne, pure and simple.

I personally think that Stannis underestimated his own abilities and clearly everyone in Westeros considered him a threat based on the reputation he had amassed for himself. He was the only one that doubted himself. Having said that, he definitely had a problem with diplomacy and negotiations so it would have been difficult and slow to build an army large enough for him to act. I wonder why he never thought of getting sellswords as on the show. Perhaps if Melisandre hadn't shown up and brought her visions and magic, he would have. That would have given Renly, and everyone else, pause. But alas, the story played out very differently and was set up to ensure that Stannis never had a chance. The minute he turned to black magic, it was all over for him.

[TheCasualObserver]

It's simply illogical to assume Renly "knew what Cersei" was up to, or think he could be sure she did so because Joffrey was a bastard. So, since nobody, including Stannis, had proof of Joffrey's bastardhood, there was no reason for Renly to honor Stannis' claim, particularly since he knew he would be a better, more humane king.

And very few, including myself, claim Renly was a briliant military leader. Who cares. One doesn't have to be a brilliant military leader to be a great king and many brilliant military leaders make terrible rulers...just like Stannis. And he didn't have to care a bit about "offending" Stannis...Stannis was a big boy. And, as I noted above, Stannis had no proof to back his claim, so he had no right to demand others--including Renly--submit to it.

Why is it illogical? Renly is not a stupid man and seems more politically gifted than Ned Stark or his brother, so why would Renly be in the dark about the worst kept secret in KL? His plan for Margery in AGOT is further evidence. He asks Ned if she looks like Lyanna, and later admits he was trying to put her in Robert's bed. As a plan to supplant the Lannisters this seems woefully short term - when Robert dies, Joffrey will still inherit and make life a nightmare for those who threw out his mother for the Tyrells. Unless of course Renly already knows about the incest and that Joffrey can be excluded from the succession when necessary. Finally, Renly has been looking after Edric Storm for ten years. To see a bastard look so much like his father, yet the trueborn children don't is a big red flag. Conclusion? Renly knew.

Renly is leading an army in rebellion against the throne. He presents himself as a warrior king with "might to make him right". He is in effect emulating his older brother. So Renly's military chops are absolutely a necessity to his claim to the throne, because he cannot rely on legal principle as Stannis does. And that military prowess is simply not up to par.

[Blackwater Saint]

Why is it illogical? Renly is not a stupid man and seems more politically gifted than Ned Stark or his brother, so why would Renly be in the dark about the worst kept secret in KL? His plan for Margery in AGOT is further evidence. He asks Ned if she looks like Lyanna, and later admits he was trying to put her in Robert's bed. As a plan to supplant the Lannisters this seems woefully short term - when Robert dies, Joffrey will still inherit and make life a nightmare for those who threw out his mother for the Tyrells. Unless of course Renly already knows about the incest and that Joffrey can be excluded from the succession when necessary. Finally, Renly has been looking after Edric Storm for ten years. To see a bastard look so much like his father, yet the trueborn children don't is a big red flag. Conclusion? Renly knew.

Renly is leading an army in rebellion against the throne. He presents himself as a warrior king with "might to make him right". He is in effect emulating his older brother. So Renly's military chops are absolutely a necessity to his claim to the throne, because he cannot rely on legal principle as Stannis does. And that military prowess is simply not up to par.

That's a poor conclusion. If Renly knew what and why Cersie was up to what whe was, he would have said so to somebody. He didn't And your speculations concerning Edric Storm are just that: speculations. So, it is not illogical that he wouldn't necessarily surmise what she was doing, particularly when he had other concerns. At least we agree, though, that Renly was an intelligent man and more politically giftend than Ned or Stannis...of course, who wasn't?

And Renly is not just emulating his brother. He sincerely believes, as he has expressed to Loras and Ned, that he would be a better, more humane king than Stannis, and he would have been. He may have been a bit immature and a dilletante, but he had empathy for others and was not cold-blooded and cruel like his brother.

[TheCasualObserver]

That's a poor conclusion. If Renly knew what and why Cersie was up to what whe was, he would have said so to somebody. He didn't And your speculations concerning Edric Storm are just that: speculations. So, it is not illogical that he wouldn't necessarily surmise what she was doing, particularly when he had other concerns. At least we agree, though, that Renly was an intelligent man and more politically giftend than Ned or Stannis...of course, who wasn't?

