Jump to content

George Martin and idea of kingship


Aldarion

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Aldarion said:

I was referring to Tywin's talk with Tyrion while latter had crossbow pointed at former. 

As for Renly, I actually agree with that - see my post again.

Because Jon Arryn got murdered before they could bring evidence to Robert, and Robert would have never believed Stannis alone, IIRC.

 

I agree. Which means that Renley definately usurped (or attempted to) his elder brother, Stannis's throne, when Robert died.

Basically, Stannis and Renley both foresaw their brother's death. Stannis saw it earlier, but when Renley saw it, he prepared much faster than Stannis.

He is still usurping Stannis's position in the hierarchy.

He should have already known Stannis's character and what doing that would cause.

But then again, Renley thought he could be the better king, while Stannis saw it as his right, and therefore his duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Travis said:

Basically, Stannis and Renley both foresaw their brother's death. Stannis saw it earlier, but when Renley saw it, he prepared much faster than Stannis.

Stannis actually kind of made sure that he did nothing to hinder Robert's early death by absconding to Dragonstone and refusing entreaties from Ned; he chose to hoard his knowledge of the threat to Robert rather than acting on it to try and save him. Which, frankly, calls into question his fitness to be king, given the lack of integrity.

Renly's a fairly honest usurper. He sees a bad boy king with a horrible set of regents around it and says, eh, I can get more support and I can do the job better, so I'll go for it. As he notes, he aims to have as much right to take the throne as Robert had when he took Aerys's throne: the right of conquest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ran said:

Stannis actually kind of made sure that he did nothing to hinder Robert's early death by absconding to Dragonstone and refusing entreaties from Ned; he chose to hoard his knowledge of the threat to Robert rather than acting on it to try and save him. Which, frankly, calls into question his fitness to be king, given the lack of integrity.

 

I don't think that he received the letters of Ned. It's never mentioned. But another think that goes against Stannis is that he was very bitter that Ned was made hand instead of him. even though he fleed the city without even trying to warn Robert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ran said:

Stannis actually kind of made sure that he did nothing to hinder Robert's early death by absconding to Dragonstone and refusing entreaties from Ned; he chose to hoard his knowledge of the threat to Robert rather than acting on it to try and save him. Which, frankly, calls into question his fitness to be king, given the lack of integrity.

Stannis's silence certainly can be interpreted as treason. Even if one were to be lenient it is certainly a betrayal of trust bordering on proper treason as people in Westeros see it. It also is a sign of both cowardice and malice that he refuses to tell Robert/Ned/anyone his suspicion so his royal brother and Hand can deal with the issue and rule on the succession should they believe his accusations but then expects that his word is believed when he has nothing to offer. A man who didn't have the stones, so to speak, to tell his brother that he thought he was cuckold should also not keep his mouth shut after said brother has died - and not try to steal his brother's throne and kills his nephews and niece and sister-in-law in the process of all that.

How it should make sense that Stannis was literally doing nothing to inform anyone about his beliefs regarding Cersei's children (aside from preparing for war for months and inquiring whether the Stormlords would rise for him) is actually beyond me. Have you ever asked George about that?

Any real person being able to think straight would have sent letters informing the lords of the Seven Kingdoms that he was making a bid for the throne immediately after he learned of Robert's death. But Stannis waited months, and actually contributed to the confusion in the Realm, giving Robb and Renly and others the opportunity to put forth their claims.

This really makes no sense. I mean, did Rhaenyra wait a couple of months to make her claim known after she learned of her father's death? No.

If one wanted to make sense of it one could perhaps speculate that Stannis in his weirdo personality expected/demanded of the world and the people in it to identify him as 'the rightful heir' and do him homage as their king without himself doing anything, but that would Stannis essentially make some sort of madman.

[I think having Ned tell Stannis the truth in a letter was essentially the single thing where the show actually made the story work better. Stannis sitting on his hands for months while already having proclaimed himself king is very hard to swallow.]

It also feels very strange and forced to them only consider the possibility of Vale alliance as late as they do (in the Cressen prologue) when Stannis has been working with Jon for so long and should thus have some sort connections to the Vale aside from Lysa. Surely he could have had no small success there if he had sent envoys to Gulltown telling people what he believed he knew and claiming this was also why Jon Arryn was killed.

