Did Stannis even have a chance? (Spoilers)

[TheCasualObserver]

<snip>

I have never said that Renly was trying to take the throne prior to Robert's death. I was alleging that he knew about Joffrey's bastardy at the same time that Ned did.

On the other hand, completely misinterpreting what I say then leaving the thread is a great way to win an argument. And we were doing so well...

<snip>

Thank god we've got you to act as an impartial moderator to my blatant and unforgivable Renly hating!

Seriously though, we have to take what characters say about themselves with a pinch of salt. When Renly gives his justification for claiming Kingship to Catelyn, he is giving the same argument that he gives to the Reachmen and the Storm lords. It's undeniably self serving because it has to be... but that doesn't mean we have to believe it. Winter is coming and hard times are ahead; many characters remark on how Renly is a fair weather King - Catelyn among them. So while Loras might think that his lover is most suited for the throne, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. In comparison, Stannis' claim to the throne comes from something we know to be true - there's no interpretation in the fact that Joffrey is Jaime's son and by the laws of Westeros, Stannis is Robert's heir. His lack of proof doesn't change that. Stannis then claims that he must do his duty by taking the throne and this is credible as well; an adherence to duty is something which several other characters credit Stannis with.

I get that everybody schemes. I'll say it again; in a scenario where Joffrey's parentage is widely known and accepted, Renly's claim to the throne looks more opportunistic and legally unsound than it does when the incest is unknown, because the law of inheritance isn't as vital when everybody is a rebel against the Iron throne.

Maybe we are having a miscommunication problem; two people who are in love are obviously not great at giving unbiased opinions of each other beyond an intimate setting. Catelyn could tells us how good a father Ned Stark is and how attentive a husband he might be, but she would be less believable in telling people his political capabilities. Similarly, Loras might find Renly a caring companion, but that doesn't mean he's best placed to tell if Renly would make a good King. We are inclined to favour the ones we love.

It's very clear to me that show Stannis is a pale imitation of his book counterpart. It's true - I don't have much love for show Stannis, mainly because of the pathetic end to his story. But this clearly stems from the writers of the show disliking the character. We have no allusions to the social contract, he's a prick to Davos and his love of Shireen was just a set up to gut punch us with her being burned. Brienne claiming Renly was the rightful King was just one more slap in the face.

On the subject of homophobia, there seems to be an effort to avoid it at all costs on the show. Just as some of the darker elements of Tyrion's story were cut to avoid having a morally grey character who is differently abled, so to was Renly made more likable, which meant that Stannis had to be less likeable.

The perfect example is that show Renly dies just after suggesting an alliance between him and the Starks. Since the audience is on the Stark's side, this makes Renly's death more tragic and Stannis more villainous. In the books however, Renly dies after rejecting a more peaceable solution; Catelyn suggests a great council be called to decide the issue of who will be King with diplomacy. Renly turns this option down flat; his argument that a military threat trumps diplomacy is one of the last things we hear from him. It's a morally ambiguous way to end the character and something that the writers deliberately changed in order to make Renly seem more likeable; perhaps a fear of making an overtly gay character too dark?

So after this decison was made, the remainder of the story had to have Stannis as a nominal villain. And perhaps that's why he never stood a chance.

[Blackwater Saint]

I have never said that Renly was trying to take the throne prior to Robert's death. I was alleging that he knew about Joffrey's bastardy at the same time that Ned did.

On the other hand, completely misinterpreting what I say then leaving the thread is a great way to win an argument. And we were doing so well...

Thank god we've got you to act as an impartial moderator to my blatant and unforgivable Renly hating!

Seriously though, we have to take what characters say about themselves with a pinch of salt. When Renly gives his justification for claiming Kingship to Catelyn, he is giving the same argument that he gives to the Reachmen and the Storm lords. It's undeniably self serving because it has to be... but that doesn't mean we have to believe it. Winter is coming and hard times are ahead; many characters remark on how Renly is a fair weather King - Catelyn among them. So while Loras might think that his lover is most suited for the throne, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. In comparison, Stannis' claim to the throne comes from something we know to be true - there's no interpretation in the fact that Joffrey is Jaime's son and by the laws of Westeros, Stannis is Robert's heir. His lack of proof doesn't change that. Stannis then claims that he must do his duty by taking the throne and this is credible as well; an adherence to duty is something which several other characters credit Stannis with.

