why does everyone blame Renly for Stannis's mistake

[John Doe]

7 hours ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

You can repost it, but a claim means nothing (popular support or otherwise) unless someone presses it, 3rd party or primary, and succeeds.

This is basic inheritance stuff laid out by ASOIAF.

Nothing in this wiki link provides evidence that trumps the one I gave with the quote. Do you not think that people like Ned, Robb, Glover, Olenna and what is basically a room full of northern lords know a bit about how inheritance in Westeros works? Because you should. 

[Darkstream]

1 hour ago, Sullen said:

Not always, evidently, else he would have not holed himself in Dragonstone and waited instead of warning his brother, or people he knew his brother loved and that the Lannisters loathed (Either Eddard or Renly).

Fact is, once Jon Arryn died and Robert "slighted" Stannis by deciding to make Ned the Hand, Stannis pretty much abandoned Robert to his fate despite "knowing" what the Lannisters were capable of. That is treason, undutiful, disloyal.

I know this, and I agree.

...I stated so in the same post of mine that you quoted.

[Darkstream]

10 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

That last quote is a little disingenuous, First of all, though I'm sure you realise, the brother's crown quote is about Robert, not Lord Stannis. It is Robert's crown that Renly hopes to get. 

How is it disingenuous? It's Cat's reaction to the fact that it's Renly claiming Robert's throne, instead of Stannis, that is important; As she knows that Stannis has the stronger claim than Renly. To the people of Westeros, it's a shock that Renly would even press his claim, when he has an older brother that is still alive.

Quote

Secondly that whole chapter shows how divided they were, there are some people arguing to support Renly over Stannis.  Men like Piper give very good reasons why Renly, despite a lesser claim, is the better option. 

They are not divided over who has the stronger claim, or who the rightful heir is. They are divided over whether or not they should support the man with the stronger or weaker claim, due to the circumstances.

Quote

 Stannis' claim is better than Renlys, but his chances of success are slimmer. An argument could very well be made that actually weakens his claim on the Throne as to actually claim a seat that someone else is currently sitting in requires more than 'right'. It also requires the ability to keep it by keeping the vassals happy. Two areas were Renly seems a better option that Stannis. 

It doesn't weaken his claim, it weakens the chances that he will succeed in pressing his claim.

No matter how much support he garners, his claim is still that of the eldest brother, and next in line in the order of succession, by the laws of Westeros. Lack of support does not change that.

If all of the Lords in the Kingdom gathered together at a great council, and voted to change the laws of succession to that of the one with the largest army, from the current ones of primogeniture, then that would make Renly's claim stronger; Not a group of Lords ignoring the laws because it serves their agenda.

legal succession in Westeros is determined by primogeniture, not by 'might makes right.'

[El Guapo]

Here, let me help you guys out for all of your laws of succession questions.

"The short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpretations, and often contradictory"

-GRRM

[Darkstream]

24 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Here, let me help you guys out for all of your laws of succession questions.

"The short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpretations, and often contradictory"

-GRRM

Perhaps regarding the rights of women and legitimized bastards, but not concerning the matter at hand in this discussion. These laws are crystal clear.

Would you care to provide some context to GRRM's quote? I'd wager he was responding to a question pertaining to either the DoD, or the Blackfyre rebellions.

[Universal Sword Donor]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is true that Sunglass and the others were burned by Selyse and Mel, not Stannis. But do you know what is also true? That Stannis did not burn Selyse and Mel, in turn, for this disobedience and treachery. He may not have been commanded but he sanctioned it after the fact by not punishing them for their crime. Where is the just Stannis there, the Stannis who knighted Davos and cut off his finger tips? There are different rules for Stannis' wife and Stannis' mistress than there are for average people. Assuming Stannis wasn't okay with the entire thing. I mean, it is not unlikely that he had given Melisandre leave to burn these people when he sent her back to Dragonstone, no?

 

None of that is really relevant to the issue at hand regarding Stannis having a pious follower. Stannis is a huge hypocrite until he sails north to the wall. He says as much, something that most people always seem to forget.

[Universal Sword Donor]

Just now, Darkstream said:

Perhaps regarding the rights of women and legitimized bastards, but not concerning the matter at hand in this discussion. These laws are crystal clear.

