Jump to content

Robert giving Renly Storm's End was stupid


Alyn Oakenfist

Recommended Posts

So first thing first I'm not talking about weather it was a slight against Stannis, or what Robert rights were and so on. That dead horse has been kicked long enough. I'm more referring to how smart or stupid the decision was. And here is why it's stupid. So it's clear without a shadow of a doubt that Stannis was the heir apparent. But if Robert were to die without a trueborn child, such arrangement would undoubtedly lead to a civil war. Renly would have a massive power base in the case of succession, unlike Stannis, and Stannis wasn't popular enough to rally the lords. And guess what this is exactly what happened. You might ask, but what should Robert do, Dragonstone is the seat of the heir apparent and SE needs to be held by a Barathen. Simple, give Stannis both and make him take Dragonstone as a primary residence. Problem solved, now Renly can no longer start a civil war. So what do you think, was Robert stupid in the way he gave the titles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Renly was only given Storm's End 13 years ago

"Your brother has been the Lord of Storm's End these past thirteen years. These lords are his sworn bannermen—"

"His," Stannis broke in, "when by rights they should be mine. I never asked for Dragonstone. I never wanted it.
 
We are told this at the start of ACOK, in Sansa's first chapter of the book we are told that Joffrey is also 13
 
"His foeman will be stuffed with straw," Joff said as he rose. The king was clad in a gilded breastplate with a roaring lion engraved upon its chest, as if he expected the war to engulf them at any moment. He was thirteen today, and tall for his age, with the green eyes and golden hair of the Lannisters.
 
 
So Renly was only given Storm's End when Robert knew he had a son, or knew he had an heir, but he either already had an heir or was expecting one when he finally gave Storm's End away.
 
55 minutes ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Simple, give Stannis both and make him take Dragonstone as a primary residence. Problem solved, now Renly can no longer start a civil war. So what do you think, was Robert stupid in the way he gave the titles?

 

lol Stannis fans always thinking the fair option is to simply hand Stannis everything.
 
 
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert shouldn't have given either Stannis or Renly anything. They were both not deserving of such high honors nor were they particularly trustworthy. Renly is no worse a traitor than Stannis considering Stannis has no proof about the twincest and was willing to murder his sister-in-law and his nephews and niece over an issue that was clearly not the children's fault.

They also didn't deserve any seats on the council considering that neither was a particularly gifted individual, especially not Renly.

And Stannis was never the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. At best he was the presumptive heir while Robert hadn't gotten any children from Cersei, but even there we don't know whether Robert ever formally named or acknowledged Stannis as his heir while he didn't have any children yet.

He was given Dragonstone not as an honor but because Robert needed somebody he thought he could trust to hold Dragonstone against the Targaryens.

Bottom line is, Robert should have given the seats he had to give to his own children, not his ungrateful, scheming brothers. They deserved nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So first thing first I'm not talking about weather it was a slight against Stannis, or what Robert rights were and so on. That dead horse has been kicked long enough. I'm more referring to how smart or stupid the decision was. And here is why it's stupid. So it's clear without a shadow of a doubt that Stannis was the heir apparent. But if Robert were to die without a trueborn child, such arrangement would undoubtedly lead to a civil war. Renly would have a massive power base in the case of succession, unlike Stannis, and Stannis wasn't popular enough to rally the lords. And guess what this is exactly what happened. You might ask, but what should Robert do, Dragonstone is the seat of the heir apparent and SE needs to be held by a Barathen. Simple, give Stannis both and make him take Dragonstone as a primary residence. Problem solved, now Renly can no longer start a civil war. So what do you think, was Robert stupid in the way he gave the titles?

Robert being Robert, he must have already known there would be an heir and a few spares.  He loved the ladies too much to not produce an heir.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

Renly was only given Storm's End 13 years ago

"Your brother has been the Lord of Storm's End these past thirteen years. These lords are his sworn bannermen—"

"His," Stannis broke in, "when by rights they should be mine. I never asked for Dragonstone. I never wanted it.
 
We are told this at the start of ACOK, in Sansa's first chapter of the book we are told that Joffrey is also 13
 
"His foeman will be stuffed with straw," Joff said as he rose. The king was clad in a gilded breastplate with a roaring lion engraved upon its chest, as if he expected the war to engulf them at any moment. He was thirteen today, and tall for his age, with the green eyes and golden hair of the Lannisters.
 
 
So Renly was only given Storm's End when Robert knew he had a son, or knew he had an heir, but he either already had an heir or was expecting one when he finally gave Storm's End away.