I get that everybody schemes. I'll say it again; in a scenario where Joffrey's parentage is widely known and accepted, Renly's claim to the throne looks more opportunistic and legally unsound than it does when the incest is unknown, because the law of inheritance isn't as vital when everybody is a rebel against the Iron throne.

Maybe we are having a miscommunication problem; two people who are in love are obviously not great at giving unbiased opinions of each other beyond an intimate setting. Catelyn could tells us how good a father Ned Stark is and how attentive a husband he might be, but she would be less believable in telling people his political capabilities. Similarly, Loras might find Renly a caring companion, but that doesn't mean he's best placed to tell if Renly would make a good King. We are inclined to favour the ones we love.

It's very clear to me that show Stannis is a pale imitation of his book counterpart. It's true - I don't have much love for show Stannis, mainly because of the pathetic end to his story. But this clearly stems from the writers of the show disliking the character. We have no allusions to the social contract, he's a prick to Davos and his love of Shireen was just a set up to gut punch us with her being burned. Brienne claiming Renly was the rightful King was just one more slap in the face.

On the subject of homophobia, there seems to be an effort to avoid it at all costs on the show. Just as some of the darker elements of Tyrion's story were cut to avoid having a morally grey character who is differently abled, so to was Renly made more likable, which meant that Stannis had to be less likeable.

The perfect example is that show Renly dies just after suggesting an alliance between him and the Starks. Since the audience is on the Stark's side, this makes Renly's death more tragic and Stannis more villainous. In the books however, Renly dies after rejecting a more peaceable solution; Catelyn suggests a great council be called to decide the issue of who will be King with diplomacy. Renly turns this option down flat; his argument that a military threat trumps diplomacy is one of the last things we hear from him. It's a morally ambiguous way to end the character and something that the writers deliberately changed in order to make Renly seem more likeable; perhaps a fear of making an overtly gay character too dark?

So after this decison was made, the remainder of the story had to have Stannis as a nominal villain. And perhaps that's why he never stood a chance.

Firstly, I'd avoid the snide attempts at irony...you're not exactly Tyrion, or even Bronn...;)

And your rambling in your second paragaph is irrelevant. You again are trying to apply a standard to Renly you don't apply to Stannis, or Ned, or any other character. Your deluding Renly bias shows again. And yes, you don't and shoudn't have to take what anyone says about themselves at full value. But you don't entirely discount it either just because they said it. Renly is a more empathetic and compassionate person than Stannis, and he knows it. So, he has much justification to believe he would be a better king, and we have much reason to believe he believes it. And Catelyn was hardly unbiased about Renly as he was a possible opponent for Rob. Again, your bias hurts your already erroneous argument.

And you clearly don't get that everybody schemes, because you keep only damning Renly for it. And since you're so biased, I don't care how things look to you, I only care how things are. And everybody vying for a throne that isn't theirs is an opportunist, so spare me your false piety about Renly's "opportunism."

And while I see your point isn't homophobic as I thought, and I retract that, Your point isn't homophobic, but it's still wrong. Just because someone loves somebody doesn't mean they can't make accurate evaluations of the ones they love. They do it all the time. Are you telling me the people who love you can't give people an accurate evalutation of you? Of course they can. it may be a bit biased, and in your dishonest relatives it would be very biased, but they still could. So, Loras was perfectly able of giving a sound analysis of Renly, if not an entirely unbiased one.

As to your last paragraph, I completely agree with you that Renly in the show is more likable than Renly in the books, although Renly in the books was never "dark." Stannis, however, up to the point he burnt his own daughter alive, was nastier in the books but, because of Dillane's excellent performance, more likable. Stannis in the books could suck the fun out of every room he entered, but Dillane brought a faint warmth and vulnerability to the show's Stannis, making him much more human...right up to the point he burnt Shireen. So, I think you're right that circumstances made Renly more likable, as did the charming and charismatic Gethin Anthony, who made him even more likable. But I don't think they're worried about a dark gay character. The bisexual Viper had his dark aspects, and they turned the badass, devoted Loras in the books into a prancing, bed-hopping toff in the show...which really annoyed some of my Gay friends who are Asoiaf devotees.