Yes the legitimate offspring of the king come before brothers. All hail King Tommen. Definitely never had great councils to determine the king either. Nope nosirree

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 hours ago, John Doe said:

Nothing in this wiki link provides evidence that trumps the one I gave with the quote. Do you not think that people like Ned, Robb, Glover, Olenna and what is basically a room full of northern lords know a bit about how inheritance in Westeros works? Because you should. 

I do, but most of their opinions are irrelevant because Joffrey was recognized as a legitimate king and Stannis hadn't declared yet. You can't be king if no one ones you and you don't put forth a claim. It's just an empty seat at that point. Olenna recognizes Joffrey and later Tommen as the rightful king too, so I'm not sure what you think you're espousing. Ned is the only one who knew and didn't recognize Joffrey as legitimate.

[Darkstream]

26 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

Yes the legitimate offspring of the king come before brothers. All hail King Tommen. Definitely never had great councils to determine the king either. Nope nosirree

Yes, we all get it. 

Your childish attempt to divert attention from your failed argument wasn't very clever the first time. It certainly hasn't become more clever now that you've posted it for the third or fourth time.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, John Doe said:

Nothing in this wiki link provides evidence that trumps the one I gave with the quote. Do you not think that people like Ned, Robb, Glover, Olenna and what is basically a room full of northern lords know a bit about how inheritance in Westeros works? Because you should. 

Ned was a Baratheon lackey. He honestly thought Robert was a king, and honestly thought that if Robert's children weren't Robert's seed they had not claims to the Iron Throne (both is questionable). Robb quickly changed his mind on Stannis' claim when his lords declared him king. The same goes for Glover. And Olenna didn't let her private opinion influence the policy of House Tyrell.

None of these people care all that much about Stannis' claim.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

To the people of Westeros, it's a shock that Renly would even press his claim, when he has an older brother that is still alive.

That isn't the case. The lords and people of the Reach and the Stormlands love Renly and have no issue whatsoever with his claim to be the rightful king. Brienne, Tarly, Loras, you name them are all clear on that matter. They don't give a fig about the fact that Renly has an older brother, just as Robert didn't care about the fact that Aerys II had heirs of his own body.

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

No matter how much support he garners, his claim is still that of the eldest brother, and next in line in the order of succession, by the laws of Westeros. Lack of support does not change that.

Can you give us a quote that this is always the case? Can you cite us those 'laws of Westeros' you seem to know so well? I'd really like to read those. And I'd also like to know how binding such laws (if they existed) would be for the great lords of the Realm, the members of the royal family, and the king himself.

It is pretty clear that a son usually succeeds his father. But does it always have to be the eldest son? We don't know. There are pretty strong hints that fathers can disown their sons, and it is pretty clear that kings can choose their heirs. 

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

If all of the Lords in the Kingdom gathered together at a great council, and voted to change the laws of succession to that of the one with the largest army, from the current ones of primogeniture, then that would make Renly's claim stronger; Not a group of Lords ignoring the laws because it serves their agenda.

A Great Council actually can't make binding law or elect a king. It advises the king on his own terms. Jaehaerys I convened the first Great Council to discuss his own succession but the lords did not make the new heir. Jaehaerys I did. He chose to follow the counsel the assembled lords gave him (which was the point why he laid the matter before them in the first place) but he was not bound by law or custom to do so.

The third Great Council debating the succession of Maekar I was convened and presided over by Lord Rivers, the Hand, acting in the late king's stead. The Hand continues to speak with the King's Voice until a new king is crowned. That means that it was Bloodraven, in the end, who made Egg king, not the lords of the Realm. If Bloodraven had decided to ignore the lords he could have done so, just as he executed Aenys Blackfyre.

[Bernie Mac]

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

How is it disingenuous?

They are have a debate on who to follow. Stanns is only one of the five options that is mentioned.  To use that quote to say that Stannis was had the best claim is clearly wrong. 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

 

It's Cat's reaction to the fact that it's Renly claiming Robert's throne, instead of Stannis, that is important;

How is it important to this discussion? Cat thinks Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella are all legitimate Baratheon's at  this point. She thinks that out of Robert's two brothers it was Stannis who was most likely to usurp his nephews crown. 

That has nothing to do with who has the best claim and everything to do with how the realm saw brooding Stannis. 

 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

 

As she knows that Stannis has the stronger claim than Renly. To the people of Westeros, it's a shock that Renly would even press his claim, when he has an older brother that is still alive.

