Did Renly even need to declare himself King?

[The hairy bear]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Medieval monarchies were for the most part very stable, and had a very clear line of succession

"Medieval" refers to about a thousand years of history, so we can find almost every kind of situation.

But thinking about the High/Late Middle Anges, I'd say the opposite would be closer to the truth: the English Anarchy, the Castilian Civil War, the Catalan Civil War, the revolt of the Count of Urgell, the Navarrese Civil War, the three Lithuanian Civil Wars, the War of Castilian Succession, the War of Roses, the War of Spanish Succession,... all of them were dynastic struggles without a clear succession.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

the sanctity of royal blood was not doubted (there is a reason why up to modernity no English king who was deposed was actually executed just as Elizabeth I was not exactly keen to set the first precedent in that regard).

Besides the already mentioned Edward V and Henry VI, most historians agree that both Richard II and Edward II were killed. That's 4 murders of English kings between 1325 and 1485. 4 out of the 9 kings in the period.

And of course there were murdered kings in other medieval kingdoms, such as Charles III of Naples and Hungary, or Premislaus II of Poland.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The middle ages spread over a thousand years, give or take, and there is not a single Red Wedding-like incident happening there, nor something like Castamere.

The Red Wedding was inspired by the Black Dinner of 1440, where the 16-year-old leader of the Scottish clan Douglas was invited to a dinner and murdered.

There have also been plenty of sieges ending with an indiscriminate massacre. It comes to mind siege of Béziers during the Albigensian Crusade, where all the 20,000 inhabitants of the city were killed on the account that it was not possible to diferentiate between the heretics and the true Catholics.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Do we know whether Renly or Stannis were at Harrenhal, for that matter?

Come on! Renly was 3 years old during the Toruney of Harrenhal!! We don't need to be told who was giving him porridge.

It's not fair to compare Renly with Jaime (A POV) or Tywin (who was a central character for three books, and the focus of the Aerys section from the World Book). Of course we have more information on them.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Renly is a completely empty character. We don't know where he spent his childhood and youth after the Rebellion (at court, at Storm's End, on Dragonstone?), who his guardian/foster father was (Robert, Stannis, some guy?), who he served as page and squire, who knighted him, what caused his relationship with Cersei and Stannis to sour, etc.

Why would any of this be relevant? It would be great trivia to know, but the role that Renly plays in the narrative do not require that much of information. IMHO, Renly as a character works well enough. And if it could be improved, it wouldn't be by throwing tons of useless information about the teenage years of a privileged lord during peace time.

And I for one, do not need any explanation on why he had bad relationships with Cersei and Stannis. Their personalities and/or interests are just too different.

 

[Hugorfonics]

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Stannis has never partaken on a tourney that we know of. Ever, no one has ever mentioned Stannis in a tourney in any way whatsoever.

 

 

Cressen knee the Baratheon bros very well, perhaps, with Ned regarding Robert, he is the most on point source of them all. And we don't really know what the Baratheon bros think about Cressen, Robert and Renly never get to know the man died.

Jon Arryn was Roberts second father

Stannis isnt a fighter like that

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that's a basesless claim. However, we don't even know whether Stannis is a knight. He most likely is, but he is apparently not important a character so that it is mentioned. One expects him to have served as squire to a not exactly irrelevant figure, and to have been knighted, to have possibly even tried to compete with Robert in the lists. But if that is the case then we have no indication that it happened.

I don't think hes a knight. Its a difficult thing to earn that not every nobility can achieve. For example Merrett Frey.

Was Tywin a knight? Did he fight in tourneys?

Robert probably was a knight. Idk, how old was he when he Jon called the banners? Maybe Roberts a college dropout

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

He told her that Stannis would sort of be on his side, like the Dornishmen would. He is pretty surprised when Stannis turns against him.

He was under the impression that numbers mean everything, like Mance Rayder. Thats why he thought the dornish would fall in line.

But he knew Stannis was crowned. He already has read Stannis' letter, dear ser kingslayer. Yet still he treated his kingly brother with the same contempt as a dornish raider or another stubborn king named Stark. 

Renly was convinced of his victory. And I think his early coronation was a big reason why. Steal Stormlords from Stannis. 

Why else would Stannis run to his fortress with the navy and proceed to hire sellswords if not for the Throne. Renly knew thats why he didnt write him. Also, iirc, Ned never wrote Stannis either because he kept giving all his letters to Pycelle

Eta

[frenin]

21 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Jon Arryn was Roberts second father

Stannis isnt a fighter like that

One does not really negates the other.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

"Medieval" refers to about a thousand years of history, so we can find almost every kind of situation.

But thinking about the High/Late Middle Anges, I'd say the opposite would be closer to the truth: the English Anarchy, the Castilian Civil War, the Catalan Civil War, the revolt of the Count of Urgell, the Navarrese Civil War, the three Lithuanian Civil Wars, the War of Castilian Succession, the War of Roses, the War of Spanish Succession,... all of them were dynastic struggles without a clear succession.

Sure, I meant to say there were more or less clear procedures how to deal with rival claimants in succession wars. You rarely, if at all, killed them.

15 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Besides the already mentioned Edward V and Henry VI, most historians agree that both Richard II and Edward II were killed. That's 4 murders of English kings between 1325 and 1485. 4 out of the 9 kings in the period.

Yeah, the English were a more savage lot, but they are not representative for medieval monarchs in this regard. And as I said - this mostly involved the cladestine murder of deposed monarchs, not the hunting down and murder of people living in exile somewhere. That was never done. Not even Henry VII sent out assassins to murder the various impostors and pretenders challenging his claim.

