ConfusedCounselor Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Provide these examples and use the text to back up your claims. I did. He does, this is shown in the Regent needing the Kings signature. By all means show some evidence that a Regent has greater power over the King. I did. The regent rules in stead of the deceases king. lol No you didn't. And you certainly have not shown any evidence that a Regent can imprison the King. But please, provide some. Well, imprisoning a King would be difficult, of course. Imprisoning someone who isn't king just yet and whose claim is put into question however. Do you know what evidence is? Please provide evidence of a Regent having more than the King? Yes I do. However I'm not going to argue the meaning of the term evidence here. I provide points from the text with an interpretation that I think strongly supports my position. That is strong enough for the purposes of discussion. If you want to call that something else fine. I did, it is in the quote and the reasoning that declaring a regent by will would only make sense if he had more power. Well he is, that is why the Regents need the kings signature. Their authority stems from the King of Westeros. I provided countless examples of Regents needing the Kings signature and you have failed to show any evidence from the books to back up your claim that a regent is more powerful than his King. Please do so? Well, I consider having the kings signature on stuff not necessary evidence or a strong indication that you actually need it for everything. I do think I have provided evidence. It is in both the quote from the will, my reasoning on it, as well as how several regents (Cercei, Kevan, Tywin) act around their Kings. Cercei-Joffrey is the only one were there is even a power struggle or any question who anyone will listen too. Also, even if the signature is necessary, it is not necessary proof that the king trumps the regent. They might both have to agree on something. But this is clearly wrong. Kevan was Regent yet Tyrell is asking him to make Tommen release his daughter. A king supersedes a Regent in terms of authority. I have demonstrated my point with a clear example from the books can you do the same? Well sure. They like to work through How is showing many clear examples of the Regents needing the kings authority misinterpreting the facts? I was clearly talking about points I make, not about facts from the novels. lol I forgot all about that thread. I will get back to it. But as I recall your original claim was that the Lannisters were rebels. I pointed out, quite correctly that they were never rebels in the books and you just went round and round in circles claiming that some might see them as such. As you conceded that the Crown had never seen them as Rebels I saw no point in continuing the discussion. Well yes, and my point was that some might see them as rebels (point of view, could be considered), not that the crown did. Which you decide to contest me on. I never conceded anything, that seems to imply I ever argued the opposite. No one claimed it was. But it is very clear from the context that a Regent needs the Kings written permission to do certain things, which clearly shows who is subservient to who. You continually have failed to back up your ludicrous point that a Regent outranks a King, especially a temporary regent with no real ties to the Royal family. It doesn't really. You make to much out of the whole stamp thing. Putting a stamp on something isn't the end all be all of power and certainly not of authority. Hell, Jaime, has more authority then king Tommen, and he is a fancy bodyguard. Never said outranks, said he had more authority. I have waited patiently and you refuse to back up your claims with evidence. Please do so You mean ignore evidence. You have been patient though. Of course not, can you point out where I stated they would? Sure, no problem. I actually can do that. ---------------------------------------------- ConfusedCounselor, on 01 Sept 2015 - 10:25 PM, said: Sure, it is a nice bit of legitamicy. Still, if you need be, I think you can get plenty of things done if you sign it with "Lord Eddard Stark, Lord of Winterfell, Warden of North, Lord Protector of the Realm, Regent of the King and Hand of the King." But that might just be me. Well yeah, that is just you. A confused councillor. In the books the Regents need the Kings stamp. They can control him, have him stamp things he does not need but they still need his authority. There are countless examples of this. You sassy little " that is just you. A confused councillor. In the books the Regents need the Kings stamp." implies you disagree with my sentence: "Still, if you need be, I think you can get plenty of things done if you sign it with "Lord Eddard Stark, Lord of Winterfell, Warden of North, Lord Protector of the Realm, Regent of the King and Hand of the King." -------------------------------------------------- But as we have seen countless times, orders and new laws had to be ratified by the King. Proclaiming Ramsay a trueborn son, giving Riverrun to Emmon and Darry to Lancel had to be approved by the King. Major laws need to be approved by the King, the Regent needed the Kings signature. Sure, they are ruling in his steed, they are wielding authority in his name. Does not mean they do not have more authority/power. Never said they could entirely ignore the king. You are right, they need to put his hand on a stamp and move it to the parchment. But similarly the king can't go about making major decision on his own (that's why you need a regent). Well yeah, he's a child. No one claimed that he was not or that the Regents could not manipulate this child into giving the authority they needed. But they still needed it. But this is all pretty irrelevant to the topic of this thread. Joffrey isn't King and Ned isn't regent yet, or at least not firmly entrenched yet. Ned is Hand, executor of the will, and the person Robert quite clearly wanted to handle business after his dead, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 I did. No you didn't. But please, do so. I did. The regent rules in stead of the deceases king Hilariously incorrect. Did the other Regents need to get the dead kings signature or the living one? Well, imprisoning a King would be difficult, of course. Imprisoning someone who isn't king just yet and whose claim is put into question however. His claim had never been in question before Ned blurting it out. The time to do so was while the previous King was still alive. Ned has no one but himself to blame for not telling Robert, or not sharing this information with Renly and other Lords. Ned shared his information to late, it looks hugely suspicious that Ned was not making these claims hours before when Robert was still alive. Yes I do. However I'm not going to argue the meaning of the term evidence here. I provide points from the text with an interpretation that I think strongly supports my