6 hours ago, Ran said:

Renly's a fairly honest usurper. He sees a bad boy king with a horrible set of regents around it and says, eh, I can get more support and I can do the job better, so I'll go for it. As he notes, he aims to have as much right to take the throne as Robert had when he took Aerys's throne: the right of conquest.

I agree with that overall, but I don't think 'right of conquest' is the proper term for that. Renly is prince of the blood trying to seize a throne he does have a claim to. The War of the Five Kings is, for the most part, a war of succession, i.e. a civil war/rebellion, not a proper war. Robert didn't conquer the Seven Kingdom as a sovereign king or prince, he merely killed the people who stood in his way (and pushed the rest into exile) and he convinced the lords of the Realm to do him homage as their new king. That is not conquest - we wouldn't say Henry IV 'conquered' England when he deposed Richard II, nor did Mortimer and Isabella 'conquer' England when they deposed Edward II.

William the Conqueror, on the other hand, did conquer England - just as Cnut the Great did a century earlier.

I'd rather say the 'legal principle' Robert and Renly favor there is something like 'might makes right' or 'the strongest warrior/most popular member of the royal family' should be king. Because things didn't devolve so far with the Baratheons as to insist that anyone with delusions of grandeur can be king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Stannis told his suspicions to Robert, then again, he would've "spoken treason" and maybe his head would be rotting on a spike instead those of the whole Lannister faction in King's Landing. If him being silent was treason, then him being loud about it would also be treason, as seen by almost everyone at court. So I don't think he is some weirdo who just wanted the throne, he wanted to save himself. 

If Robert viewed his claims as untrue, then it would seem like Stannis only lied his way to become, himself, the true heir, and strip Robert's "children" of their rights. It's a double edged sword, and being aware of his authority in King's Landing, which was next to none, probably judged no one would believe him.

On the good person/bad ruler and bad person, but good ruler, I think it's relative, but also a dangerous idea to flirt with. It's like saying "hey being a jerk only to people around you is bad, but it would be nice if you are good to millions of others right"? Like people around you don't matter and your rule doesn't apply to them. This is from the start wrong and nonsense, that if you beat your wife, but the people are supplied with bread you are a fine ruler so who cares if you are some psycho inside your own walls. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

If Stannis told his suspicions to Robert, then again, he would've "spoken treason" and maybe his head would be rotting on a spike instead those of the whole Lannister faction in King's Landing. If him being silent was treason, then him being loud about it would also be treason, as seen by almost everyone at court. So I don't think he is some weirdo who just wanted the throne, he wanted to save himself. 

The problem is that Stannis presumes to make himself judge of the issue without having any right to do so. Only the king can rule on his own succession, the legitimacy of his children, and the alleged adultery and treason of the queen. By not making his accusation and then later presuming to proclaim himself king Stannis is implicitly confessing he really has no case - if he had one he had accused Cersei in the eyes of gods and men in front of Robert, not remained silent and waited for the death of his brother to then try to murder his wife and his nephews and niece.

That's just dishonorable and ugly behavior - it is the act of a coward.

It gets even more ugly if we keep in mind that Stannis actually seems to have believed he himself and - by extension Robert and Ned - were in danger from Cersei. He could have saved him - it was his duty to warn the king of the alleged conspiracy which had apparently already cost the life of Jon Arryn.

If Selyse were cuckolding Stannis with Patches and Davos knew about that but kept silent, waiting for the time Selyse had finally murdered Stannis to put the bastard Shireen on the throne so he could make Renly king and Stannis had found that by accident ... he would not have just taken Selyse's and Patches head. He would have killed Davos and Renly, too, and rightfully so.

Quote

If Robert viewed his claims as untrue, then it would seem like Stannis only lied his way to become, himself, the true heir, and strip Robert's "children" of their rights. It's a double edged sword, and being aware of his authority in King's Landing, which was next to none, probably judged no one would believe him.