15 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

The Red Wedding was inspired by the Black Dinner of 1440, where the 16-year-old leader of the Scottish clan Douglas was invited to a dinner and murdered.

Yeah, but not thousands of men from his army with him, right?

15 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

There have also been plenty of sieges ending with an indiscriminate massacre. It comes to mind siege of Béziers during the Albigensian Crusade, where all the 20,000 inhabitants of the city were killed on the account that it was not possible to diferentiate between the heretics and the true Catholics.

This was seen as barbaric or a brutalization of things, sort of like the Sack of Magdeburg during the Thirty Years' War (not middle ages) was seen as a savagery.

But common people were killed all the time - I was talking in essence about how royalty treated each other. And they rarely killed each other, and essentially never targeted each others children or pregnant women or stuff like that.

Keep in mind that the point here simply is that I think Renly foul little dog with bloody teeth because of his 'pragmatism'. Nobody has to agree with me. But I want to stress that this is not normal behavior - not in the middle ages, and not even in Westeros. This common decency is what Ned stands for at that council session - and even Robert the Thug on his deathbed.

Nobody sent assassins after Daemon Blackfyre's pregnant daughters or granddaughters (as far as we know), nobody but the the worst thugs murdered royal women and children during the Dance (Aemond, Daemon/Mysaria, and Aegon II) and it is quite clear that things like the alleged murder of Helaena Targaryen were seen as horrible atrocities.

15 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Come on! Renly was 3 years old during the Toruney of Harrenhal!! We don't need to be told who was giving him porridge.

Possibly four years since he was born in 277 AC. I'd still like to know whether he was there - he could have cut out somebody's eye, after all ;-).

15 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

It's not fair to compare Renly with Jaime (A POV) or Tywin (who was a central character for three books, and the focus of the Aerys section from the World Book). Of course we have more information on them.

TWoIaF could have given us as much information on Robert's reign as did give us for Aerys II. I'd not have complained about that.

But I wasn't thinking about any of that - I was mentally sticking to Cersei's and Jaime's and Jon's and Barristan's recollections of the era as well as the discussions other people have of the era.

Nobody ever thinks about what people did during the last ten years or so, aside from little tidbits about the Greyjoy thing.

And I certainly think the Renly/Stannis vs. Cersei and each other is more important than everything some dead king and his dead heir ever did or hoped or dreamed. Duskendale is interesting but pretty much irrelevant unless you want to write a biography of the Mad King. Stannis is still alive and a major player. His relationship with the other main players should be covered in more detail.

Renly was likely imagined as a throwaway character from the start, explaining why we know so little about him, but Stannis is another matter.

I wrote about that in greater detail some time back - if you think about all that Targaryen baggage have the characters carry around with them, it is very odd that nobody cares about the things that happend five years ago or so. Effectively it reads as if people just teleported from 283 AC to 298 AC by way of the Greyjoy Rebellion ... and Robert lost all his money on the way.

15 minutes ago, The hairy bear said:

Why would any of this be relevant? It would be great trivia to know, but the role that Renly plays in the narrative do not require that much of information. IMHO, Renly as a character works well enough. And if it could be improved, it wouldn't be by throwing tons of useless information about the teenage years of a privileged lord during peace time.

Those are just examples for the tendency. Not everything would be plot relevant - but neither is Duskendale. However, I think the reason why Renly wanted to replace Cersei as queen and how he and Cersei both thought this could be done is something that is plot relevant. Because we really don't understand how this would have worked. To understand that better we certainly would have also needed to know why Renly loathed Cersei ... and that, in turn, would have helped us to understand why he may have wanted to be king.

But we just don't. All we have is people speculating. The bottom line is - we don't know why Renly did any of the things he did.

And as I try to show this also extends to the Stannis-Renly conflict. There is no explanation, either, why Stannis never tried to reach out to Renly after Robert's death but before Renly crowned himself. This would even be a plot detail the author could elaborate on since Stannis is still alive. Even if Stannis for some reason hated Renly it would be massively irresponsible of him - utter stupidity, in fact - to not inform him about the twincest thing. If only to prevent Renly from siding with the Lannisters against him, Stannis, when he pushed his claim.

Instead, we are thrown into the story at a point when Stannis somehow already knew that Renly had crowned himself king. But nobody ever gives us any hint what Stannis had wanted to do with Renly before he learned about this 'betrayal'.

[Arthur Peres]

5 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Was Tywin a knight? Did he fight in tourneys?

Tywin was a knight during the war of the Ninepenny Kings, Aerys II was his squire and he later knighted the mad king.

Don't know about tourneys though.

[Morte]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But we just don't. All we have is people speculating. The bottom line is - we don't know why Renly did any of the things he did.

And as I try to show this also extends to the Stannis-Renly conflict. There is no explanation, either, why Stannis never tried to reach out to Renly after Robert's death but before Renly crowned himself. This would even be a plot detail the author could elaborate on since Stannis is still alive. Even if Stannis for some reason hated Renly it would be massively irresponsible of him - utter stupidity, in fact - to not inform him about the twincest thing. If only to prevent Renly from siding with the Lannisters against him, Stannis, when he pushed his claim.

Instead, we are thrown into the story at a point when Stannis somehow already knew that Renly had crowned himself king. But nobody ever gives us any hint what Stannis had wanted to do with Renly before he learned about this 'betrayal'.

That's were you are right.

If we play the "it's a mediaeval world"-card, than were is no reason why Stannis wouldn't call on his brother sooner, even if he doesn't approve on his lifestyle and -choices or character, or hates him for some reason (which we aren't told either - the Stormlands-thing is a very thin reason than you are contesting for the throne itself; Stannis is made very stupid here indeed).

