So Stannis has literally no good reason for thinking himself king right?

[ApostolinO]

On 5/26/2018 at 2:44 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Like he has literally no evidence for any of his suspicions, it seems as though he's assumed Cersi's children aren't Robert's because ultimately he does not them to be; he never himself has a conversation with Cersi where she disclosed her illicit affairs, or read a letter from Ned declaring Stannis as the new king. 

I don't know it seems rather befuddling for a man who touts justice being so great and the law being law would pursue an endeavor not truly having a good foundation for why he shouldn't think it's treason. 

It seems slightly hypocrital no?

      They're not suspicions at this point. He knows the truth and so do we. Jon Arryn knew, Eddard knew, the whole small council knew (except maybe Barristan). That's good enough reason to think yourself king. The problem is that it's impossible to prove to the realm the truth of it even if he had DNA tests to show, because commoners believe what they will and lords would believe whatever's in their best interest.

 

[Bernie Mac]

36 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

      They're not suspicions at this point.

Yeah, they are. 

36 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

 

He knows the truth and so do we.

We know the truth because we have heard Cersei admit to it, Stannis has not. He is right, but he does not know just like he thought he knew the Lannisters killed Jon Arryn when in fact they did not. 

36 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

 

Jon Arryn knew,

No, he didn't. He suspected but he was still investigating and even on his death bed does not reveal what he suspects but gives a subtle hint for others to continue the investigation. Which is actually a pretty noble action to take, not dooming the realm to civil war over a very strong suspicion he had. 

36 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

 

Eddard knew,

Yup, Cersei confessed. Brieftly before that he suspected after a comment Sansa had made, before that he had no idea, he was just trying to look for a reason why the Lannisters murdered Arryn, which they actually did not do. 

It is kind of ironic that in his desire to find a motive for a crime they did not commit he finds out the truth, that is what makes Ned's chapters in AGOT a pretty awesome noir mystery. 

36 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

 

the whole small council knew (except maybe Barristan).

Renly had no idea. 

Stannis and Arryn suspected, as did Pycelle. 

It is unclear how Littlefinger knew, if his spies caught them in the act, his spies were watching Arryn's investigation or he was able to make a very educated guess. 

Varys knew, he has literally spies in the Walls. 

36 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

That's good enough reason to think yourself king.

What is?

 

[Leo of House Cartel]

@Varysblackfyre321

By right of birth I guess Stannis would count as the lawful heir to Robert - however, the situation gets muddled up by the presence of Dany and Aegon, both known to the players at court in KL to some degree.

Although Robert apparently knew of Dany and Viserys for a long time, he still considered himself the rightful king, due to the right of conquest. If we go by such rights in the current timeline, one could argue that Stannis' claim to the Iron Throne was ruined when his fleet was smashed at the Blackwater - meaning Cersei's bastards won the rule of the 7K due to right of conquest.

Things get more confusing when one applies such logic to the situation at the Wall. Stannis arrived and smashed Mance Rayder - a man only considered King Beyond The Wall because he had essentially defeated all the other Free Folk leaders, more right of conquest if you will. Would The Mannis then be able to claim himself King Beyond The Wall, due to conquering the previous figurehead's army?

[ApostolinO]

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

Yup, Cersei confessed. Brieftly before that he suspected after a comment Sansa had made, before that he had no idea, he was just trying to look for a reason why the Lannisters murdered Arryn, which they actually did not do.

Renly had no idea. 

Stannis and Arryn suspected, as did Pycelle.

What is?

Pycelle admited to Tyrion that he sent away Jon Arryn's maester because he was close to saving him and let him die because he "knew". (They dragged him out the splintered door. "Lannister," he moaned, "all I've done has been for Lannister . . ." )  That's too close to murdering in the name of Lannisters so Stannis and Ned suspecting them wasn't far off.

Renly planned to wed Margaery to Robert so he surely had a good reason to cast Cercei aside.

And to go back to the threads title if knowing you're king is no good enough reason then what is? Stannis does not need any more proof about the children, he knows the truth (at least in his mind).

 

 

ps

sorry about messing the quoting I'm still trying to figure it out

 

[Bernie Mac]

40 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

Pycelle admited to Tyrion that he sent away Jon Arryn's maester because he was close to saving him and let him

No, he did not claim he was close to saving him. But he was scared of what Pycelle would say as he lay dying. By sending the Maester away that is one less person who can decipher Arryn's subtle hints about the incest. 