And Renly is not just emulating his brother. He sincerely believes, as he has expressed to Loras and Ned, that he would be a better, more humane king than Stannis, and he would have been. He may have been a bit immature and a dilletante, but he had empathy for others and was not cold-blooded and cruel like his brother.

Would he? Stannis and Jon Arryn discuss it only with each other. Littlefinger and Varys keep it to themselves. Ned Stark tries to get the word out and look what happens to him.

But on a more political level, Renly has good reason to keep his mouth shut about that secret up to and including the start of the war... because it makes Stannis the heir. When Renly declares, he does so essentially as an anti-Lannister candidate; to the world at large there is nothing separating him and Stannis, because Joffrey is the legal heir - albeit one who is entrenched in a violent and vindictive Lannister regime. When asked to take their pick from two feuding uncles trying to take their trueborn nephew's crown, most picked Renly simply because he is less contentious and more skilled at courting allies. But introduce the incest and the political map changes. It's the Lannister regime which is trying to usurp the throne, whilst Renly is a schemer attempting to snatch his older brother's inheritance; a contentious and dangerous position to take. So if Renly knows about the incest and cannot prevent Robert's death, his go to move cannot be revealing it to the world, because that would strengthen Stannis' position, not his own. A better strategy would be to do exactly what Renly does - he knows he can get the Tyrells on board and stands a good chance with the Stormlords as well... as long as the issue is one of choosing the right guy to lead a rebellion against the Lannisters and not something which endangers the laws of inheritance. So he stays quiet.

I don't really see how we can take either Loras or Renly at their word; Loras is in love with Renly and Renly himself is boasting to Cat about his suitability for the throne. All other opinions of Renly are hardly favorable. It's one thing to galvanise support against a psychopath in Joffrey and a miserable prick like Stannis, but it's something else entirely for that to amount to him being a good ruler. The only responsibility Renly had in KL was as the Master of Laws, during a tenure in which the crown hideously overspent, the Lannisters seize power and the leader of the goldcloaks is corrupt and cowardly. In comparison, Stannis appears to be a passable Master of ships; he left KL with 200 of them after all.

[Blackwater Saint]

Would he? Stannis and Jon Arryn discuss it only with each other. Littlefinger and Varys keep it to themselves. Ned Stark tries to get the word out and look what happens to him.

But on a more political level, Renly has good reason to keep his mouth shut about that secret up to and including the start of the war... because it makes Stannis the heir. When Renly declares, he does so essentially as an anti-Lannister candidate; to the world at large there is nothing separating him and Stannis, because Joffrey is the legal heir - albeit one who is entrenched in a violent and vindictive Lannister regime. When asked to take their pick from two feuding uncles trying to take their trueborn nephew's crown, most picked Renly simply because he is less contentious and more skilled at courting allies. But introduce the incest and the political map changes. It's the Lannister regime which is trying to usurp the throne, whilst Renly is a schemer attempting to snatch his older brother's inheritance; a contentious and dangerous position to take. So if Renly knows about the incest and cannot prevent Robert's death, his go to move cannot be revealing it to the world, because that would strengthen Stannis' position, not his own. A better strategy would be to do exactly what Renly does - he knows he can get the Tyrells on board and stands a good chance with the Stormlords as well... as long as the issue is one of choosing the right guy to lead a rebellion against the Lannisters and not something which endangers the laws of inheritance. So he stays quiet.

I don't really see how we can take either Loras or Renly at their word; Loras is in love with Renly and Renly himself is boasting to Cat about his suitability for the throne. All other opinions of Renly are hardly favorable. It's one thing to galvanise support against a psychopath in Joffrey and a miserable prick like Stannis, but it's something else entirely for that to amount to him being a good ruler. The only responsibility Renly had in KL was as the Master of Laws, during a tenure in which the crown hideously overspent, the Lannisters seize power and the leader of the goldcloaks is corrupt and cowardly. In comparison, Stannis appears to be a passable Master of ships; he left KL with 200 of them after all.

Yes he would. LIke Jon Arryn, Renly had confidantes like Loras whom he trusted immensely. So, you can continue your unfounded suppostiion that Renly "knew," but it's still an unfounded supposition...just like all your unfounded speculation about what is going on inside the head of a character you dislike.