But Stannis doesn't - it seems that Renly got just the one same letter as everybody else.

[The Young Maester]

On 5/8/2020 at 4:00 AM, Bernie Mac said:

What could Renly do? Stannis gave him an ultimatum, that he'd bes destroyed tomorrow if he did not surrender. Mace, his primary supporter, rebelled on the proviso that he, Renly, would be King, his daughter Queen and he would have the King's ear as his Hand. Mace is hundreds of miles away, even if Renly considered dropping his claim, he's not in a position to do so until he's consulted his Kingmaker, who may or may not follow his lead in supporting Stannis.

Of course, its too late for Renly to go back into being a mere lord. He already declared himself king, and at that point he has two options take the throne and squash every single pretender or be defeated and become a failed pretender. A third option would be to live the rest of his live in disgrace For abandoning his cause. 

On 5/8/2020 at 4:00 AM, Bernie Mac said:

The Reach and Stormlords who Renly got to rebel did not do so because they hate Robert's son (Joffrey being a bastard, both literally and figuratively, is not known to the general population) or have any serious issues with the Lannisters. They did so because Renly was a hugely popular and loved individual who was open to having his major supporters have a seat at the table.

Stannis is not Renly, he's an entirely less attractive idea of king for most of the Lords who have rebelled. He punished Davos, the man who saved his life after the War. Will Mace and the other lords who committed treason for Renly be similarly punished once Stannis is in power? Who knows, but it is going to be something that is on their mind.

Stannis punishing Davos was more him trying to deliver justice to a former criminal. As much as he hates the tyrells I wouldn’t see him punishing them after they aided his cause. They are too powerful and Stannis is too much of a hypocrite to do such a thing. He is aware that if he punishes a house that helped him gain the throne he will be seen as an unjust king, and he definitely sees himself as a just person. What I see Stannis doing is not granting the Tyrells favours and not involving them on the spoils of victory. They wouldn’t receive any rewards or prestigious positions at court. They’d be sent back home with nothing but the scraps of victory. 

[mormont]

9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Can you tell us anything about Renly that's not third hand speculation from some maester or blacksmith?

That's some handwaving going on right there: there's no information in the text that's 'third hand speculation from some maester or blacksmith', only observations from men who knew Renly his entire life. 

But in any case, I certainly can, and have. I think also that your idea of what a 'well developed character' and mine are may just differ. I have a good sense of Renly as a character from relatively little information in the text, as I said. I thinkl I know how he thinks, what he values, what he would do in certain situations. You seem to think that for that to be true for you, you need much more biographical detail. Well, mileage varies. But my original point was that GRRM, for me, is excellent at sketching out believable, complex characters without that level of detail, from only a few interactions with POV characters. It's one of his skills.

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

That's some handwaving going on right there: there's no information in the text that's 'third hand speculation from some maester or blacksmith', only observations from men who knew Renly his entire life. 

That is not the case. Donal Noye took the black after he lost an arm during the siege of Storm's End, i.e. when Renly was six years old. His assessment of Renly Baratheon is even worth less than my assessment of people I've met only online during this forum because I'm having rational conversations with adult people there ... which Renly and Donal never had. He assessment of Robert and Stannis might be worth more since he watched them grow to adulthood - especially Stannis who was never fostered anywhere else.

Maester Cressen likewise left Storm's End - and presumably Renly, unless he lived with Stannis for a while (for which there is also no indication) - at some point after the Rebellion, going to Dragonstone with Stannis (it seems as if Stannis was given Dragonstone after he took the island shortly after Dany's birth in 284 AC). Whatever information Cressen would have gotten about Renly would be based on reports the man had about Renly from third parties. Because it is quite clear that Stannis kept Cressen on Dragonstone and didn't take him with him to attend him at court while he served as Master of Ships. I'd agree that Cressen being the maester of Storm's End would have had a good picture of Renly the boy up to the point he left, but hardly more than that.

4 hours ago, mormont said:

But in any case, I certainly can, and have. I think also that your idea of what a 'well developed character' and mine are may just differ. I have a good sense of Renly as a character from relatively little information in the text, as I said. I thinkl I know how he thinks, what he values, what he would do in certain situations. You seem to think that for that to be true for you, you need much more biographical detail. Well, mileage varies. But my original point was that GRRM, for me, is excellent at sketching out believable, complex characters without that level of detail, from only a few interactions with POV characters. It's one of his skills.

Whatever your feeling about Renly is I don't question. I just point out that this is not enough to answer the most basic question about the man's policies, relationships, and intentions. And this even extends to the pretender thing. Because the author has Renly be such an underdeveloped character that it isn't even clear why the men following do follow him. Why did the Stormlords not balk at his rebellion, telling him that he cannot rise against Robert Baratheon's son? One would expect some difficulties there, but the author glosses all that over. Vice versa, the Reach is supposed to be very much in the Targaryen camp. They fought until the end for the Mad King yet we are to swallow that, for some reason, they follow a man with a very weak claim basically like a man and become traitors thrice over on the process of that (against Joffrey, Tommen, and Stannis - if you want you can also add Myrcella and Shireen, who according to some would come before Renly).

Renly isn't a guy who is persecuted by the new regime (there is some vague sense of danger readers latch on to, which is nowhere corroborated by the text since there simply weren't concrete plans by the Lannisters to murder Renly), nor is House Tyrell or any of the Lords of the Reach. Renly isn't Robert who the king wanted to execute for no good reason. There is some vague sense that some of the Reach lords dislike the Lannisters - and that might also extend to some Stormlords - but if you think about the laws and rules that actually govern Westeros then the success of Renly's original movement is very hard to swallow. I mean, are we to believe Robb is the only lord in Westeros who cares about primogeniture anymore?