40 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

die because he "knew". (They dragged him out the splintered door. "Lannister," he moaned, "all I've done has been for Lannister . . ." ) 

he did so because he was convinced Cersei had poisoned him. He was wrong about that. Just because you think you know something does not mean you do. 

45 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

 That's too close to murdering in the name of Lannisters so Stannis and Ned suspecting them wasn't far off.

Jon Arryn was ancient by medieval standards, the only reason Ned thought he was poisoned was because the woman who poisoned him told him he was poisoned by the Lannisters. 

the only reason Stannis thinks it is because it fits his narrative. it is pure confirmation bias on his part. 

45 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

Renly planned to wed Margaery to Robert so he surely had a good reason to cast Cercei aside.

yeah, that does not mean he knew of the incest. In the chapter Bran is pushed out of the window Cersei is worried about Renly's scheming to put her aside, she or Jaime don't think that means he knows about them. 

Renly's entire scheme is trying to get Robert to fall in love with a Lyanna lookalike so Cersei, who he is fully aware wants him gone, can be replaced. He would not need a Lyanna lookalike if he knew the truth. 

45 minutes ago, ApostolinO said:

And to go back to the threads title if knowing you're king is no good enough reason then what is? Stannis does not need any more proof about the children, he knows the truth (at least in his mind).

I am just pointing out that he did not know. 

If the evidence that Stannis had while Robert was still alive was not good enough then why should it be good enough now? 

[Lord Varys]

@Leo of House Cartel

Robert never actually claims 'right of conquest' as the reason why he is king. His right is his war hammer, nothing else, which is an admission that he thinks the (physically) strongest should rule, no one else. And Renly later uses the same wildling-like justification for his own flimsy claim - which it is when compared to Joffrey's, Tommen's, and Stannis' claim. That is not right of conquest.

Right of conquest means you do (more or less) properly declare war on another sovereign or nation, then you win that war, and as per the peace treaty, etc. you claim the entire defeated land (or portions thereof) as your own.

Robert wasn't the head of a sovereign state. That doesn't mean he and the other rebels didn't have a right to defend themselves - or even depose - the tyrannical Mad King - they certainly did - but beating Rhaegar to bloody pulp (who had nothing to do with the king's command to execute Ned and Robert) and the treasonous Lannisters jumping the bandwagon of the victorious rebels doesn't make Robert Baratheon king.

There is a line of succession to be followed. With Aerys II and Rhaegar and Rhaegar's children dead the crown should have gone to Viserys III, not Robert Baratheon.

Robert's Rebellion wasn't a 'war of conquest' but a rebellion against a tyrannical king.

I mean, if you look at Westerosi history then most sons or brothers of traitor and rebel lords actually do inherit the seats of their fathers - meaning the Aerys II's transgressions did not exactly make Viserys III and Daenerys unworthy of inheriting the Iron Throne. Just as Lord Gormon Peake's heirs succeeded to Starpike after the Second Blackfyre Rebellion, just as Balon and the Greyjoys were allowed to keep Pyke, etc.

Attainder is a thing in Westeros, but it isn't used all that often.

[Leo of House Cartel]

 

@Lord Varys

Interesting points - certainly changes my view on Robert's Kingship, and his brother's claim. 

While I have always been of the opinion that the crown should have gone to Viserys, I just assumed Robert's victory would have been considered as lawful conquest - sort of an "Aegon I did it, so I guess you Targaryens reap what you sow" type situation.

If it's not lawful conquest then I guess the OP is correct and Stannis does indeed have no good reason to think himself King 

Just so I'm clear, would the Lannister victory on the Blackwater or Mance's defeat to Stannis be considered lawful conquest?

 

[Ralphis Baratheon]

If only Stannis had been born a girl he would have been a Queen. Aerys would have most likely married Rhaegar to a female Stannis because his grandmother was a Targaryen. 

[The Mountain that Cries]

No i'm pretty sure evidence doesn't matter when you think you should be king. 

[The Sunland Lord]

What reason does he need? A DNA test?

[Lord Varys]

On 6/8/2018 at 8:18 PM, Leo of House Cartel said:

Interesting points - certainly changes my view on Robert's Kingship, and his brother's claim. 

Stannis' claim is basically as good as the claim of, say, Arya Stark's children by Ramsay (assuming for a moment the real Arya had married Ramsay) would be against the claims of Brandon or Rickon Stark or their descendants.