And your bias keeps showing against Renly, and compromising your argument, as you call him a "schemer" as opposed to being a tactician. It's called the "Game" of Thrones, remember? Strategies, feints, and deception are part of it for everyone...including Tyrion, Danaerys, and Doran Martell, who could be called "schemers," too.

And your bias keeps showing as you insist Renly and Loras must be seen as liars, even when they're together...which is a bit homophobic. Would you say the same about Catelyn and Ned? They loved each other, should we have considered them liars as well? And are you really saying being a "Master of Ships" would make someone a good ruler? Any callous, cruel, unempathetic person who would burn his own citizens alive, who knows naval strategy--like Stannis--could be a great master of ships. He would still be a callous, cruel, unempathetic ruler...like Stannis. Renly may not be perfect, but he has empathy for other people and would not treat his subject cruelly and callously as Stannis has. That's clearly not important to you, as you would rather have a ruler who knows his ships.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

But on a more political level, Renly has good reason to keep his mouth shut about that secret up to and including the start of the war... because it makes Stannis the heir. When Renly declares, he does so essentially as an anti-Lannister candidate; to the world at large there is nothing separating him and Stannis, because Joffrey is the legal heir - albeit one who is entrenched in a violent and vindictive Lannister regime. When asked to take their pick from two feuding uncles trying to take their trueborn nephew's crown, most picked Renly simply because he is less contentious and more skilled at courting allies. But introduce the incest and the political map changes. It's the Lannister regime which is trying to usurp the throne, whilst Renly is a schemer attempting to snatch his older brother's inheritance; a contentious and dangerous position to take. So if Renly knows about the incest and cannot prevent Robert's death, his go to move cannot be revealing it to the world, because that would strengthen Stannis' position, not his own. A better strategy would be to do exactly what Renly does - he knows he can get the Tyrells on board and stands a good chance with the Stormlords as well... as long as the issue is one of choosing the right guy to lead a rebellion against the Lannisters and not something which endangers the laws of inheritance. So he stays quiet.

This is very well thought out. If we didn't actually have words and actions from Renly on the situation, I would agree with you completely. Renly's first move is trying to set up Robert and Margaery. It's unclear how far this relationship could have gone in a society that has no divorce as far as I can tell. At best, Robert manages to get rid of Cersei and marry Margaery. At worst, Robert has a child with her and claims the child as his own. Renly would not have pursued this strategy if he was already aware of the parentage of Cersei's children. His actions truly show that he is focusing on getting rid of Cersei. All Renly's actions seem to always be about Cersei and her influence on Joffrey, not Joff per se:

“That letter.” He leaned close. “Was it the regency? Has my brother named you Protector?” He did not wait for a reply. “My lord, I have thirty men in my personal guard, and other friends beside, knights and lords. Give me an hour, and I can put a hundred swords in your hand.”

“And what should I do with a hundred swords, my lord?”

“Strike! Now, while the castle sleeps.” Renly looked back at Ser Boros again and dropped his voice to an urgent whisper. “We must get Joffrey away from his mother and take him in hand. Protector or no, the man who holds the king holds the kingdom. We should seize Myrcella and Tommen as well. Once we have her children, Cersei will not dare oppose us. The council will confirm you as Lord Protector and make Joffrey your ward.”

Hardly the words of someone who knows that Joffrey is a bastard and trying to keep Joffrey from the throne or trying to usurp the throne from Stannis. Also, once the incest rumor is spread, Renly's men don't begin to question their actions and whether or not they should defect to Stannis. It doesn't change anything and none of the nobility back Stannis' claim, albeit true that he is next in line for the throne. So it's hard to make a solid argument that Renly fears knowledge getting out that Stannis is the the heir after Robert's death. It just doesn't matter to them and most don't want Stannis on the throne.Even after Renly's demise, Stannis has a very, very difficult time winning over noblemen. People respect him as a warrior and general but do not want him as a king. He does a poor job of inspiring loyalty and devotion in the people around him. Renly was right when he surmised that Stannis would most likely not be successful in his bid for the throne:

"His claim, you mean?" Renly laughed. "Let us be blunt, my lady. Stannis would make an appalling king. Nor is he like to become one. Men respect Stannis, even fear him, but precious few have ever loved him."