Sure, but there is a right and wrong here. If you think a crime is committed you speak up if you are an honest man who loves justice, no matter the consequence to yourself (and Stannis always pretends he cares about the law and justice and such things).

If you dare not talk then you also keep silent when the only person who could have properly ruled on the issue is dead. But waiting for a power vacuum with the intention to decide the issue by force is just an evil thing to do.

Stannis is no better than Renly there. The fact that he things he has a better reason for his rebellion, doesn't mean he has a good case.

Quote

On the good person/bad ruler and bad person, but good ruler, I think it's relative, but also a dangerous idea to flirt with. It's like saying "hey being a jerk only to people around you is bad, but it would be nice if you are good to millions of others right"? Like people around you don't matter and your rule doesn't apply to them. This is from the start wrong and nonsense, that if you beat your wife, but the people are supplied with bread you are a fine ruler so who cares if you are some psycho inside your own walls. 

The issue there is that being not a people person/nice guy doesn't necessarily have much to do with statecraft. Tytos Lannister and Aenys Targaryen were good people, but they were not exactly great kings or lords (although Aenys was much better than Tytos). Maekar, on the other hand, was definitely no nice person but apparently a pretty good king because he knew how to do that job.

The idea that totally rotten person could be a good king is, overall, not what George seems to be saying. Maegor was an evil guy and shitty king, the same goes for Aegon II, Aegon IV, and so on.

There is also the fact that a not-so-good-king like Aerys II or Aerys I can be still be pretty decent if he knows how to delegate and surround himself with people who can help him rule (the reign of Aerys II would have likely been much worse if he had a (succession of) incompetent Hand(s)).

Stannis is very bad kingly material in a world of Westeros. He lacks charisma and he is willing to go to very great lengths to get what he wants and destroy his enemies. He is the kind of guy who broods weeks and years over real and imagined slights, cannot forgive, cannot forget, and is given to bouts of depression and inaction and acomplaining (start of ACoK, after Blackwater, etc.).

What makes him better, in a sense, than many of the 'better people' who want to be kings is the fact that he can focus on the real target - take out Renly or Penrose or Joffrey or Robb and they movements will crumle and less people will die.

George has gone on record asking readers whether it was better to just take out Renly rather than kill many men in a battle they do not have to fight.

That certainly doesn't answer the question whether Stannis should be king, but if there are a bunch of presumptuous asses that ripping Westeros to pieces with their petty wars then the guy who tries to cut things short with magic which targets only a few people whereas the others are eager to kill thousands in bloody battles one certainly can make a case that the sorcerer king is taking the most prudent and least ugly road (even if his road goes completely against the cherished values and traditions of the society he lives in).

But this doesn't make him a hero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2019 at 6:57 PM, TsarGrey said:

I would point out that we see Robb making plans independently. At Moat Cailin, it is he who decides to split the Northern army. Blackfish only just arrived with Cat and has not even spoken to him. AGoT, Catelyn VIII.

  Hide contents

Robb drew a map across the table, a ragged piece of old leather covered with lines of faded paint. One end curled up from being rolled; he weighed it down with his dagger. "Both plans have virtues, but … look, if we try to swing around Lord Tywin's host, we take the risk of being caught between him and the Kingslayer, and if we attack him … by all reports, he has more men than I do, and a lot more armored horse. The Greatjon says that won't matter if we catch him with his breeches down, but it seems to me that a man who has fought as many battles as Tywin Lannister won't be so easily surprised."

"Good," she said. She could hear echoes of Ned in his voice, as he sat there, puzzling over the map. "Tell me more."

"I'd leave a small force here to hold Moat Cailin, archers mostly, and march the rest down the causeway," he said, "but once we're below the Neck, I'd split our host in two. The foot can continue down the kingsroad, while our horsemen cross the Green Fork at the Twins." He pointed. "When Lord Tywin gets word that we've come south, he'll march north to engage our main host, leaving our riders free to hurry down the west bank to Riverrun." Robb sat back, not quite daring to smile, but pleased with himself and hungry for her praise.

Before the Whispering Wood, he does receive crucial information on Jaime's nature and valuable service as commander of the outriders from Brynden, but still takes leading role in planning. AGoT, Catelyn X.