Clearly not the people of Westeros as Renly had more followers than any other King. 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

They are not divided over who has the stronger claim, or who the rightful heir is. They are divided over whether or not they should support the man with the stronger or weaker claim, due to the circumstances.

Nope. The chapter is very clear. Joffrey is the King, Tommen comes next. Some wish peace, some want war bit can't decide on who to support. It has little to do with who has the best claim and more to do with who they will anger as pointed out by Blackwood, if they make peace with Joffrey do they not become traitors to King Renly. 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

It doesn't weaken his claim, it weakens the chances that he will succeed in pressing his claim.

Which weakens his claim. I hate to be rude, but actually look up what the word means. You need strength to claim something that currently belongs to someone else. 

There is more than one meaning to the word. In terms of succession Stannis has a stronger clam than his brother Renly, and weaker claims than his two nephews. In terms of strength and being able to claim something that does not belong to him  Renly has the greater chance of success. 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

No matter how much support he garners, his claim is still that of the eldest brother, and next in line in the order of succession, by the laws of Westeros. Lack of support does not change that.

Joffrey is the King. Tommen is the next in line. That is the recognised law of Westeros. Robert recognised two sons, both come before any brother. Westeros law does not understand what a paternity test is. 

2 hours ago, Darkstream said:

If all of the Lords in the Kingdom gathered together at a great council, and voted to change the laws of succession to that of the one with the largest army, from the current ones of primogeniture, then that would make Renly's claim stronger; Not a group of Lords ignoring the laws because it serves their agenda.

legal succession in Westeros is determined by primogeniture, not by 'might makes right.'

Well shit, you'd best tell the author that as clearly he does not know the laws of his own fictional universe. 

 

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.

Legal succession in Westeros can be determined by both primogeniture and might makes right. Robert Baratheon is proof enough of that. 

[Darkstream]

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Ned was a Baratheon lackey. He honestly thought Robert was a king, and honestly thought that if Robert's children weren't Robert's seed they had not claims to the Iron Throne (both is questionable). Robb quickly changed his mind on Stannis' claim when his lords declared him king. The same goes for Glover. And Olenna didn't let her private opinion influence the policy of House Tyrell.

None of these people care all that much about Stannis' claim.

Who cares if they care? It's irrelevant, and doesn't support your argument.

Quote

That isn't the case. The lords and people of the Reach and the Stormlands love Renly and have no issue whatsoever with his claim to be the rightful king. Brienne, Tarly, Loras, you name them are all clear on that matter. They don't give a fig about the fact that Renly has an older brother, just as Robert didn't care about the fact that Aerys II had heirs of his own body.

Again, who cares? It's irrelevant. You are siting the very people who are ignoring the law, in order to further their own agenda. This is an absurd argument

Quote

Can you give us a quote that this is always the case? Can you cite us those 'laws of Westeros' you seem to know so well? I'd really like to read those. 

Do I need to? Have you actually resorted to denying this is the  way of things in Westeros?

Quote

And I'd also like to know how binding such laws (if they existed) would be for the great lords of the Realm, the members of the royal family, and the king himself.

There as binding as any law. That doesn't mean nobody is going to attempt to disregard and break them.

Or do you think that no murders and rapes are committed, those acts are against the law too, you know?

Quote

It is pretty clear that a son usually succeeds his father. But does it always have to be the eldest son? We don't know. There are pretty strong hints that fathers can disown their sons, and it is pretty clear that kings can choose their heirs. 

Nobody is denying that they can. Yet another irrelevant argument; This does not change the fact that Stannis is the legal heir.

Quote

A Great Council actually can't make binding law or elect a king. It advises the king on his own terms. Jaehaerys I convened the first Great Council to discuss his own succession but the lords did not make the new heir. Jaehaerys I did. He chose to follow the counsel the assembled lords gave him (which was the point why he laid the matter before them in the first place) but he was not bound by law or custom to do so.

The third Great Council debating the succession of Maekar I was convened and presided over by Lord Rivers, the Hand, acting in the late king's stead. The Hand continues to speak with the King's Voice until a new king is crowned. That means that it was Bloodraven, in the end, who made Egg king, not the lords of the Realm. If Bloodraven had decided to ignore the lords he could have done so, just as he executed Aenys Blackfyre.

That's great. Did Robert Robert declare that he was making Renly his heir? Once again, your argument is irrelevant. 

[Universal Sword Donor]

1 hour ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, we all get it. 