[Ser Oromus Locke]

Just a short note of which I don't if it should go here, but in light of Stannis' defeat at Winterfell. But I really think it would've benefitted from a scene in between the clash of the forces and the reveal of the defeat.

[TheCasualObserver]

<snip>

I'm willing to admit that I am biased against Renly. I find his character frivolous and unimpressive. He starts the war with the largest army by far yet can't achieve anything with it. Are you willing to admit that you are biased in his favour? In an earlier post you said "Renly is not just emulating his brother. He sincerely believes, as he has expressed to Loras and Ned, that he would be a better, more humane king than Stannis, and he would have been." Accepting what a character says about themselves isn't exactly objective criticism of their role in the story.

I was presenting how the revelation of Joffrey's parentage might colour how people saw Renly's attempt at taking the throne when I used the word "scheme."

I must take issue with you calling me homophobic. I was suggesting that asking the opinions of two lovers about each other is unlikely to give you an unbiased picture of either. One of my favourite quotes from comedian David Mitchell is "that's what love is; two people slightly deluded in each other's favour." Asking Loras about Renly and Renly about Loras is hardly giving a balance view of either character.

My point on the Master of Laws and Master and Ships bit is that we haven't actually seen Renly doing anything close to ruling. What evidence have we seen that Renly has good policies in mind for the realm? That he is capable of good governance? When the only position of responsibility we've seen him in prior to his crowning is as an ineffective Master of Laws, (as exhibited by the corruption found throughout Robert's administration) I don't think it's unreasonable to question Renly's own opinion of himself.

<snip>

Strangely, I see Renly's plan as only making sense if he knows about the parentage. Consider; setting up Margery and Robert ahead of time gets Robert more in the mood for a regime change. When the time comes to set Cersei aside, Renly can reveal the bastardy of Joffrey and the entire Lannister line is wiped out, conveniently paving the way for the Tyrells to take their place and Renly getting the credit for setting it up. In addition, were Robert and Margery to have children and Robert dies soon after (not unlikely considering his lifestyle) then Uncle Renly is a shoe in for the regency as well.

Without knowing that Joffrey is Jaime's son, Renly's plan is incredibly short sighted. It's clear from the first time we see him that Joffrey is Lannister-minded through and through, (with the revelation that this is literally true coming later) so even if Robert finds some way of setting Cersei aside, Joffrey will eventually inherit when Robert dies and punish those who sought to cast out his mother. This is unavoidable - the only way we've seen anyone be excluded from clear cut inheritance is via taking the Black or becoming a Maester - good luck convincing Joffrey and his Lannister backers to do that. And this would mean that sooner or later an even more vengeful than OTL Joffrey will take the throne and that means a whole world of hurt for Renly and the Tyrells.

If Renly knew about the incest and stopping Joffrey was his only goal then yes, he should have told Eddard what he knew at that moment. But he didn't know if Eddard knew, and when Ned does find out, his first thought is that Stannis is the rightful heir, which doesn't help Renly at all. Seizing the children with Ned's help would be a delaying tactic for Renly. Working on the assumption that he didn't know what Ned had found out, this gives him time to take care of Stannis before revealing the Joffrey is a bastard.

The question of the effect the knowledge of the bastardy has on Lords is contentious, but since Stannis makes the announcement alone and without one of Robert's bastards to hand to back him up, it comes across as self serving to many. Ned's endorsment of the story would be a huge boost to Stannis' credibility, which is the last thing Renly wants, which is why (if he did know) he keeps it very quiet until a point where Stannis is no loner a problem.

Notice how Renly responds to Stannis' claim in a public place: “Isn’t that a sweet story, my lady?…I was camped at Horn Hill when Lord Tarly received his letter, and I must say, it took my breath away…I had never suspected you were so clever, Stannis. Were it only true, you would indeed be Robert’s heir.” He is dismissive of the idea and quick to show that he and Stannis are both just rebels, with force being the only deciding factor.

Now compare that to how he responds in private to Catelyn: “Your brother is the lawful heir.”

“While he lives…”

Renly has demonstrable cause to feign ignorance of the bastardy until it suites him. To admit to the bastardy would help his borther - as you point out, maybe not enough to help Stannis win the war, or even to beat Renly, but when he has yet to climb the throne and Stannis is still alive, why would he take the risk?