  Hide contents

"He is no man for sitting in a tent while his carpenters build siege towers," Ser Brynden had promised. "He has ridden out with his knights thrice already, to chase down raiders or storm a stubborn holdfast."

Nodding, Robb had studied the map her uncle had drawn him. Ned had taught him to read maps. "Raid him here," he said, pointing. "A few hundred men, no more. Tully banners. When he comes after you, we will be waiting"—his finger moved an inch to the left—"here."

At Riverrun, he independently rejects the idea of attacking Harrenhal, before even hearing of the new Lannister army Ser Stafford is raising. ACoK, Catelyn I.

  Hide contents

"I'll wager there were others who felt the same as Lord Karstark," her brother Edmure declared. "How can we talk of peace while the Lannisters spread like a pestilence over my father's domains, stealing his crops and slaughtering his people? I say again, we ought to be marching on Harrenhal."

"We lack the strength," Robb said, though unhappily.

And later on at Hag's Mire, he alone lays out the plan to assault Moat Cailin. He may have spoken of this with others, including Blackfish, offscreen earlier, but I would think that he decided the actions to be taken and composed the final plan all by himself. ASoS, Catelyn V.

  Hide contents

"Captain," said Robb when the man was done, "you have my thanks, and you will not go unrewarded. Lord Jason will take you back to your ship when we are done. Pray wait outside."

"That I will, Your Grace. That I will."

No sooner had he left the king's pavilion than the Greatjon began to laugh, but Robb silenced him with a look. "Euron Greyjoy is no man's notion of a king, if half of what Theon said of him was true. Theon is the rightful heir, unless he's dead . . . but Victarion commands the Iron Fleet. I can't believe he would remain at Moat Cailin while Euron Crow's Eye holds the Seastone Chair. He has to go back."

"There's a daughter as well," Galbart Glover reminded him. "The one who holds Deepwood Motte, and Robett's wife and child."

"If she stays at Deepwood Motte that's all she can hope to hold," said Robb. "What's true for the brothers is even more true for her. She will need to sail home to oust Euron and press her own claim." Her son turned to Lord Jason Mallister. "You have a fleet at Seagard?"

"A fleet, Your Grace? Half a dozen longships and two war galleys. Enough to defend my own shores against raiders, but I could not hope to meet the Iron Fleet in battle."

"Nor would I ask it of you. The ironborn will be setting sail toward Pyke, I expect. Theon told me how his people think. Every captain a king on his own deck. They will all want a voice in the succession. My lord, I need two of your longships to sail around the Cape of Eagles and up the Neck to Greywater Watch."

Lord Jason hesitated. "A dozen streams drain the wetwood, all shallow, silty, and uncharted. I would not even call them rivers. The channels are ever drifting and changing. There are endless sandbars, deadfalls, and tangles of rotting trees. And Greywater Watch moves. How are my ships to find it?"

"Go upriver flying my banner. The crannogmen will find you. I want two ships to double the chances of my message reaching Howland Reed. Lady Maege shall go on one, Galbart on the second." He turned to the two he'd named. "You'll carry letters for those lords of mine who remain in the north, but all the commands within will be false, in case you have the misfortune to be taken. If that happens, you must tell them that you were sailing for the north. Back to Bear Island, or for the Stony Shore." He tapped a finger on the map. "Moat Cailin is the key. Lord Balon knew that, which is why he sent his brother Victarion there with the hard heart of the Greyjoy strength."

"Succession squabbles or no, the ironborn are not such fools as to abandon Moat Cailin," said Lady Maege.

"No," Robb admitted. "Victarion will leave the best part of his garrison, I'd guess. Every man he takes will be one less man we need to fight, however. And he will take many of his captains, count on that. The leaders. He will need such men to speak for him if he hopes to sit the Seastone Chair."

"You cannot mean to attack up the causeway, Your Grace," said Galbart Glover. "The approaches are too narrow. There is no way to deploy. No one has ever taken the Moat."