Your childish attempt to divert attention from your failed argument wasn't very clever the first time. It certainly hasn't become more clever now that you've posted it for the third or fourth time.

I have yet to make a failed argument. Your's has been dissected at every turn by people far smarter than I.

[Lord Varys]

31 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Do I need to? Have you actually resorted to denying this is the  way of things in Westeros?

I happen to actually care about the way succession works in Westeros. Do you, independent of this Stannis discussion?

31 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

There as binding as any law. That doesn't mean nobody is going to attempt to disregard and break them.

How do you know that? I laid out somewhere above that the laws in Westeros are precedent-based. That means there is no real written code of law that is actually binding, nor are the punishments for crimes binding. A king can choose whether to prosecute somebody just as he can essentially decide how to punish a criminal if decides to do it. And he can even pick the manner of death if the sentence is execution, as various kings in the series demonstrate.

What is here in doubt is whether anybody broke a law when they were proclaiming Renly king. And there is no clear or easy answer to that question.

31 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Or do you think that no murders and rapes are committed, those acts are against the law too, you know?

It is up to a lord or king to decide what constitutes a rape or a murder.

And thinking about proper procedure - our good friend, Lord Alester Florent, was imprisoned and executed without a fair and proper trial. Tyrion Lannister gets one such (sort of), both in the Eyrie and KL. But 'just Stannis' doesn't seem to like trials.

31 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Nobody is denying that they can. Yet another irrelevant argument; This does not change the fact that Stannis is the legal heir.

Of whom? Robert? Robert's legal heir was Joffrey Baratheon, followed by Tommen and Myrcella Baratheon. Stannis has no proof that Robert's children aren't his - and even if he had this wouldn't change anything unless Robert had publicly agreed with him, declaring his own children bastards born of adultery and incest. Since he never did any of that sort Robert's children are Robert's children, and the rightful heirs of their father if we assume that Robert had anything they could rightfully inherit.

31 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

That's great. Did Robert Robert declare that he was making Renly his heir? Once again, your argument is irrelevant. 

He made Joffrey his heir, and the entire Realm knows it.

The idea that Stannis has a right to question the parentage of Cersei's children is as ridiculous as Prince Andrew trying to steal Prince Charles' crown upon the death of his royal mother on the grounds that he thinks Charles isn't their mother's son but another woman's son. Today something like that could work if people had evidence. But Stannis has none, nor is there any legal authority aside from the king himself who could rule in such a matter. Stannis should have shut the fuck up, period.

Just as Renly should have accepted Joffrey as his king, of course. He isn't better. But Stannis is also not better than Renly. They are both ambitious murderous pricks, willing to kill their sister-in-law and kill their own nephews and nieces. 

[Darkstream]

47 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

They are have a debate on who to follow. Stanns is only one of the five options that is mentioned.

Irrelevant.

Quote

 

 To use that quote to say that Stannis was had the best claim is clearly wrong. 

No, it's not wrong. Cat's comments still imply that Stannis has a stronger claim than Renly.

Quote

How is it important to this discussion? Cat thinks Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella are all legitimate Baratheon's at  this point. She thinks that out of Robert's two brothers it was Stannis who was most likely to usurp his nephews crown. 

Right, just like she would find it absurd for Bran to declare Independence, and anoint himself King in the North over Robb - because Robb has a stronger claim than Bran.

Quote

Clearly not the people of Westeros as Renly had more followers than any other King. 

Yes, more followers who were committing treason, and disregarding who had the strongest claim, in order to further their own agenda.

Quote

Nope. The chapter is very clear. Joffrey is the King, Tommen comes next. Some wish peace, some want war bit can't decide on who to support. It has little to do with who has the best claim and more to do with who they will anger as pointed out by Blackwood, if they make peace with Joffrey do they not become traitors to King Renly. 

Exactly.

Quote

Which weakens his claim. I hate to be rude, but actually look up what the word means. You need strength to claim something that currently belongs to someone else. 

There is more than one meaning to the word. In terms of succession Stannis has a stronger clam than his brother Renly, and weaker claims than his two nephews. In terms of strength and being able to claim something that does not belong to him  Renly has the greater chance of success. 

I'm not denying that Stannis' lack of strength makes it unlikely that he will be successful in pressing his claim. 

Again, having more support for a weaker claim doesn't equate to that claim being a stronger claim. It just means that the person with the weaker claim has more support, and a better chance of bypassing someone with a stronger claim.