That's actually a fair point, forgot that part. It's still however a bit dumb for Robert. I mean he only has one son (if that) that could very easy die in his first year. And if somehow he should die after (I know a longshot, but still there) the same shitstorm would begin.

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:
4 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Simple, give Stannis both and make him take Dragonstone as a primary residence. Problem solved, now Renly can no longer start a civil war. So what do you think, was Robert stupid in the way he gave the titles?

 

lol Stannis fans always thinking the fair option is to simply hand Stannis everything.

Who said anything about fair. Did I say something like that would be fair? No. What I said is that something like that would be the best defense against a civil war, as there would be only Stannis, who was the heir in a position of power. If too many people with claims have positions of power a civil war is basically inevitable. If you want to use strawmen please start your sentences with ,,so what you're saying" so we can clearly identify it.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Bottom line is, Robert should have given the seats he had to give to his own children, not his ungrateful, scheming brothers. They deserved nothing.

That would probably work too. What ever the case Renly shouldn't have been given SE. Give it to Stannis or keep it, and it makes sense. Giving it to Renly is just begging for a civil war.

2 hours ago, Prince Rhaego's Soul said:

Robert being Robert, he must have already known there would be an heir and a few spares.  He loved the ladies too much to not produce an heir.  

I mean we're only talking about trueborn children here. Not even Robert was daft enough to make one of his bastards heir. He knew that a better recipe for a civil war doesn't exist. And there always is the chance that the other partner is barren or he dies prematurely. With such a context if Robert was to die without trueborn children a civil war would be inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So it's clear without a shadow of a doubt that Stannis was the heir apparent. But if Robert were to die without a trueborn child, such arrangement would undoubtedly lead to a civil war.

No, that's one of the things with using presentism when trying to argue a case, you know the outcome and by knowing the outcome you're incapable of seeing others. Renly fighting Stannis is actually the less likely of the outcomes at the time of the decision, they were brothers, they loved and cared for each other, and i would not be surprised if it was Stannis's jealousy that ended their relationship, and more importantly none of them were envisioned to ever sit their asses on the throne. How can you foresee that you will die without an heir and your 7 years old baby brother will try to usurp your little bro's throne??

Stannis never was the heir apparent btw, he is the heir presumptive.

 

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

Renly would have a massive power base in the case of succession, unlike Stannis, and Stannis wasn't popular enough to rally the lords.

Because Stannis had other rivals and arguably the most importants were Robert's legal sons. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

You might ask, but what should Robert do, Dragonstone is the seat of the heir apparent and SE needs to be held by a Barathen. Simple, give Stannis both and make him take Dragonstone as a primary residence. Problem solved,

@Bernie Mac sumed it nicely.

 

 

5 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

now Renly can no longer start a civil war.

But Stannis can.:dunno: Honestly, using presentism is arguably the worst way of argue. There are a dozen different ways that said decision could blow up in Robert's face, which had that happened would be "obvious" in hindsight.

 

Quote

Who said anything about fair. Did I say something like that would be fair? No. What I said is that something like that would be the best defense against a civil war, as there would be only Stannis, who was the heir in a position of power. If too many people with claims have positions of power a civil war is basically inevitable. If you want to use strawmen please start your sentences with ,,so what you're saying" so we can clearly identify it.

But that simply is false, that's the option that option that gives Stannis more power, but civil wars can start for a variety of reasons in a variety of contexts and by a variety of characters, Stannis having too much power is perfectly the catalist of a civil war by itself.

This option only tries to strengthen Stannis's position while trying to nulify Renly's, nothing more and nothing else, Renly is charismatic and ambitious, who tells you that the fact of running out of inheritance does not drive him to conspire against his brothers? Who tells you that the power of Stannis cannot generate envy and jealousy and there are lords who try to put Renly on the throne anyway? the civil war did not started with Renly, nor it ended with him.

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert shouldn't have given either Stannis or Renly anything. They were both not deserving of such high honors nor were they particularly trustworthy.

He very much should, Stannis particularly saved Robert's campaign by pining a good deal of Tyrell's forces in Storm's End for a year. And they were Robert's own brothers, Renly was a charismatic kid, getting the relatively easy to handle Storm's End, and Stannis's loyalty was without question at the time, again presentism.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Renly is no worse a traitor than Renly considering he has no proof about the twincest and was willing to murder his sister-in-law and his nephews and niece over an issue that was clearly not the children's fault.