"From the south," said Robb. "But if we can attack from the north and west simultaneously, and take the ironmen in the rear while they are beating off what they think is my main thrust up the causeway, then we have a chance. Once I link up with Lord Bolton and the Freys, I will have more than twelve thousand men. I mean to divide them into three battles and start up the causeway a half-day apart. If the Greyjoys have eyes south of the Neck, they will see my whole strength rushing headlong at Moat Cailin.

"Roose Bolton will have the rearguard, while I command the center. Greatjon, you shall lead the van against Moat Cailin. Your attack must be so fierce that the ironborn have no leisure to wonder if anyone is creeping down on them from the north."

The Greatjon chuckled. "Your creepers best come fast, or my men will swarm those walls and win the Moat before you show your face. I'll make a gift of it to you when you come dawdling up."

"That's a gift I should be glad to have," said Robb.

Edmure was frowning. "You talk of attacking the ironmen in the rear, sire, but how do you mean to get north of them?"

"There are ways through the Neck that are not on any map, Uncle. Ways known only to the crannogmen—narrow trails between the bogs, and wet roads through the reeds that only boats can follow." He turned to his two messengers. "Tell Howland Reed that he is to send guides to me, two days after I have started up the causeway. To the center battle, where my own standard flies. Three hosts will leave the Twins, but only two will reach Moat Cailin. Mine own battle will melt away into the Neck, to reemerge on the Fever. If we move swiftly once my uncle's wed, we can all be in position by year's end. We will fall upon the Moat from three sides on the first day of the new century, as the ironmen are waking with hammers beating at their heads from the mead they'll quaff the night before."

"I like this plan," said the Greatjon. "I like it well."

Galbart Glover rubbed his mouth. "There are risks. If the crannogmen should fail you . . ."

"We will be no worse than before. But they will not fail. My father knew the worth of Howland Reed." Robb rolled up the map, and only then looked at Catelyn. "Mother."

To tie this argument to actual topic of the thread, I would note that the man who truly is behind Robb's victories is none other than his father, Eddard Stark. Cat hears echoes of Ned in Robb's voice at Moat Cailin, thinks he taught Robb to read maps, and Robb himself invokes Ned's trust to Howland when Glover expresses his worry of crannogmen failing them. This ties nicely with the importance of education noted in the OP.

Very good analysis....I agree.

Shout out to whoever mentioned Garth 7 as well, dude was a boss.

There seems to be a bit of hate for the kings of winter in this thread so I'll put a couple out there who I think we're wise rulers.

Theon Stark as the Wartime King...repealed the Andal seaborne Invasion, killed thier leader, and lead a counter insurgency to Andalos just to make sure they though twice about trying it again.

Torrehen, the King who knelt, to me, the wisdom not to fight the unwinnable war saved house Stark, and not one Northman died in Aegons conquest.

Back to topic.....

I don't think (f)Aegon will be a good king or general. He seems overconfident to the point of cockiness, and he just reads as young and inexperienced, I'd even say sheltered and out of touch. Whether this is because of upbringing or simply his personality I can not say, but I honestly do not expect him to love through half of winds, let alone factorinto the endgame of the series 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2019 at 7:33 AM, Aldarion said:

Reason why I find Daenerys and Aegon so interesting is that they seem to represent not just parallel but opposing characters, but also parallel but opposing ideas of kingship. They also represent major part of Martin's "discussion" on what builds a good ruler. So if one looks at George Martin's contrast between Aegon VI (Young Griff) and Daenerys Targaryen, it seems to imply that misery builds a character, and that the best ruler is one who had experienced hardship in life and can emphasize with the common people.

There are several problems with that idea, and I do not think it is Martin's (whole) intent. First, empathy alone does not make for a good ruler - and having too much of it can prove devastating not just to the ruler, but to the people he/she/it is ruling. Road to hell is full of good intentions, and unless one can differentiate between good good intentions and bad good intentions, ruin is unavidable. And doing that requires the ability to step back and put empathy (and other emotions) under key and lock, at least until ideas can be evaluated.

Second, misery does not necessarily build a character. It can indeed build a person, but it may also break them. And even if person is not broken, cracks will be there, and unless healed may lead to the breakdown further down the line. This happened to Viserys, and may yet happen to Daenerys as well. Daenerys indeed was not pampered, and she did learn from her experiences in the streets; but while experience did indeed help develop her character, we are yet to see the end point of her development. It may all come tumbling down.