Renly is presented as a self-involved prick who thinks he can to everything he wants just because he looks like Robert. That is something we definitely know about him - what we don't know is how the hell this kind of 'justification' for an usurpation could convince most of the Stormlords and the Reach lords.

That is something where more actual character building and groundwork could have helped - there being massive tensions between the Tyrells and other Reach lords and the Lannisters and their followers, Renly being immensely popular in the Reach for some reason (say, because he and Loras made a progress through the Reach after he had given Loras his knighthood).

And as I said - that extends to Renly's earlier plotting. There is textual evidence there that Renly wanted to replace Cersei with Margaery and that this plot could have been successful is confirmed by Cersei herself (who fears Robert might replace her with a younger queen, a 'another Lyanna') but we don't know why Renly wants to do this (leading to all kind of baseless speculation among the readership) nor how this could have worked legally or practically: Would the marriage between Robert and Cersei have been annulled? Is it possible for a king to simply 'set aside a wife' without erasing the marriage from history? If so, what about the legal status of the royal children Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen? How could Robert Baratheon even risk humiliating the Lannisters in this manner with the Crown being indebted to Tywin to the degree it was?

All that has the bearings of plot the author hasn't thought about much because it was just a background detail he would never elaborate anyway, because it would lead nowhere and Renly would die soon.

When I first read the books I barely remembered Renly Baratheon by the time I reached ACoK. He is little more than an extra in AGoT.

With other people we do know why they do what they do, why they dislike the characters they dislike, etc. - but with Renly there is nothing there.

And as I say - to a point this also extends to Stannis. We have no idea how he came up with this notion that Cersei's children weren't Robert's but specifically Jaime's, etc.

6 hours ago, Morte said:

That's were you are right.

If we play the "it's a mediaeval world"-card, than were is no reason why Stannis wouldn't call on his brother sooner, even if he doesn't approve on his lifestyle and -choices or character, or hates him for some reason (which we aren't told either - the Stormlands-thing is a very thin reason than you are contesting for the throne itself; Stannis is made very stupid here indeed).

But Stannis doesn't - it seems that Renly got just the one same letter as everybody else.

Exactly. Of course, it also makes no sense whatsoever that Stannis proclaim himself and the truth as he sees it immediately after he learns of Robert's death. The fool likely would have gotten the reluctant support of half the Realm or more if had written those letters sooner because it would have given the North and the Riverlands the ideal pretender to rally behind against Joffrey and it would have given other houses loathing or hating the Lannisters a pretext to rise up in rebellion, too. The Reach and Stormlands may have not needed Renly then. Or some/half of them or more may have refused to support Renly if Stannis had proclaimed himself first.

Bottom line is this is just bad writing on George's part. I've no idea how this could be salvaged. It makes no sense that a guy who wants to be king on the basis of some special information would not share that information at the earliest possible moment. The only thing I can imagine is that Stannis would have learned about Robert's death belatedly because he himself had closed down Dragonstone and Cersei was not sending any ravens to the island.

But even that doesn't carry us very far since Stannis already has recruited Salladhor Saan by the time of the Prologue - which implies that Davos has sailed to Lys or the Stepstones and back before he even left for the Stormlands.

One could make the attempt to imagine that Stannis started to prepare for war the moment he left KL at the beginning of AGoT - expecting and counting on Cersei to do away with Robert and Ned - but that would make even a worse traitor than he actual is because he refused to tell Robert and Ned about what he 'knew' about the twincest. Unless I'm mistaken Stannis closed down the harbor before Robert's death, indicating he prepared for war before he knew his brother was dead.

[Morte]

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Exactly. Of course, it also makes no sense whatsoever that Stannis proclaim himself and the truth as he sees it immediately after he learns of Robert's death. The fool likely would have gotten the reluctant support of half the Realm or more if had written those letters sooner because it would have given the North and the Riverlands the ideal pretender to rally behind against Joffrey and it would have given other houses loathing or hating the Lannisters a pretext to rise up in rebellion, too. The Reach and Stormlands may have not needed Renly then. Or some/half of them or more may have refused to support Renly if Stannis had proclaimed himself first.

I'm not even sure whether Renly would have proclaimed himself, if Stannis had acted sooner, it seems to me, he would be quite content with the Stormlands. And even if the lords would not like Stannis on the throne, he would have been able to get supporters for a High Council very easily; it's unlikely the Lannisters would have been able to rebut his accusations... But with him being so late to the party of kings (to the rest of the kingdom) his letters could no longer have any impact whatsoever - even if many may believe him right.

59 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Bottom line is this is just bad writing on George's part.

Unfortunately, yes. At least it is a huge inconsistency in Stannis' character - or he is an even greater asshole and traitor, if he was betting on what will happen to Robert and Ned.

[Ran]

15 minutes ago, Morte said:

At least it is a huge inconsistency in Stannis' character - or he is an even greater asshole and traitor, if he was betting on what will happen to Robert and Ned.

It's basically the latter, and is Stannis's original sin, so to speak.

It's no coincidence that Cressen's prologue has the matter of Ned's friendship to Robert brought up, and we see how small and petty a person Stannis is about it -- it explains exactly why he fled to Dragonstone and stayed there, waiting for Robert and Ned to fall rather than reach out to Ned or even be gracious enough to respond to his request to return to the small council.