And again, I assure you, I may have a bias about TV Bronn, book Sansa, or book Jamie, but I am no great Renly fan. I just tend to like charming, empathetic people with a good sense of humor better than humorless, callous people with wooden personalities.

[Ser Pounce FTW]

I have never said that Renly was trying to take the throne prior to Robert's death. I was alleging that he knew about Joffrey's bastardy at the same time that Ned did.

On the other hand, completely misinterpreting what I say then leaving the thread is a great way to win an argument. And we were doing so well...

Sorry. You're right. I misunderstood what you were saying. Although I'm not sure what the point is of Renly knowing beforehand if you don't think it was about him going after the crown.

And I bowed out which is hardly winning. Nice chat, though. Looking forward to more in the future.

[TheCasualObserver]

<snip>

You'll have to give me examples of how compassionate Renly is compared to Stannis. I get that Stannis is a hard and inflexible man, but that doesn't interfere with a clear sense of right and wrong. As Varys says, "there's nothing more terrifying than a truly just man." It's why Renly makes the offer to give Catelyn justice for Ned's death in public with his whole court watching, whilst Stannis offers to send her children back to her in private.

I can't keep arguing the same point with you; this is how some will perceive Renly's claim to the throne if the incest is known and widely believed, because he doesn't have the same legal basis Stannis does.

I'm saying nothing more than the fact that Brienne and Loras cannot give an impartial view of how Renly would behave as a King, because they are both deeply in love with him. Loras talking about Renly here; "I will never betray Renly, by word or deed. He was the king that should have been. He was the best of them." This isn't really attached to anything. Loras is grieving for Renly - it makes sense that he would idolize him, but that doesn't mean that Loras is correct. There's no evidence that Renly was a better politician than Tywin, more loved by his men than Robb or better at commanding than Stannis. It's a subjective opinion from a man grieving for a loved one, not a serious endorsement for the best candidate for the throne.

To compare, Davos presents at least a little more objectivity in his opinion of Stannis. Why? Because unlike Brienne and Loras, Davos has faith in Stannis for his policies rather than his personal qualities. Davos' shortened fingers are the living embodiment of Stannis' tough but fair approach to ruling. Instead of hating Stannis for maiming him, Davos follows him loyally, because he shares Stannis' sense of justice and believes that is what is best for Westeros. And that can be applied to how Stannis would rule if given the throne. What does Renly offer as a counterpoint too this?

"Stannis in the books could suck the fun out of every room he entered" I think this is the crux of our disagreement. GRRM wanted us to see Stannis as a miserable curmudgeon, but that doesn't mean he also wanted us to see him as the villain, or necessarily a bad King. Renly can be funny, courtly and chivalrous, but we receive no evidence at all that he would follow through into being a good King; it's superficiality over substance. Renly creates a rainbow guard, holds tournaments and hosts feasts, while Stannis sends a letter (completely true) around the world explaining his claim to the throne. Stannis' claim is based on the principle of law - Renly's claim is based on the principle of force. Of the two, Stannis' is far more stable; if Renly had won, would that mean that from then on the only person with any right to the throne is the most charismatic warrior in Westeros? If Renly was crowned, had a son and died, is there any way of guaranteeing that the child would be just as popular as the father?

Of course, TV show Stannis is hopeless; there's no getting around the fact that he appeared to burn his daughter when his situation wasn't even that dire. But his book counterpart is far more interesting; a truly just man who's understanding of the throne and his responsibilities changes and evolves over time. I don't see how Renly measures up.

[Blackwater Saint]

<snip>

I don't have to give any examples. Renly doesn't go around burning his own people or children alive, nor does he punish any of his men (or womne) in any such callous, cruel manner. He is also empathetic with the people with whom he engages and takes in like Brienne. And you completely misread Catelyn's statement. She was warning that someone who is so rigidly committed to his idea of right and wrong--even though he only thinks he is just--is exactly the person who would do anything to anybody out of that principle...just like Stannis. Oliver Cromwell was "just," so were the people in the Salem Witch Trials who truly believed witchcraft was real and wrong. Believing oneself is "Just" does not always equal being "compassionate"...just ask the victims of Stannis' pyromania.