Third, experiencing life of lower classes is not necessarily good preparation for ruling (this applies to Aegon and Daenerys both). While it is good for a ruler to not be completely out of touch with how his subjects live, a good ruler does not need to know how to skin a deer, kill a boar (looking at you, Bobby B), or survive as a beggar. He (or she) does however need to know administration, politics, history, and also know how to deal with people and balance their wishes and desires.

In fact, many good rulers got raised in isolation - but they had education. Matthias Corvinus ended up in prison in 1457. at age 13, and was crowned a king a year later in 1458. While he was at first under care of Michail Szilagy, Matthias was hard-headed and headstrong, and Szilagy soon left Budim and let Matthias rule. Matthias managed to maintain himself by relying on lower nobility, and was possibly best ruler in history of Hungarian-Croatian kingdom. Another good ruler, Basil II, was orphaned as a child but remained at court under tutelage (and co-emperorship) of older, more experienced emperors - Nikephoros II. Phokas and John I. Tzimiskes - after death of his father, Romanos II (who died at age 25). On the flip side, Basil II excluded Constantine VIII from power, and as a result his brother became an irresponsible asshole and immediately proceeded to start running the Empire into the ground. Here, both Aegon and Daenerys were excluded from power for a long time - decisions made for them - before suddenly gaining it.

However, it is not at all certain that GRRM will actually go down the "misery builds a character" road. In fact, Daenerys' act seems to have taken a much darker turn. It seems likely that Young Griff will actually prove to be a capable ruler he was trained to be - possibly by relying on his advisors - but his lack of experience will doom him just as Daenerys' lack of training may well doom her efforts to rule. Moreover, both of them will be doomed by their character flaws. Aegon seems more than a little self-centered, and he abandons any idea of trying to help Daenerys as soon as he gets a shot at the Iron Throne (though there were other concerns as well). Daenerys is an idealist, which means that she disregards reality which leads to frustration by the slow progress of changes in Mereen.

Overall, as much as I like YG, count me in a Stannis the Mannis camp as well. He too is far from ideal, but he actually does have both knowledge and experience required for ruling. Problem is his personality, and presence of Melisandre. Assuming that he has had time to gain experience as a Hand, Davos Seaworth might actually be the best candidate for the Iron Throne - but nobody would support him, least of all himself. But my favourite option is (resurrected) Jon Snow, who actually seems to combine characteristics of Young Griff and Daenerys both: like Young Griff, he has education as well as training for leading people (first through being raised at Winterfell, then by being Lord Commander's apprentice), and like Daenerys, he has actual experience in doing so and did not grow up in isolation. But we are yet to see him "ruling" post-resurrection (if he gets resurrected, though that seems likely).

In the end, I do not think it will be discovered whether Young Griff is truly son of Rhaegar or not, because it goes against the point of his character. Well, actually, both are possible. Because the Iron Throne was created by power, and claim on it is laid by power - whether that power comes from the dragons (Aegon I, Daenerys) or belief of the people in ruler's right to rule (Robert, Joffrey, Tommen, Aegon VI). Everyone can have a claim to the throne in right circumstances. I do believe he will turn out to be a good ruler - but Daenerys will burn him because she is so focused on dynastic legitimacy (and she may also see a mummer as a personal insult) that she will not consider the alternatives. But in doing so, she will end up alienating the populace of Seven Kingdoms, and will face a situation similar to Mereen - dragons may be enough to lay a claim on the throne, but will not be enough to actually rule. Because legitimacy ultimately comes from those being ruled.

P.S. The reason I like YG is precisely the reason why he will likely die: he is not a hero of the story. My favourite characters had always been supporting characters: Gandalf, Denethor and Faramir in Lord of the Rings, Murtagh in Eragon, Stannis, Barristan and Samwell in A Song of Ice and Fire. Yet heroes of these stories are Frodo and Sam (LotR), Eragon (Eragon), and Jon Snow and Daenerys (ASoIaF). I have also always liked likely doomed characters, that is, characters who are likely to die in the course of the story (e.g. Sirious Black, Severus Snape - and both expectations came true). So yeah. Definitely not good for my nerves.