Quote

Joffrey is the King. Tommen is the next in line. That is the recognised law of Westeros. Robert recognised two sons, both come before any brother. Westeros law does not understand what a paternity test is.

So? After Tommen, Stannis still comes before Renly. What's your point?

Quote

Well shit, you'd best tell the author that as clearly he does not know the laws of his own fictional universe. 

 

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.

Legal succession in Westeros can be determined by both primogeniture and might makes right. Robert Baratheon is proof enough of that. 

Who's denying that it can be determined by might makes right? That's glaringly obvious.

[ravenous reader]

Quote

THE HORNWOOD INHERITANCE AND THE WHENTS

[Summary: Maia asks about the Hornwood inheritance, given that Lord Hornwood's sister is not being considered for the lordship but her son is and so is one of his bastards. Given that we have seen female heads of houses (Mormont, Whent, and other examples listed), this doesn't seem to make sense. Moreover, how could Lord Hornwood's wife or a future husband of herself be considered a legitimate holder of her lands over Lord Hornwood's blood relatives. Also, Maia asked about Lady Whent being called the "last of her line" given that a female Whent is listed as married to a Frey, but GRRM did not answer that one.]

Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

In fact, if you look at medieval history, conflicting claims were the cause of three quarters of the wars. The Hundred Years War grew out of a dispute about whether a nephew or a grandson of Philip the Fair had a better claim to the throne of France. The nephew got the decision, because the grandson's claim passed through a daughter (and because he was the king of England too). And that mess was complicated by one of the precedents (the Salic Law) that had been invented a short time before to resolve the dispute after the death of Philip's eldest son, where the claimants were (1) the daughter of Philip's eldest son, who may or may not have been a bastard, her mother having been an adulteress, (2) the unborn child of the eldest son that his secon wife was carrying, sex unknown, and (3) Philip's second son, another Philip. Lawyers for (3) dug up the Salic Law to exclude (1) and possibly (2) if she was a girl, but (2) was a boy so he became king, only he died a week later, and (3) got the throne after all. But then when he died, his own children, all daughters, were excluded on the basis of the law he's dug up, and the throne went to the youngest son instead... and meanwhile (1) had kids, one of whom eventually was the king of Navarre, Charles the Bad, who was such a scumbag in the Hundred Years War in part because he felt =his= claim was better than that of either Philip of Valois or Edward Plantagenet. And you know, it was. Only Navarre did not have an army as big as France or England, so no one took him seriously.

The Wars of the Roses were fought over the issue of whether the Lancastrian claim (deriving from the third son of Edward III in direct male line) or the Yorkist claim (deriving from a combination of Edward's second son, but through a female line, wed to descendants of his fourth son, through the male) was superior. And a whole family of legitimized bastard stock, the Beauforts, played a huge role.

And when Alexander III, King of Scots, rode over a cliff, and Margaret the Maid of Norway died en route back home, and the Scottish lords called on Edward I of England to decide who had the best claim to the throne, something like fourteen or fifteen (I'd need to look up the exact number) "competitors" came forward to present their pedigrees and documents to the court. The decision eventually boiled down to precedence (John Balliol) versus proximity (Bruce) and went to Balliol, but those other thirteen guys all had claims as well. King of Eric of Norway, for instance, based his claim to the throne on his =daughter=, the aforementioned Maid of Norway, who had been the queen however briefly. He seemed to believe that inheritance should run backwards. And hell, if he had been the king of France instead of the king of Norway, maybe it would have.

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both.

From SSM:  http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/The_Hornwood_Inheritance_and_the_Whents

While some of these cases are very complex, I think an elder brother's superior claim over than of his younger brother is pretty straightforward.

However, as GRRM points out, 'inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws' -- and that's the conflict we see playing out between Renly's claim (politics>law) vs. Stannis's claim (law>politics).  Then, when Renly wouldn't relent, Stannis threw the law out of the window, and beat Renly at his own dirty game.  The irony is, in order to rectify, or rather ensure restitution of, the law, Stannis felt compelled to turn to criminality.  If everyone flouts the law, pretty soon one has a lawless society in which the only law is 'might makes right' and 'brother be damned.'

[Bernie Mac]

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Irrelevant.

Explain how?

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

No, it's not wrong. Cat's comments still imply that Stannis has a stronger claim than Renly.

No it does, it implies that he was more expected to usurp his nephew's throne. Cat at that stage thinks Joffrey is the real heir and that Tommen is next. That is what she is saying.