And if you say you're not going to keep making an argument....stop making it, particularly when you're wrong. As i said before, you clearly don't get that everybody schemes, because you keep only damning Renly for it. And since you're so biased, I don't care how things look to you, I only care how things are. And everybody vying for a throne that isn't theirs is an opportunist, so spare me your false piety about Renly's "opportunism..' So, who cares if people perceive Renly as scheming, everybody vying for a throne that isn't clearly rightfully theirs is scheming...that includes Stannis.

And again, you keep ignoring my cogent arguments as if I never said them; that's rude. I already debunked what you said above when I wrote this:

"Just because someone loves somebody doesn't mean they can't make accurate evaluations of the ones they love. They do it all the time. Are you telling me the people who love you can't give people an accurate evalutation of you? Of course they can. it may be a bit biased, and in your dishonest relatives it would be very biased, but they still could. So, Loras was perfectly able of giving a sound analysis of Renly, if not an entirely unbiased one."

And since you keep saying we can't trust Loras, but we can trust Catelyn when she speaks of Ned, I'll return the comment that that's a bit homophobic. Apparently the Straights can talk about each other and not be affected by their love, but the two Gay men can't. That's both erroneous and wrong. And you're saying Davos could be impartial just proves that. Stannis made him a lord and gave his children a future he never could give them; he says time and time again how immensely grateful to Stannis he is and how great he is, and yet you say he can be "impartial," while Renly and Loras can't. That's silly and doesn't help your flawed argument at all.

And are you actually going to base Stannis' substance on his sending a letter telling everybody, "hey, I'm king." Not only is that egotistical of him, since he had no clear proof, it give no evidence he would be a good king. And people who burn their own subjects alive are not going to be good kings because they are sure to levy other such harsh punishments on their subjects...whether they deserve them or not. Stannis is commited to being just, but much of his sense fo justice comes from his callousness, rigidness, and bitterness of being slighted. Only Walder Frey nursed slights like Stannis, who never got over being stuck with Dragonstone--which he didn't rule well--and even took offense to Renly's peach joke.

And that is a big reason why Renly measures up. It isn't hard to "measure up" to a bitter, callous, coldblooded "leader" who burns people alive (and in the show, his own daughter); is poor at diplomacy and winning people over, and does not relate to or even tries to understand is subjects. Renly is empathetic, engaging, and treats his men humanely; he is engaging and is able to win support of major players like the Tyrells; and he actually engages the people around them, instead of holing himself up among only a few advisors. So, Renly doesn't just measure up to Stannis, he completely surpassed him as a future leader...until Stannis cravenly assassinated him with Blood magic.

[MoreOrLess]

It makes sense to limit this to the show characters since this is afterall a show forum, mention the book differences if you want but if that's the main thing you want to talk about do it in a book forum.

Just talking about the show characters I would agree with a lot of what Blackwater Saint says, Stannis is really an example of how a person who might be creditable in certain respects can commit horrible acts by placing prophecy or some destiny of believed greater good above his personal morality. Those acts ultimately extend to believing he even needs to kill the person he cares about most.

Really though cannot similar things be said of Renly? we obviously don't see him go nearly as far down the path as Stannis does but he's clearly not on the same level as Ned or even Robb when it comes to putting morality before personal ambition. He's not opposing Stannis because he knows he's going to turn into someone who's going to burn people alive, indeed its actually his opposition that does a lot to help turn his brother into someone willing to go to those ends, not to mention he's no problem killing him and thousands of his men.

We see that Renly's idea that nobody will follow Stannis is nonsense, his bannermen do right away and if Renly had allied with him its more than likely the Tyrells would have as well. That would have put the Lannisters in an almost impossible situation to the degree that Tywin might even have withdrawn support for Joffery thus ending the war with limited bloodshed. Renly would even had had a pretty good shot at becoming king considering Stannis is unlikely to have any sons.

[Winter's Cold]

It makes sense to limit this to the show characters since this is afterall a show forum, mention the book differences if you want but if that's the main thing you want to talk about do it in a book forum.

Just talking about the show characters I would agree with a lot of what Blackwater Saint says, Stannis is really an example of how a person who might be creditable in certain respects can commit horrible acts by placing prophecy or some destiny of believed greater good above his personal morality. Those acts ultimately extend to believing he even needs to kill the person he cares about most.