When George said he was basically righteous, I think people took it too far and read Stannis wrongly. His intention was narrow, and the Stannis we see -- especially in ACoK and ASoS -- is righteous only in coming to believe that the greater threat to the world lies beyond the Wall. OTOH, once realizing this, he soon turns around and resumes trying to win a throne, so the degree to which his righteous beliefs become subordinated to his selfish, self-righteous ones has to be considered.

[Bernie Mac]

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

 

Stannis punishing Davos was more him trying to deliver justice to a former criminal.

Right. Treason is also a criminal behaviour, possibly something seen as far more serious than smuggling.

Why would any lord put themselves in that position with Stannis? That once he is secure on the Throne, that he might start rewarding and punishing those he saw that did wrong?

 

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

 

As much as he hates the tyrells I wouldn’t see him punishing them after they aided his cause.

You see it like that, do the Tyrells?

It is just another disincentive for them not to support Stannis. Renly offer's Mace the Handship, a decent amount of influence over the new realm and dynasty, his daughter Queen and his descendants rulers. Renly is also a King he likes, he gets on with.  So there are quite a lot of incentives for Mace to rebel (and to a lesser extent his vassals), to take the risk and cost that a rebellion has.

Stannis, with his personality, his in-laws, his own daughter, is just worth the risk for the Tyrells even with Renly supportive of him.

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

 

They are too powerful and Stannis is too much of a hypocrite to do such a thing.

But we know that is not true. After the Battle of the Blackwater more than half of Stannis' remaining men were Florent. He still executed their Lord. His own in-law.

"This is a notable company. The great lords Estermont, Errol, and Varner. Ser Jon of the green-apple Fossoways and Ser Bryan of the red. Lord Caron and Ser Guyard of King Renly's Rainbow Guard . . . and the puissant Lord Alester Florent of Brightwater, to be sure."

Alester was the most impressive supporter of Stannis' and he still punished him. I don't think any other faction showed surprise at this.

 

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

 

He is aware that if he punishes a house that helped him gain the throne he will be seen as an unjust king, and he definitely sees himself as a just person.

He could well do what he did to Davos, offer a reward and punishment.

The perception of Stannis throughout Westeros is that he is such a man. Why would such Lords take that risk?

1 hour ago, The Young Maester said:

 

What I see Stannis doing is not granting the Tyrells favours and not involving them on the spoils of victory. They wouldn’t receive any rewards or prestigious positions at court. They’d be sent back home with nothing but the scraps of victory. 

And if that was all the Tyrells were scared for, why would they rebel?

[Bernie Mac]

33 minutes ago, Morte said:

I'm not even sure whether Renly would have proclaimed himself, if Stannis had acted sooner,

He probably would. Stannis, both his personality and power base, is not strong enough to win a rebellion and rule a kingdom. Renly saw him unfit to rule.

Had Stannis acted sooner Renly may have crowned Edric instead and acted as his regent.

[Hugorfonics]

28 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

He probably would.

I don't think so. If Stannis declared first then theres a good likelihood he would have taken some of the Stormlands with him. 

If Renly cant count that many banners then hed probably be deterred him from ascension 

32 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Had Stannis acted sooner Renly may have crowned Edric instead and acted as his regent.

Only kings can legitimize bastards

[Lord Varys]

35 minutes ago, Morte said:

I'm not even sure whether Renly would have proclaimed himself, if Stannis had acted sooner, it seems to me, he would be quite content with the Stormlands. And even if the lords would not like Stannis on the throne, he would have been able to get supporters for a High Council very easily; it's unlikely the Lannisters would have been able to rebut his accusations... But with him being so late to the party of kings (to the rest of the kingdom) his letters could no longer have any impact whatsoever - even if many may believe him right.

Exactly. George wanted him in a very bad position but didn't bother writing it so that it make sense he was in as bad a position as he was. It could have worked if he had approached Renly first and the man he refused to support, ignoring/not believing Stannis' revelation and instead using it a pretext to stage his own rebellion. It could also have worked if there had been real bad blood between Stannis and some of Renly's followers, etc.

But even then - the fact that he never told anything to the Northmen, the Riverlords, and the people of the Vale about what he thought happened to Jon Arryn or what he and Jon Arryn thought they found out about Robert's children effectively cost him half the Seven Kingdoms. That is his own fault. He could have had them all.

26 minutes ago, Ran said:

It's basically the latter, and is Stannis's original sin, so to speak.

It's no coincidence that Cressen's prologue has the matter of Ned's friendship to Robert brought up, and we see how small and petty a person Stannis is about it -- it explains exactly why he fled to Dragonstone and stayed there, waiting for Robert and Ned to fall rather than reach out to Ned or even be gracious enough to respond to his request to return to the small council.

Exactly. And as I laid out above, it also introduces us to the beginning of the conversation that will lead to the Renly assassination plot. Stannis espouses Mel as per Selyse's request because she promises him Renly's men. The implication there seems to be that Mel had already foreseen Renly crushing Stannis and the Blackwater and had come up with a plan to prevent that from happening.

In light of small things like that the entire case many people try to make that Stannis had no idea what was the point of his own Storm's End mission is a case built pretty much on nonexisting ground. It reduces Stannis to a moron or caricature of the 'stupid guy manipulated by the evil woman' if we actually think he had no idea why and how they were killing Renly.

26 minutes ago, Ran said:

When George said he was basically righteous, I think people took it too far and read Stannis wrongly. His intention was narrow, and the Stannis we see -- especially in ACoK and ASoS -- is righteous only in coming to believe that the greater threat to the world lies beyond the Wall. OTOH, once realizing this, he soon turns around and resumes trying to win a throne, so the degree to which his righteous beliefs become subordinated to his selfish, self-righteous ones has to be considered.