It's not concrete, I'll grant you, but Renly had the capacity to find out Cersei's secret, the means to confirm it (with Edric Storm as his ward for the last ten years showing Barathean features in everything he does) and the motive to keep it quiet for the duration of the story he plays a part in.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

I'm willing to admit that I am biased against Renly. I find his character frivolous and unimpressive. He starts the war with the largest army by far yet can't achieve anything with it.

Renly's strategy was to slowly, ever so slowly, move his army toward KL while Tywin fought Robb in the Riverlands, then attack the city with the other armies being exhausted. That is not a bad strategy at all.

My point on the Master of Laws and Master and Ships bit is that we haven't actually seen Renly doing anything close to ruling. What evidence have we seen that Renly has good policies in mind for the realm? That he is capable of good governance? When the only position of responsibility we've seen him in prior to his crowning is as an ineffective Master of Laws, (as exhibited by the corruption found throughout Robert's administration) I don't think it's unreasonable to question Renly's own opinion of himself.

We don't see either Renly or Stannis rule but we do get insights into their character and judgment. Renly remains in KL until Ned is about to move against Cersei. At this time, he councils Ned wisely and pledges to help Ned with Cersei. While in KL, he notices the problems at court and begins to do something about it. He does not aim for the throne, only aims to rid his brother of Cersei. He doesn't blunder forward with no plan or strategy expecting honor, truth and justice to make him successful as Ned does. He makes a plan which must be seeded and put into effect over time. When Robert dies and Renly sees an opportunity to win the throne, he is able to make important alliances and has a strategy that limits fighting and death of is army until he has the advantage over the other armies. He shows a good understanding of court, power and alliances.

Stannis flees to Dragonstone, which makes some sense since he fears for his life. However, he does not reach out to anyone with his new informatin, not even Ned. It's unclear what Stannis' next move would be had Melisandre not arrived. Stannis is not wanted by most of the noblemen because he is more focused on the letter of the law than the spirit of it and is known to be extremely inflexible. He's known to be a great general but a poor politician with little understand of court, negotiating and forming alliances.

Ironically, it's often been said that Renly and Stannis combined would have made the best king.

Strangely, I see Renly's plan as only making sense if he knows about the parentage. Consider; setting up Margery and Robert ahead of time gets Robert more in the mood for a regime change. When the time comes to set Cersei aside, Renly can reveal the bastardy of Joffrey and the entire Lannister line is wiped out, conveniently paving the way for the Tyrells to take their place and Renly getting the credit for setting it up. In addition, were Robert and Margery to have children and Robert dies soon after (not unlikely considering his lifestyle) then Uncle Renly is a shoe in for the regency as well.

I don't see how getting Robert in the mood for a regime change only makes sense if Renly knows about the parentage. He wouldn't need Marg for that. Just telling Robert about it would make Robert move to get rid of Cersei and the children. That doesn't do anything for Renly unless you believe Renly would have tried to usurp the throne from Robert and there is nothing to support that. Also, it is far from a shoe in that Uncle Renly would be a shoe in for regent of a child of Robert's.

Without knowing that Joffrey is Jaime's son, Renly's plan is incredibly short sighted. It's clear from the first time we see him that Joffrey is Lannister-minded through and through, (with the revelation that this is literally true coming later) so even if Robert finds some way of setting Cersei aside, Joffrey will eventually inherit when Robert dies and punish those who sought to cast out his mother. This is unavoidable - the only way we've seen anyone be excluded from clear cut inheritance is via taking the Black or becoming a Maester - good luck convincing Joffrey and his Lannister backers to do that. And this would mean that sooner or later an even more vengeful than OTL Joffrey will take the throne and that means a whole world of hurt for Renly and the Tyrells.

If Renly knew about the incest and stopping Joffrey was his only goal then yes, he should have told Eddard what he knew at that moment. But he didn't know if Eddard knew, and when Ned does find out, his first thought is that Stannis is the rightful heir, which doesn't help Renly at all. Seizing the children with Ned's help would be a delaying tactic for Renly. Working on the assumption that he didn't know what Ned had found out, this gives him time to take care of Stannis before revealing the Joffrey is a bastard.