Really though cannot similar things be said of Renly? we obviously don't see him go nearly as far down the path as Stannis does but he's clearly not on the same level as Ned or even Robb when it comes to putting morality before personal ambition. He's not opposing Stannis because he knows he's going to turn into someone who's going to burn people alive, indeed its actually his opposition that does a lot to help turn his brother into someone willing to go to those ends, not to mention he's no problem killing him and thousands of his men.

We see that Renly's idea that nobody will follow Stannis is nonsense, his bannermen do right away and if Renly had allied with him its more than likely the Tyrells would have as well. That would have put the Lannisters in an almost impossible situation to the degree that Tywin might even have withdrawn support for Joffery thus ending the war with limited bloodshed. Renly would even had had a pretty good shot at becoming king considering Stannis is unlikely to have any sons.

I agree with most of your points but your last paragraph is misguided. It's obvious that Stannis can get the support of most of the Stormlanders by just being a Baratheon. However, as aptly demonstrated by the Battle of Blackwater, Stormlanders are not enough to take down the Iron Throne. The problem with Stannis is that he cannot make allies with any of the other major houses. That's what Renly means that nobody will follow Stannis, no other lord paramounts will ally with him. Also the lord paramount of the Reach only has one goal, make his daughter a queen and keep Stannis off the Iron Throne. Remember that Stannis is married to a Florent, a House with a better claim to Highgarden than the Tyrells. The Tyrells do not want to crown a Florent Queen. Considering this Renly's actions were definitely reasonable. After all it took magic for his plan to fail.

[Blackwater Saint]

Just talking about the show characters I would agree with a lot of what Blackwater Saint says, Stannis is really an example of how a person who might be creditable in certain respects can commit horrible acts by placing prophecy or some destiny of believed greater good above his personal morality. Those acts ultimately extend to believing he even needs to kill the person he cares about most.

Really though cannot similar things be said of Renly? we obviously don't see him go nearly as far down the path as Stannis does but he's clearly not on the same level as Ned or even Robb when it comes to putting morality before personal ambition. He's not opposing Stannis because he knows he's going to turn into someone who's going to burn people alive, indeed its actually his opposition that does a lot to help turn his brother into someone willing to go to those ends, not to mention he's no problem killing him and thousands of his men.

Well, Winter's Cold already well phrased what would have been my answer about Stannis' poor diplomatic skills. And no, we can't say Renly would have done similar things to what Stannis did. Unlike Stannis, Renly actually has empathy for the people around him and his subjects; and unlike Stannis; Renly wasn't following a cult-like religion and burning people for it. And blaming Renly for Stannis's burning people is nonsensical. Nobody put a crossbow to Stannis' head; he chose to cruelly and callously burn those people--including his own daughter, for God's sake--of his own volition.

Also, let's not rush to hold up Ned or (particularly) Robb as paragons of concern for others' lives. Robb willfully sacrificed thousands of his men so he could win a battle against the Lannisters in his quest to be "King of the North." He also willfully put the rest of his men at danger so he could save the "honor" of his young wife, marry her, and knowingly anger and offend Walder Frey. So, the Red Wedding was partially his fault. And Ned may have not had ambition, but he certainly had arrogant unbending belief in his own principles, arrogance that helped put this country to war and led to the slaughter of Robert's bastards, all because he believed in obeying the rules, even rules that shouldn't be obeyed...like not killing kings, even though they deserve to be killed, and making the younger brother of a usurper king even though he isn't the best choice.

[Facebookless Man]

Someone please explain to me what the Tyrells had to gain from Robert casting Cersei aside if the plan wasn't to get rid of her children too. They just thought Marg would look pretty in a crown? They were eager to fund Robert's tourneys?

[TheCasualObserver]

<snip>

We're getting into deep moral questions here; is it acceptable to burn a child if you think it will save the world? The Spanish thought the Aztecs were barbarians for their heart sacrifices, but the Aztecs genuinely believed that doing so kept the sun rolling over the earth. What about pre-preemptive strikes? That's certainly how Stannis viewed dealing with Renly.

Renly certainly was good to Brienne; but then again, it's not as if he loses anything in the arrangement. By treating Brienne with a modicum of respect he attains a life long body guard who will ask nothing of him but give devotion. Compare that to Stannis promoting Davos; an admirable act and one which cost Stannis popularity. Many great lords see Davos as being a worthless social climber, yet Stannis defies them to make him hand of the King. It's not as if Stannis is incapable of compassion or Renly political machination. Stannis caring for Shireen and Renly plotting with Loras are evidence of both.