position. That is strong enough for the purposes of discussion. If you want to call that something else fine. I did, it is in the quote and the reasoning that declaring a regent by will would only make sense if he had more power. Just as I suspected, still no evidence. Well, I consider having the kings signature on stuff not necessary evidence or a strong indication that you actually need it for everything. I do think I have provided evidence. No, you have not. But please do. from the books backing up this idiotic claims of yours that a Regent is more powerful than a King. Also, even if the signature is necessary, it is not necessary proof that the king trumps the regent. They might both have to agree on something. Yes, it is proof. But that was not the only evidence I used. When Kevan is regent and Maegary is imprisoned he is not demanding that Kevan have him released but that Tommen has his daughter released. So not only do we have the Regents needing the Kings signature to back up the obvious truth but the Lords in the Small Council. You have refused to come up with any evidence to back up this claim that a Regent outranks a King and we both know why that is. There is none. I was clearly talking about points I make, not about facts from the novels. Well sure, in your own head you are right. But the books dont agree with you. If they did you would be using evidence from the books to back you up rather than your 'points'. Well yes, and my point was that some might see them as rebels (point of view, could be considered), not that the crown did. Which you decide to contest me on. I never conceded anything, that seems to imply I ever argued the opposite. You said they were technically rebels. I pointed out that they were not. If you agree that the Crown did not consider them rebels then I have no idea why you feel the need to continue this discussion. It doesn't really. You make to much out of the whole stamp thing. Putting a stamp on something isn't the end all be all of power and certainly not of authority. Hell, Jaime, has more authority then king Tommen, and he is a fancy bodyguard. Never said outranks, said he had more authority. His authority comes from the King, it is not itself its own separate entity. Thus the King is more powerful. I look forward to your next pointless reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConfusedCounselor Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Quote I did. The regent rules in stead of the deceases king Hilariously incorrect. Did the other Regents need to get the dead kings signature or the living one? to serve as Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm upon my . . . upon my death . . . to rule in my . . . in my stead, until my son Joffrey heir does come of age Robbert sure seemed to think Eddard was to rule in his (Robert, the deceased king) was to rule in his (Robert) stead. Is he also hilariously incorrect? Just as I suspected, still no evidence Ah, King Koala, the sole judge of what is evidence and what is not and whether or not that definition of evidence is reasonable for a discussion of a book series. Could you please, for little peasant me, explain why X isn't evidence for Y, next time I use it as such? Or is it something only you could understand, your Divineness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Quote Hilariously incorrect. Did the other Regents need to get the dead kings signature or the living one? to serve as Lord Regent and Protector of the Realm upon my . . . upon my death . . . to rule in my . . . in my stead, until my son Joffrey heir does come of age Do you not know what 'in my stead' means? He is ruling on behalf of Joffrey, his power stems from Joffrey. He is not an independent entity, but rules through Joffrey. He is Joffreys agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConfusedCounselor Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 He says my stead, not his or Joffrey stead. Never claimed independent, merely says he has more authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 He says my stead, not his or Joffrey stead. Never claimed independent, merely says he has more authority. Kings don't rule from the grave. And then there is the matter of Ned needing to be confirmed by the Small Council, which never happened. The Small Council members present all backed Joffrey over Ned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConfusedCounselor Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Kings don't rule from the grave. And then there is the matter of Ned needing to be confirmed by the Small Council, which never happened. The Small Council members present all backed Joffrey over Ned Yes, which is why Ned rules in his stead. Honestly, the grammar is pretty unambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Yes, which is why Ned rules in his stead. Honestly, the grammar is pretty unambiguous. He's dead. Regents don't rule for dead Kings, they rule for living ones. It is embarrassing that you need to be told this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ConfusedCounselor Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 He's dead. Regents don't rule for dead Kings, they rule for living ones. It is embarrassing that you need to be told this. In stead means: "in my place of", not "for". Ie. My colleague finished the report for our boss in my stead. The text literary says this. Argue that is should be interpretative differently, if you must, but it says so. Needing to be told what grammar does might also be viewed as embarrassing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelittledragonthatcould Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 In stead means: "in my place of", not "for". Ie. My colleague finished the report for our boss in my stead. The text literary says this. Argue that is should be interpretative differently, if you must, but it says so. Needing to be told what grammar does might also be viewed as embarrassing. The text also says that he needed the Small Council to confirm it. "Say . . . whatever you need to. Protect and defend, gods old and new, you have the words. Write. I'll sign it. You give it to the council when I'm dead." Ned also says that he needs to be confirmed The need for deceit was a bitter taste in his mouth, but Ned knew he must tread softly here, must keep his counsel and play the game until he was firmly established as regent. In fact Ned himself confirms he can't be the Regent. "Lord Eddard Stark is herein named Protector of the Realm, to rule as regent until the heir comes of age." And as it happens, he is of age, Ned reflected, but he did not give voice to the thought. So not only does a Regent not have more power than the King he serves but Ned is not Regent in any situation as he has not been confirmed by the Small Council if Joffrey is the King and if Stannis is the King then he is not in need of a Regent being 34 years of age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.