When Renly talks about this he always talks about getting control of Joffrey. He seems to believe that it's Cersei's influence on Joffrey that makes him behave the way he does, which is what Tywin believes, too. Renly's goal, if we can believe what he says, is to separate Joffrey from his mother and get rid of Cersei. He does not show intent to declare himself king while Robert is alive. or he would have responded differently to Ned. As I said up thread, Renly does seem to be focused on Cersei not rebelling against his brothers.

The question of the effect the knowledge of the bastardy has on Lords is contentious, but since Stannis makes the announcement alone and without one of Robert's bastards to hand to back him up, it comes across as self serving to many. Ned's endorsment of the story would be a huge boost to Stannis' credibility, which is the last thing Renly wants, which is why (if he did know) he keeps it very quiet until a point where Stannis is no loner a problem.

Notice how Renly responds to Stannis' claim in a public place: “Isn’t that a sweet story, my lady?…I was camped at Horn Hill when Lord Tarly received his letter, and I must say, it took my breath away…I had never suspected you were so clever, Stannis. Were it only true, you would indeed be Robert’s heir.” He is dismissive of the idea and quick to show that he and Stannis are both just rebels, with force being the only deciding factor.

Now compare that to how he responds in private to Catelyn: “Your brother is the lawful heir.”

“While he lives…”

Renly has demonstrable cause to feign ignorance of the bastardy until it suites him. To admit to the bastardy would help his borther - as you point out, maybe not enough to help Stannis win the war, or even to beat Renly, but when he has yet to climb the throne and Stannis is still alive, why would he take the risk?

It's not concrete, I'll grant you, but Renly had the capacity to find out Cersei's secret, the means to confirm it (with Edric Storm as his ward for the last ten years showing Barathean features in everything he does) and the motive to keep it quiet for the duration of the story he plays a part in.

It seems clear that only 4 people knew the truth about Cersei's children before Stannis sent his birds out: Jon Arryn, Stannis, Varys and LF. Given the timing, it does seem suspicious and without showing all the bastards, not just one, it's hard to convince others of it. Renly probably does believe it but there's nothing to prove he knew before hand. And to be honest, I doubt that would have stopped him for marching against the throne. He does dismiss Stannis and his claim and state that he has as much right to the throne as Robert did. That is impossible to argue with.

And yes, Renly's flippant attitude doesn't help the situation when Catelyn is meeting with them. But even Cat sees the folly of Stannis:

"Can you prove any word of this fable?"

Stannis ground his teeth.

Robert could never have known, Catelyn thought, or Cersei would have lost her head in an instant. "Lord Stannis," she asked, "if you knew the queen to be guilty of such monstrous crimes, why did you keep silent? "

"I did not keep silent," Stannis declared. "I brought my suspicions to Jon Arryn."

"Rather than your own brother?"

It's true that Robert and Stannis had a bad relationship but Robert hated Cersei and just having the conversation would have given him a reason to scrutinize her and rid himself of her. Stannis chickened out. What could Robert have done if he had gone to him? Kill him? Hardly. He may have laughed but then he would have started to investigate. He would have wanted to find a cause to leave Cersei. I don't doubt that at all. Stannis' case would have been cut and dry in that scenario. Jon Arryn was probably trying to consider what to do next given why he brokered the marriage of Robert and Cersei in the first place which give LF time to act. None of the players would have considered LF's or Varys' manipulations.It's hard to say how things would have played out in the event that Stannis had gone to Robert. However, it would have been much harder to kill Robert before he could get rid of Cersei. It was much easier to get rid of Jon.

Ultimately by not going to Robert with his knowledge, Stannis made his true claim hard to believe and easy for Renly to make the first move.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

<snip>

You pushed me to look at that chapter a bit closer and I found some interesting tidbits:

"I did not come here to be threatened, either."

"Nor were you," Renly snapped back. "When I make threats, you'll know it. If truth be told, I've never liked you, Stannis, but you are my own blood, and I have no wish to slay you. So if it is Storm's End you want, take it . . . as a brother's gift. As Robert once gave it to me, I give it to you."

"It is not yours to give. It is mine by rights."

-------------------------------------

Stannis was never the most cherished of brothers, I confess. Do you suppose this tale of his is true? If Joffrey is the Kingslayer's get - "

" - your brother is the lawful heir."