I think Stannis is righteous in the sense that if you are a complete stranger (i.e. he doesn't yet dislike you) and you present your case to him you can expect him to give you justice according to the letter of the law. And that might even extend to people he dislikes in his usual manner - he might not hold all to all-too-humanly flaws against you.

But if Stannis has a grudge against you - real or imagined - he'll likely treat you very unjustly, inventing rationalizations why he doesn't actually loathe you and still treat you justly, etc. We see this especially with how he treated Lord Alester Florent - which is a disgusting travesty of justice. But one could also point to him not intervening on Cressen's behalf when he has to wear the helmet (did Mel brief him that Cressen would try to kill her?), that he apparently had no problem not punishing Mel for allowing Cressen to kill himself (one imagines he asked her how it was that he died while she lived), how he handled the burnings of Lord Sunglass and the others in his absence (not at all).

His core flaws is his repressed ambition. He wanted to be like Robert while at the same loathing the type of man he was - this successful, charismatic people person who succeeded at everything he did, he wanted to be Lord of Storm's End (possibly long before Renly got the castle), and he more than everything wants to be king despite the fact that he denies that vehemently - most likely because he thinks he would be a much better king than Robert and he wants to prove that to the world. He wants to be loved but doesn't admit that even to himself.

I think you compared him to Rorschach a couple of times, but I'd say he is worse than that. Rorschach accepts that his world view also includes himself - he is not above or beyond the rules of justice as he sees it. But Stannis very much is. He glosses over the fact that he became a traitor when he joined Robert in rebellion against his king, he abandons Robert and Ned to the mercy of Cersei.

How great a defender to the Realm and mankind Stannis is going to be is up in the air at this point. The fact that George didn't have Stannis and/or Jon try to reason with the Boltons first by, you know, informing them about the real enemy and the danger they pose doesn't exactly reflect well on them. It is rather glaring in the case of Davos' mission to White Harbor, too. Any person knowing what Davos knew would have tried to convince Lord Manderly of the real danger they were all in - but he never mentions the Others, neither before the entire court nor later during their private audience.

After the Fist of the First Men the guys at the Wall really know what's going on. And yet nobody tries to inform anyone about that. That is a narrative problem in the story, possibly something grown out of the fact that the Wall and Others plot advanced too fast compared to all the others. In hindsight it might have been wise to end AGoT with Will's story not as a Prologue but an Epilogue.

But I doubt that Stannis is going to press on down south were he to win at Winterfell. It seems to me that he just wants to end the Bolton threat and then return to the Wall - and would have to do that now, anyway, if he lives, considering the whole Jon mess. The idea also seems to be that he wants to use those sellswords to man the Wall, not to invade the south and continue the war there. At least not until he has defeated the Others.

36 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

You see it like that, do the Tyrells?

It is just another disincentive for them not to support Stannis. Renly offer's Mace the Handship, a decent amount of influence over the new realm and dynasty, his daughter Queen and his descendants rulers. Renly is also a King he likes, he gets on with.  So there are quite a lot of incentives for Mace to rebel (and to a lesser extent his vassals), to take the risk and cost that a rebellion has.

It would be great if we knew why the Tyrells never got around to support Stannis - or that they had good reason to fear him as king. We know Littlefinger expected Stannis to dismiss him, so he had every reason not to support him, but we cannot say the same about the Tyrells.

Especially since if you think about it - Stannis could have offered Renly or Mace to make either of them his Hand.

It would be great if we knew that the Tyrells and other Reach lords wouldn't have supported Stannis if he had announced his claim prior to Renly - or with Renly's help trying to convince them - but the fact is that we don't know that. It is no surprise that those people stuck with Renly as long as he lived since he was the king they made, but this doesn't mean they wouldn't have supported Stannis under different circumstances.

We also don't know why the hell Loras, Tarly, and some of the others didn't side with Stannis after the death of Renly. Did they think Brienne acted on Stannis' behalf? Perhaps, but we don't know. Stannis comes across like another dumb character that he didn't send an envoy directly to Bitterbridge and Highgarden, offering Shireen's hand to Willas or Loras Tyrell. That could have gotten their attention.

36 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

But we know that is not true. After the Battle of the Blackwater more than half of Stannis' remaining men were Florent. He still executed their Lord. His own in-law.

"This is a notable company. The great lords Estermont, Errol, and Varner. Ser Jon of the green-apple Fossoways and Ser Bryan of the red. Lord Caron and Ser Guyard of King Renly's Rainbow Guard . . . and the puissant Lord Alester Florent of Brightwater, to be sure."

Alester was the most impressive supporter of Stannis' and he still punished him. I don't think any other faction showed surprise at this.

Not sure that's ever discussed by anyone. It is, of course, a travesty of justice but there is at least a pretext of 'treason' there, something that wouldn't be the case for lords who helped Stannis to win the war and didn't betray him.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Whatever your feeling about Renly is I don't question. I just point out that this is not enough to answer the most basic question about the man's policies, relationships, and intentions.

But you do question it, because I do find we have more than enough information about Renly to answer these questions. There are in-text answers or answers that require very little inference for most of those questions you claim are unclear or unanswered. You just don't seem to like the answers, and so you have decided it must be a case of bad writing by the author. I've seen that same reaction from lots of users over the years: it's not enough to just be dissatisfied with an aspect of the story, it must be the author's fault.

You also seem to have your mind very much made up about that, though, so I can't see that there is much point going deeper into the weeds over it. I just disagree with you: and I'm certainly not alone. Renly's a fascinating, well-drawn character.

[Morte]

31 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

He probably would. Stannis, both his personality and power base, is not strong enough to win a rebellion and rule a kingdom. Renly saw him unfit to rule.