My choice of the word scheme was framed in the context of how the public perception of Renly's claim to the throne might be viewed should the incest story become common knowledge. At the start of the war the story of the incest is not well known, which makes both Renly and Stannis appear as Rebels. Renly comes off better here because he has the largest army - if you are breaking the law and rebelling against the rightful King, you may as well be the militarily most powerful; it worked for Robert. Take Joffrey's legitimacy away and Stannis is the lawful heir. Robb Stark mentions this difficulty - "Bran cannot be Lord of Winterfell before me and Renly cannot be King before Stannis", which is an attitude he has only because he doesn't know aboout the incest. When confronted with the knowledge that Joffrey isn't Robert's son and that Stannis is the rightful heir, Renly's claim gets considerably weaker. We might argue over whether or not Renly still should have been King, but the laws of inheritance are important to the people of Westeros, and no one knowing about the incest is a huge blow to Stannis' chances (and really convenient for Renly).

"Catelyn could tells us how good a father Ned Stark is and how attentive a husband he might be, but she would be less believable in telling people his political capabilities. Similarly, Loras might find Renly a caring companion, but that doesn't mean he's best placed to tell if Renly would make a good King. We are inclined to favour the ones we love." I'm being gender neutral here - if Catelyn had said "my husband is an ingenious political schemer" should we believe it? Of course not. I have no doubt that Renly was a loving partner for Loras, but that doesn't make Loras right in declaring that Renly would be the best King.

I don't think we can say Stannis is egotistical for declaring himself King; by the laws of Westeros, he is the King and we the readers know that. I'll agree that it might look egotistical to the people of Westeros however, and Tyrion is quick to claim that it is simply a scheme to make Stannis the lawful heir, which is why, along with his manner, he struggles to get support initially. And how do you know he didn't rule Dragonstone well? Consider this - Dragon stone was a Targaryen possession for hundreds of years prior to Aegon's conquest. Those islands should have been the absolute last Lords to rescind their loyalty to the Baratheons. Stannis rules there for fifteen years and all of a sudden he has their support, even when his claim to the throne looks really sketchy.

I'm willing to agree that Renly is more diplomatically gifted, more charming and better at gathering allies. (I won't concede the point that Renly treats his men better - Stannis starved with the rest when Storm's End was under seige). I'm willing to agree that these are important qualieites for a ruler. But you didn't answer my question about Renly's legacy:

Say Stannis has no "cravenly" magic. Say Renly attacks, kills him and becomes King. Say he has two sons with Margery, lives to be 70 and dies. Who becomes King then? The oldest son is better at fighting, but the youngest son is more diplomatic. They both have armies so they go to war... ecause thats how their father gained his throne, that's how they will gain theirs. And so will their sons, and their sons and so on. Renly's argument works for him in this moment, but it is not sustainable. What if the next two sons who fight over the throne are more evenly matched? What if, on Renly's precedent, the entire hereditary system of government collapses?

Stannis offers the alternative which doesn't rely on currying favour with feudal laws only out for themselves. He relies on the law.

.

[MoreOrLess]

That is a good point that the law just like "honour" with the Starks isn't just about personal morality, its about setting a precedent that characters believe holds society together. You look back on actual history and this was very often the guiding principle driving things like chivalry and the divine right of kings.

Really though is Renly THAT great a diplomat? he's sleeping with the heir of the Tyrells and has been made the Lord of Storms End by Robert making it easy for him to get inroads into the loyality of his bannerman. If he say successfully takes Kings Landing and becomes King what happens then? does he go after the Lannisters? what about the Greyjoys? Northern separatism? political scheming from Littlefinger and co? Not to mention of course the elephants in the room of the Others in the north and Dany in the east.

Personally I think the show looks to give the impression that neither brother is especially righteous and arguably both posses part of the skills needed to be a successful ruler.

[Blackwater Saint]

<snip>

There's no deep moral question. Stannis had no idea he needed to be king to save the world. He wanted to be king and felt it was his right. Whether it was true or not, it was still horrid and horridly cruel to burn his daughter alive. Your not thinking so is troubling.