P.P.S. You can argue on whether Young Griff's education is actually well tailored for a ruler. But that is not the point, necessarily: point is that him and Daenerys present the opposing ideals of a ruler, while Jon Snow may represent the union of these opposites.

  1. A good story has great supporting characters. 
  2. There is not a single set of curriculum to make a person fit for ruling.  Robb had all the education and yet he was pitiful at ruling.  Samwell and his friends elected Jon Snow and he ended the second worst commander after the NK.  Robert caved in Rhaegar's chest because he thought he could run the kingdom better than Aerys and his family couldn't keep it together for more than 15 years.
  3. Young Grif and Daenerys do not represent opposing ideals.  The share courage and strong wills.  Daenerys is smarter than Young Grif.  Young Grif has shown that he doesn't care to help the suffering slaves.  He could have gone to Meereen but chose to move on to his conquest.  Jon Snow is far from ideal and would actually be less able than YG and Daenerys.  Daenerys is the best qualified to rule.  She puts aside her distaste for the Ghiscari because she knows she needs their cooperation in order to make it work.  And it started working at Meereen for the most part.  The harpy is the extreme arm of the slaving families but they don't represent the average Meereenese who have accepted the end of the slave trade.  Do away with the harpy and progress will continue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

If Stannis told his suspicions to Robert, then again, he would've "spoken treason" and maybe his head would be rotting on a spike instead those of the whole Lannister faction in King's Landing. If him being silent was treason, then him being loud about it would also be treason, as seen by almost everyone at court. So I don't think he is some weirdo who just wanted the throne, he wanted to save himself. 

The idea that Robert would kill his brothers at this point is a fanfic without any base or sense. And isn't Stannis motto, duty above all??

 

 

9 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

If Robert viewed his claims as untrue, then it would seem like Stannis only lied his way to become, himself, the true heir, and strip Robert's "children" of their rights. It's a double edged sword, and being aware of his authority in King's Landing, which was next to none, probably judged no one would believe him.

Robert could just remarry/legit a bastard kid, Stannis would last as true heir, the moments Robert lasted in making a new decree over his succesion.

 

@Peach King

Is there any force  stopping Renly from going there and  just do it?? If Renly is worried he just needed to keep it a secret  until it was a fait accompli.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Sunland Lord said:

If Stannis told his suspicions to Robert, then again, he would've "spoken treason" and maybe his head would be rotting on a spike instead those of the whole Lannister faction in King's Landing. If him being silent was treason, then him being loud about it would also be treason, as seen by almost everyone at court. So I don't think he is some weirdo who just wanted the throne, he wanted to save himself. 

 

This makes no sense. Robert hated Cersei and would've take any chance that he got to get ride of her and reward the brave soul that saved him from this misery in the process. Even without a reason to sideline her, Cersei and Renly thought that Robert could make Margeary the queen.

Stannis not only did not tell Robert the truth or his suspicius but also abandoned him brother in the lion's den, without looking back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

This makes no sense. Robert hated Cersei and would've take any chance that he got to get ride of her and reward the brave soul that saved him from this misery in the process. Even without a reason to sideline her, Cersei and Renly thought that Robert could make Margeary the queen.

Stannis not only did not tell Robert the truth or his suspicius but also abandoned him brother in the lion's den, without looking back.

Yeah, and he did that out of a very selfish motivation - because he had, in his freakish mind, been slighted/passed over yet again, when Robert chose Ned to be his next Hand rather than Stannis. But Stannis had no right to demand to be the Hand of the King just as he had no right to demand anything. He was the younger brother and should have been kissing Robert's feet for getting anything (Dragonstone) at all. Robert could have kept all his castles and seats for his own children - in fact, he should have.

There certainly is a resemblance between sulking Maekar and sulking Stannis there - but unlike sulking Stannis sulking Maekar had no reason to believe that Aerys I's queen was cuckolding him and planning to kill him. Stannis did. Not informing the king about Cersei's machinations was treason.

