UFT Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 and myrcella at sword point and he could win the entire war if he can just murder the "abominations", would he do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Warning Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah.jenice Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 How many boys are in Westeros? How many girls? Stannis cares about the big picture, so yeah, I think he would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drogonthedread Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcotron Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Why would he need to kill them?Far more practical to just send a raven: "Tommen and Myrcella are my prisoners. I promise to pardon them, and legitimize them as Jaime's heirs, if you will swear fealty. Or I can just toss them in the bonfire if you won't. Your choice."But if you could contrive a situation where he had to kill them, of course he would. He was willing to kill his nephew, Edric Storm. Why wouldn't he do the same with Tommen? It's not as if Tommen were more innocent than Edric, or as if Stannis were less determined now, or as if he or the country were in a better position now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspoi Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 What Falcotron said. The scenario has basically already happened with Edric Storm. To Stannis the Life of one or two Children are inconsequential compared to the fate of Westeros (a very Cold view but not a terribly inaccurate one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Drunkard Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I don't view the Edric comparison as being similar. Edric was completely innocent, he was Stannis' family, and sacrificing him means that Stannis would be punishing someone who had done nothing wrong (not a minor thing for someone whose sense of justice is renowned among friends and enemies alike). It would be an immensely hard thing to do, and that was why the reward would be so powerful. Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella, meanwhile, are seen as subhuman "abominations" supposedly bound to become monsters. Killing them wouldn't be anywhere near as hard given how westeros views incest and the people borne of it. "All three of them abominations born of incest." "Tommen is gentler than Joffrey, but born of the same incest. Another monster in the making. Another leech upon the land." - Stannis Bastards were common enough, but incest was a monstrous sin to both old gods and new, and the children of such wickedness were named abominations in sept and godswood alike. - Catelyn "A monster sits the Iron Throne, an abomination born of incest!" - some Florent dude "Worse than whoring, that. Worse than anything. We'll all drown unless we get rid of her, and that abomination that she whelped." - some sailor He was only Craster's whelp, an abomination born of incest, not the son of the King-beyond-the-Wall. - Sam "Brotherfucker," another voice added. "Abomination." - some peasant And still others saw the Targaryens as abominations: brothers wed to sisters, with their incestuous couplings producing misbegotten heirs. Incest was denounced as vile sin, whether between father and daughter, mother and son, or brother and sister, and the fruits of such unions were considered abominations in the sight of gods and men. Yet this was not a custom native to Westeros, and was viewed as an abomination by the Faith. - the writer of TWOIAF. Not to mention that even people renowned for their honour (e.g Jon Arryn) give child killing a pass when involved in power struggles. I think they'd be killed. At best they get sent to the NW or the Silent Sisters or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daereon Lothston Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Yes, and that is the right thing to do. For example, in the Russian Revolution the royal infants were executed and that prevented the restitution of Tsarism in the coming years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Bastard Snow Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Depends if Davos is with him. A king protects his people or he is no king at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediterraneo Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I disagree with most here. Stannis isn't interested in the fate of Westeros. Stannis would kill them because it would permit him to get what it is "his right". But hey, on the end result, I agree with everybody. He killed Renly, he would have kille Edric. No amount of sweetness and innocence in Tommen and Myrcella would save them. I doubt he would accept a negotiation with the Lannister, in any case. One that doesn't include some sort of personal punishment on Cersei and Jaime, I mean. "Ser Jaime, he is still a knight". Maybe just becoming a silent sister and a Night's Watchman would be enough, maybe not. Stannis is very stern with the other people's fault, even against his own good interest. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyser1 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Stannis likely to "rid the world" of the abominations that are false Baratheons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigger Warning Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Yes, and that is the right thing to do. For example, in the Russian Revolution the royal infants were executed and that prevented the restitution of Tsarism in the coming years. The Russian people sure dodged a bullet there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaughingStormBaratheon Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 I disagree with most here. Stannis isn't interested in the fate of Westeros. Stannis would kill them because it would permit him to get what it is "his right". But hey, on the end result, I agree with everybody. He killed Renly, he would have kille Edric. No amount of sweetness and innocence in Tommen and Myrcella would save them. I doubt he would accept a negotiation with the Lannister, in any case. One that doesn't include some sort of personal punishment on Cersei and Jaime, I mean. "Ser Jaime, he is still a knight". Maybe just becoming a silent sister and a Night's Watchman would be enough, maybe not. Stannis is very stern with the other people's fault, even against his own good interest. Cheers! Yeeeeeah stannis isn't interested in the fate of westeros,which is why he burned claw isle to the ground for wealth and to show what happens to traitors. Oh right... He didn't because even though the rewards were rich, there was no justice in that scenario. Instead he went and saved a country that broke off from the 7 kingdoms, and offered him no allegiance, in order to save them for pretty much no political gain. What an asshole right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Bastard Snow Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 The Russian people sure dodged a bullet there. Yea they ushered in an era of peace and tolerance after the Romanovs got killed. *Ignore the tens of millions who died please* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimJames Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 If he had Tommen and Myrcella under lock and key, he would not need to execute them. He can simply force them to surrender all claim to the throne and to admit to being Jamie's children. I don't think Stannis would execute them if there was no need to: at the very worst he'd send Tommen to the Night's Watch and Myrcella to the Silent Sisters. It is wrong to assume that the only way to get rid of rival clematis is by killing them. Joining the Night's Watch or The Clergy just as assuredly nullifys their claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redeagl Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 They had no King's blood so he will not burn them before he take the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 In theory yes, but if they were looking up at him with puppy-dog eyes and saying "Uncle Stannis, you won't hurt us, will you?" He might not be able to go through with it. At least not personally. These children didn't do anything wrong, and are not aware that he isn't their uncle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 How is this even a question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonCon's Red Beard Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 How mostly people read the chapter of Stannis saying he needed to kill Edric Storm: Yes, I have to kill him because it's the right thing to do, for the good of everything. What Stannis ACTUALLY said: I have to, you don't understand, is the right thing, right? It's what we need, he's a bastard boy, and my blood, but someone has to, and I have too, it's for the good of the realm, I wouldn't have another choice, I have no more options, Davos, don't you get it? come on Davos, don't you see how I'm trying to convince myself more than I am trying to convince you??? Speak, Davos. Say something!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boarsbane Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 They had no King's blood so he will not burn them before he take the throne. How do you figure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.