Ramsay/Arya didn't come to rule to Winterfell the right and proper way, or did they? It is the same with Robert Baratheon. Brandon and Rickon and Robb didn't give care whether Eddard Stark betrayed Robert's son Joffrey and committed treason or not. They want back what's theirs, just as the Targaryens.

And the customs in this world give them pretty much the same right to demand this.

On 6/8/2018 at 8:18 PM, Leo of House Cartel said:

While I have always been of the opinion that the crown should have gone to Viserys, I just assumed Robert's victory would have been considered as lawful conquest - sort of an "Aegon I did it, so I guess you Targaryens reap what you sow" type situation.

That would be especially odd in light of the fact that Orys Baratheon is supposedly a half-brother of Aegon the Conqueror by his father Lord Aerion, making House Baratheon nothing but a cadet branch of House Targaryen. House Baratheon only exists because the Targaryens conquered Westeros, and because Aegon the Conqueror chose to reward his champion with the seat of Storm's End and gave him the last Durrandon as his wife.

Without that, there wouldn't be a House Baratheon.

And Robert's legal claim was pretty strong - but entirely dependent on the fact that he was a great-grandson of King Aegon V through his daughter Rhaelle. But pushing such a claim against your own innocent cousins through the male line is pretty fucked-up if you ask me. It would be like Harrold Hargyng deciding that he was a better Lord of the Vale while Lord Robert yet lived, or Jon Snow deciding that his half-siblings tainted by Tully blood were not true Starks at all, unworthy to rule the North, etc.

On 6/8/2018 at 8:18 PM, Leo of House Cartel said:

If it's not lawful conquest then I guess the OP is correct and Stannis does indeed have no good reason to think himself King 

Well, he has two problems:

1. That his royal brother Robert is a usurper and he simply ignores that fact.

2. That he has no proof that he has a better claim than Robert's children by Cersei which he simply claims are not Robert's seed.

On 6/8/2018 at 8:18 PM, Leo of House Cartel said:

Just so I'm clear, would the Lannister victory on the Blackwater or Mance's defeat to Stannis be considered lawful conquest?

The former was just a civil war. Neither Stannis nor Joffrey were invading foreign territories or trying 'to conquer' anything. Stannis wanted to take what he thought already belonged to him and Joff wanted to keep what he had and thought to be his by right.

Stannis/Joffrey would never say after the war that they rule the Iron Throne by 'right of conquest' because they both claim the throne by right of blood. And that wouldn't change just because they won some battles against traitors and rebels.

In fact, aside from Aegon's Conquest, and the Stormander and Ironborn conquest of the Riverlands the only people doing proper conquests during the series are Balon and Euron. Balon conquered a huge chunk of the North, and Euron has set out to conquer portions of the Reach and aims at the Iron Throne (which he doesn't intend to conquer so much by force but also by marrying Daenerys Targaryen and using her claim as justification for his war).

They could have reached an agreement afterwards like Alester Florent tried to make with Tywin - involving Stannis giving up his claim, etc. - but that wouldn't have been 'conquest' but rather some sort of peace agreement marking the end of civil war/rebellion.

The victory over the wildlings marked the end of an invasion. Stannis didn't try to 'conquer' anything there, either. It would have been a conquest if he had invaded the lands beyond the Wall, defeated the people there, and then forced them by treaty and oath to accept him as their new ruler.

Instead, all he did was to sort of force those who he captured to acknowledge him in that capacity. That's not conquest, although one can count it as the forceful submission a few thousand prisoners of war.

[Leo of House Cartel]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Stannis' claim is basically as good as the claim of, say, Arya Stark's children by Ramsay (assuming for a moment the real Arya had married Ramsay) would be against the claims of Brandon or Rickon Stark or their descendants.

Ramsay/Arya didn't come to rule to Winterfell the right and proper way, or did they? It is the same with Robert Baratheon. Brandon and Rickon and Robb didn't give care whether Eddard Stark betrayed Robert's son Joffrey and committed treason or not. They want back what's theirs, just as the Targaryens.

And the customs in this world give them pretty much the same right to demand this.

Fine points you make, nice analogy with Arya and Ramsay.

Do you think there's a chance Stannis actually knows this and is simply persevering with his claim through sheer bitterness?