"While he lives," Renly admitted. "Though it's a fool's law, wouldn't you agree? Why the oldest son, and not the best-fitted? The crown will suit me, as it never suited Robert and would not suit Stannis. I have it in me to be a great king, strong yet generous, clever, just, diligent, loyal to my friends and terrible to my enemies, yet capable of forgiveness, patient - "

" - humble?" Catelyn supplied.

Renly laughed. "You must allow a king some flaws, my lady."

It truly seems as though this was the first Renly had heard of the incest. And he wanted peace with his brother, not to kill him. And, yes, Renly thought far too highly of himself.

[TheCasualObserver]

<snippy snippy>

Renly's strategy is one which perfectly encapsulates his status as a Knight of Summer. Let other people fight it out whilst he builds power in the south. But it is present-ism to suggest that only the Shadowbaby wild card could have stopped him. Even by the end of AGOT, Renly's sluggishness has cost him the north and riverlands and he acknowledges that an accord will have to be reached with the Starks to bring them back into the fold at wars end. Renly is a man who assumes the best; he assumes without evidence that Dorne will join him, that Stannis won't oppose him (more on this in a second) that his coalition is iron and will never break apart. And all this comes from a candidate who never gets within three hundred miles of the throne.

Stannis' understanding of the law, justice and social contractual-ism are hard line parts of his character. Other than his understanding that a King is his bannermen, Renly doesn't appear to have much knowledge of how a state should be run. I'll say again - in his appointment as master of ships Stannis appears to be successful, as Master of Laws Renly appears to be a failure. Don't mistake an adeptness for court intrigue as equivalent to the ability to rule.

Without knowledge of Joffrey's bastardy, Renly's scheme is one filled with short term gain and long term punishment. Convincing Robert to put aside Cersei for another woman is not going to win Renly and the Tyrells any favours when Joffrey comes of age. Likewise, "seizing" Joffrey on the night of Robert's death wouldn't have helped either. One way or another, Renly's original scheme with Margery has one massive fly in the ointment and its name is Joffrey Barathean. Steven Atwell does a damn good job of explaining why Renly's plan is crazy unless they can shift Joffrey with the incest accusations which can be found here.

I seem to be repeating myself, but this plan, his attitude later, his close proximity to Edric Storm and his fear of Cersei (which makes a lot less sense if he doesn't know how much of a threat he is as a trueborn Barathean to Cersei's children) are all indicators that Renly could well have known about the incest long before Robert's death. Not concrete, but I find it a compelling theory.

Stannis tells Jon Arryn in the hopes that it would sound less self serving to Robert coming from him. This is sound logic - if Stannis believes that Robert would reject his claims, reaching out to Arryn is the only logical step, considering Stannis is (rightly) suspicious of the rest of the small council. When Jon Arryn is killed thanks to information Stannis provided for him, it's not hard to see why Stannis would flee; if father figure Jon Arryn couldn't tell Robert, why would an ill favored brother fare any better? I understand that Stannis' stubbornness and wounded pride does have some effect here, but that doesn't validate Renly's plan to become King because Stannis didn't react quickly enough. Renly saw this as a chance to get his foot in the door - how is Stannis not justified in slamming it shut?

[Blackwater Saint]

I'm willing to admit that I am biased against Renly. I find his character frivolous and unimpressive. He starts the war with the largest army by far yet can't achieve anything with it. Are you willing to admit that you are biased in his favour? In an earlier post you said "Renly is not just emulating his brother. He sincerely believes, as he has expressed to Loras and Ned, that he would be a better, more humane king than Stannis, and he would have been." Accepting what a character says about themselves isn't exactly objective criticism of their role in the story.

I was presenting how the revelation of Joffrey's parentage might colour how people saw Renly's attempt at taking the throne when I used the word "scheme."

I must take issue with you calling me homophobic. I was suggesting that asking the opinions of two lovers about each other is unlikely to give you an unbiased picture of either. One of my favourite quotes from comedian David Mitchell is "that's what love is; two people slightly deluded in each other's favour." Asking Loras about Renly and Renly about Loras is hardly giving a balance view of either character.