Yet he knew the truth and ofc he was willing to kill Cersei and the children, they were either traitors and started a brutal civil war or abominations in the eyes of everyone. No, Stannis was not a traitor for that.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They also didn't deserve any seats on the council considering that neither was a particularly gifted individual, especially not Renly.

??? Stannis is a very gifted commander and we don't have a reason to suspect that he did nothing but good in his own department, he was made master of the ships and he defeated the Ironborn at sea.

Renly without nowing more about Robert's rule or without knowing what exactly are the Master of laws tasks, is a moot point.

 

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

He was given Dragonstone not as an honor but because Robert needed somebody he thought he could trust to hold Dragonstone against the Targaryens.

Martin also said that he was granted the seat as an honour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert shouldn't have given either Stannis or Renly anything. They were both not deserving of such high honors nor were they particularly trustworthy. Renly is no worse a traitor than Stannis considering Stannis has no proof about the twincest and was willing to murder his sister-in-law and his nephews and niece over an issue that was clearly not the children's fault.

They also didn't deserve any seats on the council considering that neither was a particularly gifted individual, especially not Renly.

And Stannis was never the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne. At best he was the presumptive heir while Robert hadn't gotten any children from Cersei, but even there we don't know whether Robert ever formally named or acknowledged Stannis as his heir while he didn't have any children yet.

He was given Dragonstone not as an honor but because Robert needed somebody he thought he could trust to hold Dragonstone against the Targaryens.

Bottom line is, Robert should have given the seats he had to give to his own children, not his ungrateful, scheming brothers. They deserved nothing.

You are reaching with your nonsense ( or just hate towards characters) .

OT :

Entire Robert reign was full of stupid decision due to his willingness to ignore serious  matters regarding ruling kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Putin said:

You are reaching with your nonsense ( or just hate towards characters) .

LOL, right.

1 hour ago, Bernie Mac said:

I think Renly is less treacherous than Renly. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Renly's treachery transcends the concept of treachery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the idea that Robert should have kept the seats for his children is sound enough, the fact is that he'd then likely just award his brothers castellan status for the two seats, and they would basically be de facto rulers and so would still relatively easily leverage them in this situation to do ... well, what they did anyways.

Under no circumstances do I see giving Renly Storm's End any more "stupid" than giving Stannis Dragonstone, if we have to frame it that way. A gift to one invites a gift to the other.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ran said:

While the idea that Robert should have kept the seats for his children is sound enough, the fact is that he'd then likely just award his brothers castellan status for the two seats, and they would basically be de facto rulers and so would still relatively easily leverage them in this situation to do ... well, what they did anyways.

I'd not think that this is necessarily a given. Stannis as castellan of Dragonstone I could see - some strong guy needed to keep the Narrow Sea lords in check and prevent a Targaryen return - but castellan of Storm's End could be some Stormlander buddy from Robert's youth or another experienced knight in his service. Renly would have to come of age before he could serve in the capacity of castellan - at which time Robert may have been perfectly content with whoever he named when he took the throne.

The position of castellan would also prevent Stannis from being at court and serving on the Small Council - he couldn't be castellan of Dragonstone, say, and Master of Ships. And him not being on the council would diminish his overall power and authority.

As for them doing what they did after Robert's death:

That just wouldn't fly. Renly's entire rebellion is based on the fact that he is a lord in his own right whose bannermen own him fealty. If he had been never granted a lordship he could still be a popular guy and knight, but he couldn't count that essentially all the Stormlords would rise with him in rebellion (which they sort of did, although it seems not many of them supported him with their full strength). And if he was lacking his own legal power base this may have also cautioned some of the Reach lords who backed him only because he already had all his Stormlords with him when he married Margaery at Highgarden.

Keep in mind that the Stormlords following Renly in his rebellion actually betrayed the son and memory of King Robert Baratheon - something quite a few of them may have had issues with while they still believed Joff and Tommen were Robert's sons. If Renly had just been a castellan he wouldn't have had the authority to demand that they choose between him and Joffrey. How weak the position of a mere castellan can be we see with Rodrik Cassel in ACoK.

And with Stannis on Dragonstone it would be similar - if the lords sworn to Dragonstone (Joffrey's seat if Robert had followed the old Targaryen practice) had not wanted to rise with Stannis he would have had no legal means to force them. And if he had just been castellan and not also Master of Ships who effectively stole the royal fleet prior to the war he would also have had no strength at sea. Stannis making his claim as a mere landless knight would have led to zero support considering essentially nobody in Westeros likes this guy. Renly could have tried to pull a Daemon Blackfyre but while he resembled Robert he wasn't the Warrior Incarnate, crippling his chances to rally a lot of men to his banner.