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That would be especially odd in light of the fact that Orys Baratheon is supposedly a half-brother of Aegon the Conqueror by his father Lord Aerion, making House Baratheon nothing but a cadet branch of House Targaryen. House Baratheon only exists because the Targaryens conquered Westeros, and because Aegon the Conqueror chose to reward his champion with the seat of Storm's End and gave him the last Durrandon as his wife.

Without that, there wouldn't be a House Baratheon.

And Robert's legal claim was pretty strong - but entirely dependent on the fact that he was a great-grandson of King Aegon V through his daughter Rhaelle. But pushing such a claim against your own innocent cousins through the male line is pretty fucked-up if you ask me. It would be like Harrold Hargyng deciding that he was a better Lord of the Vale while Lord Robert yet lived, or Jon Snow deciding that his half-siblings tainted by Tully blood were not true Starks at all, unworthy to rule the North, etc.

Couldn't agree more - Robert pushing his claim was pretty heinous. His pretensions of "the kids could grow up to be like mad Aerys" were ridiculous. If anything, Baratheon, an alcoholic, aggressive, dragon blooded war veteran might have one day ended up with similar mental health issues to those of "King Scab". 

Yeah, Viserys was a prick, but there's always the chance he could have been another Jaehaerys I  - if he wasn't, you know, living a life of exile and fear for no other reason than the sins of his father. 

Also, the fact that Robert didn't have Clegane and Lorch hanged - out of respect to his grandmother, if nothing else - was bonkers. 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The former was just a civil war. Neither Stannis nor Joffrey were invading foreign territories or trying 'to conquer' anything. Stannis wanted to take what he thought already belonged to him and Joff wanted to keep what he had and thought to be his by right.

Stannis/Joffrey would never say after the war that they rule the Iron Throne by 'right of conquest' because they both claim the throne by right of blood. And that wouldn't change just because they won some battles against traitors and rebels.

In fact, aside from Aegon's Conquest, and the Stormander and Ironborn conquest of the Riverlands the only people doing proper conquests during the series are Balon and Euron. Balon conquered a huge chunk of the North, and Euron has set out to conquer portions of the Reach and aims at the Iron Throne (which he doesn't intend to conquer so much by force but also by marrying Daenerys Targaryen and using her claim as justification for his war).

I see. This is very interesting and I appreciate the heads up! 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The victory over the wildlings marked the end of an invasion. Stannis didn't try to 'conquer' anything there, either. It would have been a conquest if he had invaded the lands beyond the Wall, defeated the people there, and then forced them by treaty and oath to accept him as their new ruler.

Instead, all he did was to sort of force those who he captured to acknowledge him in that capacity. That's not conquest, although one can count it as the forceful submission a few thousand prisoners of war.

Reading this, I can't help wonder what will happen should Stannis meet Mance. Rayder, along with other Free Folk in the Winterfell area, clearly have plenty reasons to want to kill him.

[Varysblackfyre321]

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Ramsay/Arya didn't come to rule to Winterfell the right and proper way, or did they?

Is that a serious question?

5 hours ago, Leo of House Cartel said:

Do you think there's a chance Stannis actually knows this and is simply persevering with his claim through sheer bitterness?

 

Truth be told I wonder how Stannis would react if Daenarys called a high council; it'd be interesting to see how his reasoning for why his claim supercedes her's.

[Myrish Lace]

3 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

it'd be interesting to see how his reasoning for why his claim supercedes her's. 

Well, it is pretty obvious, isn't it?

First, there is the Great Council of 101 and consistent policy of excluding female claimants before and after - Jaehaerys I went ahead of Rhaena/Rhaella, Viserys I ahead of Rhaenys, Aegon II - Rhaenyra, Viserys II - Daena, the list goes on.

Second, Robert Baratheon was acclaimed by nobility as King of Westeros and ruled as a monarch of a new ruling House. His acclamation was partially established through force of arms, but so was Aegon I's and Maegor's - and both are counted as Kings nonetheless, so this isn't an issue. Stannis is the closest trueborn male relation of Robert, the last King, so he is the natural successor.

Dany is a woman (first strike), she is rather distant relative to Robert (second strike), Robert has closer relative eligible for the throne(third strike). She can't ignore Robert's rule the same way Jaehaerys couldn't ignore Maegor's rule (even if in both cases would-be successors were in conflict with previous King). So her only hope to win the Throne is wide-spread acclamation nobility and that isn't happening for a variety of reasons.