My point on the Master of Laws and Master and Ships bit is that we haven't actually seen Renly doing anything close to ruling. What evidence have we seen that Renly has good policies in mind for the realm? That he is capable of good governance? When the only position of responsibility we've seen him in prior to his crowning is as an ineffective Master of Laws, (as exhibited by the corruption found throughout Robert's administration) I don't think it's unreasonable to question Renly's own opinion of himself.

Yes, you are clearly biased against Renly, and you have let it bias most of your judgments of him. And I don't have a pro-Renly bias. He isn't even one of my ten favorite characters. That being said, it doesn't take much to be a better king option than the cruel, coldblooded Stannis. I would take Margaery and Doran Martell over him as well. And you keep making the mistake of thinking being a good military leader translates into being a good king and being a bad military leader translates into being a bad one. It doesn't work that way. You seem to value military prowess over compassion and empathy, and that's not good. And if you can't accept what Renly says about himself, which was true, then you can't accept what anyone--including Stannis--says about himself. You haven't done that, which reaffirms your biases, and invalidates your already erroneous point.

And, again, your use of scheme was biased since everybody playing the Game of Thrones schemes. You clearly just don't like it when Renly does it.

And I never called you homophobic. You really need to read what people write before you "take exception" with it. I said what you said was a bit homophobic...and it was. The fact you didn't answer my question about Catelyn supports that. You never would have disregarded what Catelyn and Ned said about each other, but here we have two Gay men completely in love with each other and you discount everything they say about each other. So, that is unfair to the characters, a poor reading of the sincerity of their words about each other, and a bit homophobic. If you discount everything Catelyn and Ned say about each other or everything any heterosexual couple in love in the books or show say to each other, I will retract the homophobic statement. Either way, what you said about discounting what they said to each other was still wrong.

And again, the Master of Ships success doesn't take away from the fact Stannis was a cruel, callous man with no skills in diplomacy, who burned people alive. I mean, really, how can you like this guy? Those skills would make him a cruel, callous king who would enact cruel punishments on his people and would have no skills in negotiation with anybody. And yes, Renly was an immature dilletante who didn't take his responsibilites seriously, but he has empathy and compassion for other people, he is a more skilled negotiator than Renly with much better people skills, and would be a kinder more compassionate king than Stannis. Would he be a great king?...I doubt it. But he would be a much better one than cold-blooded, "light-em-up" Stannis.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

Steven Atwell does a damn good job of explaining why Renly's plan is crazy unless they can shift Joffrey with the incest accusations which can be found here.

I see now why you are making the claims you're making and why you continue to insist that Renly always was after the throne and would need to remove Joffrey eventually.Remember that when you read essays, they are interpretations and unless they include actual text or are supported by the books, they're just assuming to prove their theory.

Renly is already trying to seize the Throne. We’ve seen already how Renly was scheming with the Tyrells to shove Margaery into Robert’s bed, and we will see that Renly will later marry Margaery to give himself the military might to seize the Throne. As I’ve said, if Eddard takes up Littlefinger’s plan, Renly’s going to decamp to Highgarden and rally the south against the Lannisters, which means there’s going to be a drawn-out civil war as I’ve said.

The bolded are assumptions and there is very little to back them up. All the text states is that Renly is trying to marry Margaery to Robert in order to get rid of Cersei. That would have had to appear to be an accident, similar to how Cersei rid herself of Robert, or it would have raised the wrath of Tywin. That would have been the threat of war, not Renly. Also, saying that Renly's plan would have started a civil war ignores the fact that Tywin is already acting out a war against Robb. Renly comes into the play (without fighting) after that. It is Stannis that marches immediately on KL, not Renly. Not sure what Atwell is going on about. Renly was not trying to seize the throne before Robert died and Cersei assumes the role of Regent of Joff. That's what spurs Renly to act. Saying he wanted the throne before that is a wild theory and completely unsupportable by the books. Marrying a Tyrell to Robert would not help him in his bid at all and that is what Renly was doing. As per the books:

"We both know your wedding was a mummer's farce. A year ago you were scheming to make the girl one of Robert's whores."

"A year ago I was scheming to make the girl Robert's queen," Renly said, "but what does it matter?

Anyway, I'm done. I'd rather argue with Atwell directly, who is also makes leaps of assumptions, than do it second hand. Thanks for a fun afternoon on my day off.