And he might have been right, wasn't he?

32 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Had Stannis acted sooner Renly may have crowned Edric instead and acted as his regent.

A High Council would have been the best bet than, if justice would be what Stannis wants.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

But even then - the fact that he never told anything to the Northmen, the Riverlords, and the people of the Vale about what he thought happened to Jon Arryn or what he and Jon Arryn thought they found out about Robert's children effectively cost him half the Seven Kingdoms. That is his own fault. He could have had them all.

Exactly. It's like the Vale was left out on purpose, just to use it in another plot line, while it would be one of the very first regions where Stannis would have an almost 100% chance to at least gain parts of the lords for his cause.

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

a very interesting analysis of Stannis character

I think broken down to two words we could call him a self-righteous hypocrite?

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

You also seem to have your mind very much made up about that, though, so I can't see that there is much point going deeper into the weeds over it. I just disagree with you: and I'm certainly not alone. Renly's a fascinating, well-drawn character.

Well, I've different standards. And this is just a minor thing. I still like the series despite the fact that Renly is an underdeveloped character who deserved better. You don't have to defend as if I'm Lord Manderly about to give George some Rhaegar Frey treatment. But this is something that occasionally vexes me, as is the whole thing about Stannis having nearly as much 'depth' as Renly, or there essentially being no information about Robert's reign and how these people interacted there. It is bad writing on George's part to treat Robert's reign as if it just happened with characters only caring about their past back when the Targaryens still ran the show.

Loras turns out sort of as a well-rounded character in ASoS with there being hints that he truly loved Renly and stuff. But we have no clue whether Renly loved him the same way he did.

But then, thanks to the fact that we don't know anything about the relationship it isn't even clear whether this wouldn't border on child abuse by our standards. Loras was Renly's squire, meaning Loras was completely in his control when he developed his feelings for Renly. In our day and age we would call what Renly may have done with Loras 'grooming' - especially with the whole thing about Renly giving Loras access to pornography. The age gap between Renly and Loras is loosely the same as between Dunk and Egg, and nobody is looking forward to the prospect that these two might have a romantic or sexual relationship, do we?

With this being a series where Drogo-Daenerys are somehow presented as 'a romance' starting with child abuse, forced marriage, and rape one cannot but wonder whether Renly turned out to be Loras' sun in a not so different a manner from Drogo being Dany's sun-and-stars.

Those are all things that could and would look better if George had actually elaborated more on the relationship Loras and Renly had. Which he still reasonably could while Loras is still alive.

1 hour ago, Morte said:

A High Council would have been the best bet than, if justice would be what Stannis wants.

If Stannis had wanted a peaceful solution he could have called on Renly, and the other great lords of the Realm to call a Great Council and deal with the accusations he threw at the Lannisters. And if he had actually not wanted to be king he could have made it clear he was not pressing his claim nor the claim of his daughter, allowing Renly to come forth to claim the throne if he wanted it.

But he never did that, did he? He didn't even offer to abdicate in favor of Renly or keep silent about the twincest story so he would not 'have to' press his claim for reasons of 'justice'. Instead, he solitarily declared his brother's children bastards without offering any proof. Great plan.

Also, there is a huge discrepancy between Stannis going on about the twincest and the murder of Jon Arryn essentially whenever he shows up after Robert's death - but not saying anything about that to anyone while Robert was still around. That is just weird. One can only interpret this as him not wanting Cersei to kill Robert and Ned, too, so that he can then avenge them all and be a 'hero' and 'just king' of sorts.

1 hour ago, Morte said:

Exactly. It's like the Vale was left out on purpose, just to use it in another plot line, while it would be one of the very first regions where Stannis would have an almost 100% chance to at least gain parts of the lords for his cause.

Well, George has Cressen bring it up in the Prologue, but the problem is that Stannis should have thought about that all by himself weeks and months before the Prologue took place, possibly even while Robert was still alive. He believed Jon Arryn was murdered by the queen, so it would make sense to tell his people about that and exploit the desire for vengeance they may have had to his own ends.

There would have been ways to deal with that - Lysa definitely would have rejected any such offers for an alliance considering her and Littlefinger's plans to keep the Vale out of the war. But if he had sent envoys to Gulltown and Runestone he may have still been able to recruit some lesser lords, second sons, freeriders, etc. to his cause.

1 hour ago, Morte said:

I think broken down to two words we could call him a self-righteous hypocrite?

I'd rather say he is a whiny child who cannot even admit that to himself.

But in the end being punished by having a brother like Robert doesn't really explain itself fully. Something is wrong with Stannis on a deeper level. Very few people would have sacrificed parts of themselves to murder a brother and some other loyal guy just to win a throne. That is just ugly.

I think George provided us with a key or a further illustration of Stannis in Borys Baratheon from FaB. Borys is what Stannis may have become had Robert lived longer - a man who, in the end, could not cope with the fact that he wouldn't get his brother's castle/throne. Borys turns against Rogar and his fellow Stormlanders because he no longer is the heir. Stannis, too, turns against Robert's wife and his legal children without having any shred of evidence that Robert isn't their father.

Very few people seem to get this - Stannis doesn't know that the children aren't Robert's. He just believes that to be the case. But even if he proof or real knowledge - like Ned got from Cersei's own lips - then this still doesn't justify their murder. The children are innocent of the crimes of their parents. Ned sacrifices himself and the well-being of his daughters to keep Cersei's children safe. Stannis wants to kill them all. This is a monstrous thing to do. Family does not just involve blood relations but also foster family and step-family, etc.