And you keep repeating the same answers that I already debunked about Renly being a "schemer" and people being in love not being able to be honest about their loved ones. Catelyn never said Ned was a "ingenious political schemer." So, that's a bad example. But according to your erroneous principle, when she said Ned was a good man, we shouldn't have belived her because she was in love.

And Stannis was egotistical since he had no hard proof, and he expected everybody to bow to him anyway. And your comparison to Renly having two sons isn't apt, because there is no son of an eldest brother involved....as there was with Renly and Stannis. So that is a poor analogy. Anyway, I have no interest in discussions with someone who keeps repeating the same bad arguments I already countered. So, good luck with your other discussions and good day.

[Blackwater Saint]

That is a good point that the law just like "honour" with the Starks isn't just about personal morality, its about setting a precedent that characters believe holds society together. You look back on actual history and this was very often the guiding principle driving things like chivalry and the divine right of kings.

Really though is Renly THAT great a diplomat? he's sleeping with the heir of the Tyrells and has been made the Lord of Storms End by Robert making it easy for him to get inroads into the loyality of his bannerman. If he say successfully takes Kings Landing and becomes King what happens then? does he go after the Lannisters? what about the Greyjoys? Northern separatism? political scheming from Littlefinger and co? Not to mention of course the elephants in the room of the Others in the north and Dany in the east.

Personally I think the show looks to give the impression that neither brother is especially righteous and arguably both posses part of the skills needed to be a successful ruler.

Actually, it's not a good point since that "law" didn't keep society together. If Jamie had folllowed that law, Aegon would have burned thousands more people alive. Ned considered that horror a better option; apparently you did, too. Ned also thought that law and honor should make him confront Cersei about her children being bastards, which led to his and many others' deaths..including the slaughter of Ned's bastards. And Ned's insistence on backing Stannis the pyromaniac instead of Renly, who could have taken the throne with minimal bloodshed, helped lead to this mass war and the deaths of tens of thousands...including his son and wife. Yeah, that "law and honor" really held society together.

And not only was the divine right of kings garbage; it was the rule of a different world--ours. And if you believe in the divine right of kings, then Stannis has no claim anyway, since his brother usurped that right.

And whether or not Renly was "THAT" much better of a diplomat--whatever that means--he WAS a better diplomat. He was able to draw over better support than Stannis because he was a charming people person who knew how to flatter and manipulate--like all good diplomats do--and Stannis couldn't do so if he tried: he puts people off. And your rambling questions have no relevance to Renly's diplomacy skills, and would apply to Stannis if he won as well. Also, Renly wasn't just "sleeping" with Loras, they were in love. I don't know why that's so hard for so many Asoiaf fans to admit. And he certainly didn't go to Mace Tyrell and say "I'm in love with your son and getting in the way of marrying a woman and producing an heir, would you back me, please." So, being in love with Loras wasn't his only diplomatic skill.

And your personal view is wrong. The show clearly shows Renly is a charming, endearing man who truly and correctly believes he would be a better ruler to his people than Stannis. We see his diplomatic skills with Catelyn as he lets her insult him in front of his people without anger, in the hopes of forming an alliance with her and Robb. Stannis couldn't do that. And how can you say a ruler who would burn his own people alive, including his own daugter in front of everyone, would be a "successful" ruler"? You really have a troubling notion of "successful."

[Winter's Cold]

Someone please explain to me what the Tyrells had to gain from Robert casting Cersei aside if the plan wasn't to get rid of her children too. They just thought Marg would look pretty in a crown? They were eager to fund Robert's tourneys?

The King on the Iron Throne can essentially do whatever he wants as long as he has enough support. The Tyrells/Renly could convince Robert to disinherit Cersei's children in favor of Margaery's.

[TheCasualObserver]

<snip>

Well, the showrunners certainly claim that this is about ambition in that behind the episode, though I would argue that show Stannis is more of a religious zealot than a morally bankrupt warlord. Which still isn't great, but then again, it's Renly taking the men who owe fealty to Stannis which drives him to this crisis point anyway.

We going to have to leave the "schemer" argument because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. And there is a difference between the personal and political fields, which is why we can accept what Loras might say about Renly when they were alone together, but it does not translate to political capital.

