Lord_Tyrell Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Ummm, this isn't even a question. He would absolutely do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redeagl Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 How do you figure? How do you figure? I meant that he will get nothing by burning them before he take the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sage of Westeros Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 He was going to kill Edric and Davos for less so yeah he would totally kill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grissom Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 He would kill himself if he knew it would be for the good of Westeros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
falcotron 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.On the TV show, getting Tommen and Myrcella to do that might be meaningful. But in the books, neither of them has any idea that Jaime really is their father, and no way of knowing whether it's true. And they're both so far below the age of majority that any promise they make is unlikely to be convincingly binding. Anyone who wanted to rebel in a few years on behalf of Tommen could easily ignore Tommen's confession as the confession of a child who didn't understand what he was saying, and couldn't possibly have known whether it was true even if he did understand it.Getting Cersei and/or Jaime to admit it, on the other hand, is much more meaningful. They both demonstrably and obviously know the truth, and they're both legal adults. Their admission would be nearly impossible for anyone to plausibly repudiate in the future.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.What you're arguing is the exact same thing I said: Killing Tommen would be an even easier decision than killing Edric.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.Who said anything about not including a punishment for either Cersei or Jaime?As for the kids, legitimizing them as Jaime's heirs is a win-win situation for everyone. If Jaime goes straight directly from the KG to the NW without passing Go or collecting Casterly Rock, that puts the inheritance in dispute. Giving it to Tommen avoids that problem for the Lannister family and for the Westerlands' stability. It makes it easier for Jaime to accept his punishment. And it means that every vassal in the Westerlands is now swearing an oath of fealty to Tommen Lannister, son of Jaime Lannister, which, again, makes it harder for anyone to repudiate Jaime's admission and rise up in support of Tommen as King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Blizzardborn Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 He was going to kill Edric and Davos for less so yeah he would totally kill them. We don't know that he actually would have gone through with killing Edric. He might have gotten to the last minute and not been able to. Notice how Stannis ended up not having Davos killed? His follow-through on these personal burnings has been pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFT Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 im just wondering why he has so much support among fans as a just man if he can so easily stab a small girl in the face. a dark anti hero yes, but not just. he already essentially threatened their lives. i would think that he would acknowledge its not their fault who their parents are, just like it wasn't jon snow's fault. he was ready to legitimise jon. why not plan to give tommen casterly rock as a legitimised lannister? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A spoon of knife and fork Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 I'm not sure. Having an 11 year old and a 9 year old executed is not going to help his PR so it wouldn't really be "for the good of Westeros". Murdering kids is not looked upon kindly by pretty much anyone, and its the kind of reputation that doesn't go away (and not in a positive way). People across Westeros still talk about and/or despise Tywin for what he did to the Targ kids. Maybe he'd pull a Richard III and lock them in a tower. Maybe he'd force Cersei and Jaime to admit their incest publickly and then declare Tommen and Myrcella have no claim. Plenty of rulers in history have had children declared bastards when they are ahead of them in succession, and it often works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsay Gimp Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 I'm not sure. Having an 11 year old and a 9 year old executed is not going to help his PR so it wouldn't really be "for the good of Westeros". Murdering kids is not looked upon kindly by pretty much anyone, and its the kind of reputation that doesn't go away (and not in a positive way). People across Westeros still talk about and/or despise Tywin for what he did to the Targ kids. Maybe he'd pull a Richard III and lock them in a tower. Maybe he'd force Cersei and Jaime to admit their incest publickly and then declare Tommen and Myrcella have no claim. Plenty of rulers in history have had children declared bastards when they are ahead of them in succession, and it often works. Stannis don't care about PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaibaman Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 I suspect if Stannis got his hands on Dany and Viserys 17 years ago at Dragonstone he would have murdered them as well. The way I see it Stannis wants to be king and he know that means he has to eliminate any threat to his kingship, that includes killing anyone else who has a claim to his throne. Even if Tommen and Myrcella are denounced as bastards, letting them live will be a mistake because there will be people out there who would support their claim and may try to put them on the throne at some point in the future. Its like what Cersei told Tyrion in the show, that ruling is all about "sleeping in a bed of weeds and pulling them out one by one before they strangle you". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A spoon of knife and fork Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Stannis don't care about PR. Well that's my point then, in that case he doesn't really care about what's good for Westeros. It's absolutely critical that any transition be accepted by a majority or Westeros is fucked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimJames Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 im just wondering why he has so much support among fans as a just man if he can so easily stab a small girl in the face. a dark anti hero yes, but not just. he already essentially threatened their lives. i would think that he would acknowledge its not their fault who their parents are, just like it wasn't jon snow's fault. he was ready to legitimise jon. why not plan to give tommen casterly rock as a legitimised lannister? When discussing the books, the TV series is IRRELEVENT! I don't care if Stannis sacrificed his daughter in the TV series, because it is made abundantly clear that the book version of Stannis would never do such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediterraneo Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 He would kill himself if he knew it would be for the good of Westeros. I think you are quite delusional about Stannis. He is generally interested into "his right", nothing else. Defending Westeros for winning the kingdom is his backup strategy after failing taking the capital. A meaning to an end. Westeros's fate as a whole leaves him cold. Only ""his right" stirs his excitation. Funny in an usurper's brother but... When discussing the books, the TV series is IRRELEVENT! I don't care if Stannis sacrificed his daughter in the TV series, because it is made abundantly clear that the book version of Stannis would never do such a thing. Well, actually D&D said "we were shocked when GRRM told us what Stannis would do do Shireen" but I agree, the show and the books are different. Marin could end up changing minds on that. Or maybe he already has. But it is not "made abundantly clear" I think. On what texts do you base your claim that it is "made abundantly clear"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orphalesion Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 He would kill himself if he knew it would be for the good of Westeros. Yeah.....no. Stannis is not interested in the good of Westeros. Stannis is interested in an uncomfortable chair because he thinks it is his by some sort of "right" Stannis is primarily interested in the good of Stannis, nothing else. Also Stannis seems to have something against the offspring of incestuous relationships, he called Gilly's baby an "abomination" I do not think he'd legitimize Myrcella and Tommen as Jaime's heirs or would allow Jaime to rule Casterly Rock. He'd kill the kids and go Rains of Castamere on the Lannisters for producing incest babies, murdering Robert and, more importantly, sitting in "his" spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag_legion Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 He would probably have wanted to kill them, but Davos might have talked him out of it. Instead both of them would probably be castrated and tommen sent to the wall or the citadel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robb stark of the north Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Of course he would.This way he would show to his bannermen that he has no tolerance of usurpers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caspoi Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Stag_Legion@ can you really castrate a girl? Anyway wasn't the whole preposition that if he does so the whole war will end, not just because he doesn't like their parents. The first one is an obvious yes the other one would be a careful no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimJames Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Well, actually D&D said "we were shocked when GRRM told us what Stannis would do do Shireen" but I agree, the show and the books are different. Marin could end up changing minds on that. Or maybe he already has. But it is not "made abundantly clear" I think. On what texts do you base your claim that it is "made abundantly clear"? When Melisandre wants him to burn Edric, he really is uncomfortable with the idea. In fact, Stannis ultimately decides it is the wrong thing to do. Later, in his winter campaign, the Florents want him to burn a nonbeliever. He says "Half my army is made up of Nonbelievers, pray harder." While he does burn four random nobodies, it is only after they are caught committing cannibalism (a crime for which they would have been executed anyway). Apart from those two instances of Stannis not wanting to burn innocent people, there is also the fact that Sireen is not even with Stannis's army. She and her mother are at The Wall, so even if book-Stannis wanted to burn her he would be unable to as a result of simple geography (the same reason why Brienne, who is in the Riverlands, would not realistically be able to make her way North to cut Stannis's head off [I doubt she would even get past The Neck]). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimJames Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 He would probably have wanted to kill them, but Davos might have talked him out of it. Instead both of them would probably be castrated and tommen sent to the wall or the citadel If you put Tommen in a black cloak, you wouldn't need to castrate him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag_legion Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 If you put Tommen in a black cloak, you wouldn't need to castrate him. normally that would be enough, but he really wants the two of them to be a dead end when it comes to challenging his claim. So first he will publicly denounce them as the incestuous offspring of jaime and cersei and provide Edric storm/gendry as proof along with a number of confessions from people in the red keep. then he will castrate them and send Tommen to the watch and Myrcella would become a septa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.