This is something that explored with Theon being judged a kinslayer by Asha after he allegedly killed Bran and Rickon just as with Corlys Velaryon - despite the looks of his grandsons and the rumors about their parentage - proudly seeing them as Velaryons. Family isn't just biology and bloodlines - not in our world, and also not in Westeros.

[Mithras]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

When George said he was basically righteous, I think people took it too far and read Stannis wrongly. His intention was narrow, and the Stannis we see -- especially in ACoK and ASoS -- is righteous only in coming to believe that the greater threat to the world lies beyond the Wall. OTOH, once realizing this, he soon turns around and resumes trying to win a throne, so the degree to which his righteous beliefs become subordinated to his selfish, self-righteous ones has to be considered.

I think rather than people taking it too far, GRRM used a wrong word or it is the interviewer’s fault. There is nothing righteous about Stannis. He is a hypocrite. Stannis came to the Wall on the pretense of helping the Night’s Watch but in reality, he had nowhere else to go and his true purpose is to gather the Northmen behind him so that he can resume his war for the Iron Throne. Wyman Manderly saw right through that and told that much to Davos. This act of Stannis cannot be called righteous.

Righteousness is not a hard trait to observe in a book character. Also it is not something one can put on or off like a piece of cloth. Either it is there or it is not. Any reader should be able to tell it at first glance without having to resort to the word of the author. Ned, Jon, Davos, Brienne etc. do not need GRRM’s testimony in order to be recognized as righteous characters. But apparently Stannis does.

Consider the journey of Stannis. We know its beginning where he starts as a man who sells his soul to the devil and burns his gods for the power promised by the devil. We know its end as one of the few things D&D confirmed. But in between he is somehow a righteous man if this interview is to be believed.

Quote

And it is important that the individual books refer to the civil wars, but the series title reminds us constantly that the real issue lies in the North beyond the Wall. Stannis becomes one of the few characters fully to understand that, which is why in spite of everything he is a righteous man, and not just a version of Henry VII, Tiberius or Louis XI.

This interview dates from ASoS promotion period (July 2000). From the same interview, we also have this:

Quote

Sansa was the least sympathetic of the Starks in the first book; she has become more sympathetic, partly because she comes to accept responsibility for her part in her father's death.

It’s been a while since I reread the Sansa chapters but I fail to recall where exactly she comes to accept responsibility for her part in her father's death. Regardless, we should remember that interviews are rarely carried out as we read them. The interviewers edit them for publication and in the process; sometimes they use a lot of personal interpretation and paraphrasing, if not outright twisting the interviewee’s intent. Therefore, we might very well be dealing with a situation where the Amazon interviewer putting words into GRRM’s mouth. We know that Amazon posted a synopsis for AFfC in 2002, which was so ridiculous that GRRM had to debunk it several times, which hurts Amazon’s reliability.

[Morte]

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But then, thanks to the fact that we don't know anything about the relationship it isn't even clear whether this wouldn't border on child abuse by our standards. Loras was Renly's squire, meaning Loras was completely in his control when he developed his feelings for Renly. In our day and age we would call what Renly may have done with Loras 'grooming' - especially with the whole thing about Renly giving Loras access to pornography. The age gap between Renly and Loras is loosely the same as between Dunk and Egg, and nobody is looking forward to the prospect that these two might have a romantic or sexual relationship, do we?

With this being a series where Drogo-Daenerys are somehow presented as 'a romance' starting with child abuse, forced marriage, and rape one cannot but wonder whether Renly turned out to be Loras' sun in a not so different a manner from Drogo being Dany's sun-and-stars.

Those are all things that could and would look better if George had actually elaborated more on the relationship Loras and Renly had. Which he still reasonably could while Loras is still alive.

At least they are closer in age than Daenerys and Drogo, and know each other since they were in their teen (granted, Loras still is  ). Of course, this doesn't solve anything in regard of their relationship, as it is strange that Lord Tyrell would send his son (at age 10-12) to squire for a boy of 15-17 - who may have been knighted, but is not really someone known for his knightly skills (that's the difference with Robb and his squires), like - at all. But well, this had to be one of Lord Puffish's ideas.

22 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If Stannis had wanted a peaceful solution he could have called on Renly, and the other great lords of the Realm to call a Great Council and deal with the accusations he threw at the Lannisters. And if he had actually not wanted to be king he could have made it clear he was not pressing his claim nor the claim of his daughter, allowing Renly to come forth to claim the throne if he wanted it.

But he never did that, did he? He didn't even offer to abdicate in favor of Renly or keep silent about the twincest story so he would not 'have to' press his claim for reasons of 'justice'. Instead, he solitarily declared his brother's children bastards without offering any proof. Great plan.

Also, there is a huge discrepancy between Stannis going on about the twincest and the murder of Jon Arryn essentially whenever he shows up after Robert's death - but not saying anything about that to anyone while Robert was still around. That is just weird. One can only interpret this as him not wanting Cersei to kill Robert and Ned, too, so that he can then avenge them all and be a 'hero' and 'just king' of sorts.

Exactly.

And I find this strange, and while I get it, that Stannis is a "self-righteous hypocrite", or as you said "a whiny child who cannot even admit that to himself", I don't get his hate toward his brothers. And watching Robert and Ned being murdered (and he could not have said for sure that his younger brother would manage to survive KL), because - what? Because they were bff? Because Robert was more loved? Really?

And not calling out earlier to the realm is just plain stupid.

I mean, it's not like he is a very kind or even just leader for his men, or a good husband or father. I find it very hard to believe that Stannis can actually manage to get people to follow him. And he must know this, so a Great Council would have been his best bet, if he wanted justice. But he doesn't, does he?