At the point that Stannis delivers his letters, he doesn't have much choice but to hope that people will believe him. You see it as egotistical, I see it as him fighting a losing battle... and there is dignity in upholding what you know to be true, even when all others around you disagree.

"And your comparison to Renly having two sons isn't apt, because there is no son of an eldest brother involved....as there was with Renly and Stannis."

I don't fully understand what you mean here; could you elaborate?

[TheCasualObserver]

The King on the Iron Throne can essentially do whatever he wants as long as he has enough support. The Tyrells/Renly could convince Robert to disinherit Cersei's children in favor of Margaery's.

While possible, that would piss off the Lannisters... and whoever else believes in the principle of the law, including men like Stannis and Eddard (if they didn't know about the incest of course). Since there is no recorded way in which Robert might legally disinherit Joffrey (besides the bastardy angle) this creates a constitutional crisis. Maybe it lasts until Robert dies, but then the Lannisters can still claim Joffrey is King and the Tyrells risk isolating themselves in the same way the Lannisters did in OTL.

So this plan essentially guarantees civil war anyway.

The whole thing is a lot more elegant if Renly knows about the incest and can drop that particular bombshell when necessary, wiping out the Lannister faction in one fell swoop.

[Winter's Cold]

While possible, that would piss off the Lannisters... and whoever else believes in the principle of the law, including men like Stannis and Eddard (if they didn't know about the incest of course). Since there is no recorded way in which Robert might legally disinherit Joffrey (besides the bastardy angle) this creates a constitutional crisis. Maybe it lasts until Robert dies, but then the Lannisters can still claim Joffrey is King and the Tyrells risk isolating themselves in the same way the Lannisters did in OTL.

So this plan essentially guarantees civil war anyway.

The whole thing is a lot more elegant if Renly knows about the incest and can drop that particular bombshell when necessary, wiping out the Lannister faction in one fell swoop.

They can be passed aside in a grand council easily.

[Winter's Cold]

Well, the showrunners certainly claim that this is about ambition in that behind the episode, though I would argue that show Stannis is more of a religious zealot than a morally bankrupt warlord. Which still isn't great, but then again, it's Renly taking the men who owe fealty to Stannis which drives him to this crisis point anyway.

We going to have to leave the "schemer" argument because you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. And there is a difference between the personal and political fields, which is why we can accept what Loras might say about Renly when they were alone together, but it does not translate to political capital.

At the point that Stannis delivers his letters, he doesn't have much choice but to hope that people will believe him. You see it as egotistical, I see it as him fighting a losing battle... and there is dignity in upholding what you know to be true, even when all others around you disagree.

"And your comparison to Renly having two sons isn't apt, because there is no son of an eldest brother involved....as there was with Renly and Stannis."

I don't fully understand what you mean here; could you elaborate?

They owe fealty to Joffrey, the actual king on the Iron Throne. Stannis and Renly are nothing but usurpers in the eyes of the rest of the realm.

[TheCasualObserver]

They can be passed aside in a grand council easily.

I think you might be underestimating just how serious a grand council is. Unlike the council which elected Aegon V, one of the key claimants has one of the richest and most powerful noble houses backing him; all the power of the West, unlike the only son of Aerion Brightflame, who was passed over with ease. Also, in this scenario Joffrey hasn't had the opportunity to show his psychosis; what argument will Renly provide for why Joffrey should be removed? That he provides to much influence from the Lannisters? Will Robert's children by Margery be more egalitarian? The rest of the realm will be forced to choose between Joffrey with a Lannister bias and the strongest possible claim to the throne against a possibly underage son of Margery with a strong Tyrell bias. Take your pick Lords and Ladies!

All of this requires a huge amount of mights and maybes, in a plan which Renly has clearly been thinking about for some time. Compared with how well it works if Renly has that small piece of information, Renly working in the dark is a mess.

[TheCasualObserver]

They owe fealty to Joffrey, the actual king on the Iron Throne. Stannis and Renly are nothing but usurpers in the eyes of the rest of the realm.

That was my point. Without knowledge of the incest, Renly and Stannis are both rebel lords against a Lannister dominant regime. Which is why Renly has no interest in the incest angle until he has already won with military force. Revealing it afterwards will net him a decent quid pro quo against those who question the legality of him seizing the crown.