And while I agree that Stannis is before Renly in the succession line, it does not change the fact that is not what Cat says in that quote and is disingenuous to imply that she did. 

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Right, just like she would find it absurd for Bran to declare Independence, and anoint himself King in the North over Robb - because Robb has a stronger claim than Bran.

So you are saying that Cat thnks Stannis claiming to be King is absurd as Joffrey and Tommen come before him. Good to know. 

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Yes, more followers who were committing treason, and disregarding who had the strongest claim, in order to further their own agenda.

lol it is only treason if they lose. The great thing about having the most followers is it increases the chance of victory and the winners write the history.

At that stage in the book Stannis was every bit as guilty as committing treason as his younger brother. 

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Exactly.

Glad you agree with me. 

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

I'm not denying that Stannis' lack of strength makes it unlikely that he will be successful in pressing his claim. 

You are fundamentally failing to understand what claim actually means. Hotpie could be the legitimate heir to the throne but it could (and would) be argued that his claim is weak without any actual support to win him the Throne. 

How strong a person's claim is does not just rely on their position in the succession line, it also relies on their ability to actually 'claim' and keep the seat. 

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Again, having more support for a weaker claim doesn't equate to that claim being a stronger claim. It just means that the person with the weaker claim has more support, and a better chance of bypassing someone with a stronger claim.

It can. A claim has multiple meanings. It is not just about birth order. 

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

So? After Tommen, Stannis still comes before Renly. What's your point?

You keep on replying to me as though I have once said otherwise? Is this your only argument? No one is arguing that Renly is the older brother, so it is bizarre that you constantly need to make this statement. 

 

22 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

Who's denying that it can be determined by might makes right? That's glaringly obvious.

You did in your previous reply. You clearly have memory issues. 

[Darkstream]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

There is more than one meaning to the word.

And that is the fallacy in the argument being used to assert that Renly has the stronger claim. We are not discussing who has a stronger claim as defined by the everyday common definition of claim. 

We are - or should be, as it pertains to the OP - discussing who has the strongest claim, as defined by the legal rights of succession.

[Bernie Mac]

9 minutes ago, Darkstream said:

And that is the fallacy in the argument being used to assert that Renly has the stronger claim. We are not discussing who has a stronger claim as defined by the everyday common definition of claim. 

We are - or should be, as it pertains to the OP - discussing who has the strongest claim, as defined by the legal rights of succession.

Then you are confused as there is not one person in this thread who thinks Renly was born before Stannis. They are arguing the chances of success and being able to actually claim a seat that is currently occupied. 

 

When Stannis and Renly claimed the Throne it was already occupied by another; Robert Baratheon's legal and acknowledged heir. They went to war to claim what they desired and in that respect Renly's chances of success were stronger thus he had the stronger claim. 

 

edit: It may have helped if you actually read what some of us have been replying to you rather than ignore what has been written to repeat again and again about the birth order. 

[Darkstream]

20 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Explain how?

No it does, it implies that he was more expected to usurp his nephew's throne. Cat at that stage thinks Joffrey is the real heir and that Tommen is next. That is what she is saying.

And why would she expect Stannis to be the one usurping the Crown over his brother? It's because she knows he has the strongest claim in which to justify his actions with. Just as when the North declared their independence, they didn't declare for Bran over Rob.

Quote

 So you are saying that Cat thnks Stannis claiming to be King is absurd as Joffrey and Tommen come before him. Good to know. 

Well no, that may be the case, but that is a strawman argument.

Quote

lol it is only treason if they lose. The great thing about having the most followers is it increases the chance of victory and the winners write the history.

They lost.

Quote

At that stage in the book Stannis was every bit as guilty as committing treason as his younger brother. 

Only in the eyes of the ignorant people in Westeros. In actuality, he was not commiting treason.

...And I know, I know. He had no proof, I get it.

Quote

You keep on replying to me as though I have once said otherwise? Is this your only argument? No one is arguing that Renly is the older brother, so it is bizarre that you constantly need to make this statement. 

Thats because you keep repeating the same thing. Nobody here is denying that Renly had more support, was more likely to win the war, that Stannis had no proof, etc. It's just as bizarre that you and others need to constantly make these statements as well.

Quote

You did in your previous reply. You clearly have memory issues. 

No, I stated that it is not a legal means to determine the succession, and that having might, does not equate to having a stronger claim.