It is clear that Renly as a famous and popular guy was the greater danger to Robert's children than Stannis if we imagine both Stannis and Renly without lordships of their own ... but it stands to reason that if both of them had been mere knights that Renly may not have been as popular as he turned out to be as Lord of Storm's End. I mean, we cannot really say Renly was as popular as he was just because of his winning personality and not because of his winning personality in combination with the lordship he had.

Quote

Under no circumstances do I see giving Renly Storm's End any more "stupid" than giving Stannis Dragonstone, if we have to frame it that way. A gift to one invites a gift to the other.

I'd agree there, although I'd also say that Robert added his part to the poisonous relationship he and his brothers had with each other by granting Storm's End to Renly and not to Stannis. If Stannis had gotten Storm's End he may have been a tidbit more loyal to Robert and his children, meaning he may have been less obesessed with 'getting what he felt was his due' and may have thus never concluded that Robert's children weren't his ... or rather: may have decided to not allow his suspicions in that regard influence his policies and ambitions.

The way Stannis is written seems to imply him not getting Storm's End and Renly getting it played a considerable role in both his decision to abandon Robert and Ned to Cersei's mercy as well as his decision to murder Renly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t see the problem with giving Renly Storm’s End, The ancestral seat of House Baratheon.

Yeah it turned out to be a dumb move but the princes had the whole realm to inherit, the brother should take on The StormLands.

If I had multiple seats to award I would look to my family believing them to be more loyal but then again Tywin never granted Kevan or Genna lands it seems so maybe I’m wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Wm Portnoy said:

Robert did it just to get rid of Stannis.  Stannis is not easy to have around.  The move was political to appease the court.

eh? Surely making him Master of Ships and giving him a seat that is pretty close to the capital, means he was making Stannis stick around, not moving him on.

2 hours ago, CassDarry said:

If I had multiple seats to award I would look to my family believing them to be more loyal but then again Tywin never granted Kevan or Genna lands it seems so maybe I’m wrong

Tywin did exactly that when his grandson was the King, he gave Kevan and Genna Riverrun and Darry and was trying to manoeuvrer Tyrion into becoming the Lord Protector of the North. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CassDarry said:

I don’t see the problem with giving Renly Storm’s End, The ancestral seat of House Baratheon.

Yeah it turned out to be a dumb move but the princes had the whole realm to inherit, the brother should take on The StormLands.

If I had multiple seats to award I would look to my family believing them to be more loyal but then again Tywin never granted Kevan or Genna lands it seems so maybe I’m wrong

Stannis betrayed his king for Robert and fought against that king.  He was owed from his view of things.  Of course he repeats this when he spoke out against Joffrey.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking things through was never Robert's strong suit. His thought process was likely something like he had two vacant lordships that needed filling by Baratheons, fine you and you, do it. Issue settled.

I guess you could argue that Stannis as the heir at the time would make sense being named the Prince of Dragonstone, so Renly would need to take over Storm's End. Though one would assume Robert knew he'd have a son at some point, so naming a castellan would've been more appropriate while leaving Stannis as Lord of Storm's End.

Of course knowing Stannis he'd probably read into not being named to Dragonstone as a slight. He's a very unhappy man.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2020 at 1:40 PM, Alyn Oakenfist said:

So first thing first I'm not talking about weather it was a slight against Stannis, or what Robert rights were and so on. That dead horse has been kicked long enough. I'm more referring to how smart or stupid the decision was. And here is why it's stupid. So it's clear without a shadow of a doubt that Stannis was the heir apparent. But if Robert were to die without a trueborn child, such arrangement would undoubtedly lead to a civil war. Renly would have a massive power base in the case of succession, unlike Stannis, and Stannis wasn't popular enough to rally the lords. And guess what this is exactly what happened. You might ask, but what should Robert do, Dragonstone is the seat of the heir apparent and SE needs to be held by a Barathen. Simple, give Stannis both and make him take Dragonstone as a primary residence. Problem solved, now Renly can no longer start a civil war. So what do you think, was Robert stupid in the way he gave the titles?

Robert wasn't great, but I think this is effectively condemning him for not being able to peer into the future.

Renly was six when the war ended. You can't tell that a child is going to grow up to be a populist power willing to wrestle power from their relatives. If Robert died randomly five years into his reign without a legitimate child, Stannis would have become king unopposed.

Robert was hoping that he would die at an age where a legitimate son was able to take over. I really can't blame him for not being able to see that in 15 years a whole chain of events would take place leading to his death and civil war involving both his brothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...