A huge part of the problem is that Robert the Moron gave his two ingrate brothers lordships and castles of their own. Had he kept them as landless knights at his side there wouldn't have been that much trouble after his death. Renly wouldn't have any legal hold over the Stormlands, meaning he may not have been able to mount a rebellion at all - or would have had looked much worse/would have had much more trouble winning supporters. Stannis wouldn't have even had a power base where he could sulk and plot, etc.

On a psychological level it also makes no sense to assume Stannis was 'cautious' when he removed himself to Dragonstone. Stannis doesn't see himself as a coward - he was not afraid of Cersei, else he would have never declared war on her. But even if he was afraid of her - he could have written letters to Robert, he could have returned for the tourney with a large retinue of guards, he could have sent envoys, he could accused Cersei of her crimes from the safety of Dragonstone (since he had the bulk of the royal fleet basically stolen from Robert he was safe there), etc.

Stannis acts like a man who is waiting for his brother's inevitable death when he can seize the throne - and that's what he wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Arthur Peres said:

This makes no sense. Robert hated Cersei and would've take any chance that he got to get ride of her and reward the brave soul that saved him from this misery in the process. Even without a reason to sideline her, Cersei and Renly thought that Robert could make Margeary the queen.

 

You're mixing things. Robert's possible sidelining Cersei for Margaery would come as a result of Robert's lust for other women, not because he would've executed Cersei for treason and adultery. Renly counted on that. 

This "brave soul" would be implicating the king is a cuckold, his "children" are abominations born of incest and are sired by one of his Kingsguard, and his wife makes a fool of him for years under his nose. It's not always what a king would hear, but what he didn't want to hear. 

I'm not saying that Stannis did the right thing, just what can be the ratio behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

 This "brave soul" would be implicating the king is a cuckold, his "children" are abominations born of incest and are sired by one of his Kingsguard, and his wife makes a fool of him for years under his nose. It's not always what a king would hear, but what he didn't want to hear. 

 

It would be a favor, he would be giving Robert a real reason to divorce and execute Cersei and Joffrey. There is a big diference between warning the King and mocking the king. The first is a act of loyality the second is a weird way to get executed.

Being cuckolded seems to be shameful for us, sure, but if you look on europe history you will often see kings using this to dispose of unwanted wifes, like Henry VIII did at least 2 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frenin said:

The idea that Robert would kill his brothers at this point is a fanfic without any base or sense. And isn't Stannis motto, duty above all??

The alternative is that he executes Cersei and her children, and he thought they were his own for years. Given that either didn't happen it's fanfic too right? 

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Robert could just remarry/legit a bastard kid, Stannis would last as true heir, the moments Robert lasted in making a new decree over his succesion.

 

Robert could've named another heir IF he believed Stannis. That's a lesser problem for the latter.

A bigger problem would be Robert's interpretation for his intentions of telling him about the incest if he didn't believe him. It could be that Stannis was doing it as an attempt to become the heir himself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

The alternative is that he executes Cersei and her children, and he thought they were his own for years. Given that either didn't happen it's fanfic too right? 

No one, not even Stannis believed his life would be at risk if he told Robert, everyone said Cersei, Jaime and  her children were as good as dead had Robert ever found out.

 

4 minutes ago, The Sunland Lord said:

Robert could've named another heir IF he believed Stannis. That's a lesser problem for the latter.

A bigger problem would be Robert's interpretation for his intentions of telling him about the incest if he didn't believe him. It could be that Stannis was doing it as an attempt to become the heir himself. 

That's not a problem, Robert is under no obligation to name Stannis his heir, hell, he could name Renly his heir and  Stannis don't become the default heir in Robert's eyes, Robert would be free  to rule in whatever way he wanted about his succesion, even if that means force Stannis to keep his mouth shut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, frenin said:

 

@Peach King

Is there any force  stopping Renly from going there and  just do it?? If Renly is worried he just needed to keep it a secret  until it was a fait accompli.

I'm saying if Mace heard Renly bent to Stannis he could annul the marriage to Margaery, especially considering his promixity to Margaery vs Renly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...