Jump to content

The Reign of King Renly


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, frenin said:

It's about controlling the spending.

Exactly, and if there is one thing we can with certainty say about Renly it's that he's not good at that. Just look at his pavilion in ACoK.

I think the only way Renly would become a good king is if he had a Hand who could rein in his partying impulses, i.e not Mace Tyrell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

I think there's plenty of in text info, which makes Renlys coronation a calculated move and not just a random death sentence which is how I used to think of it.

OK. With all due respect though, the quotes you've given as such aren't that: they are instead passages that you read as congruent with your interpretation. That's quite different.

(And yes, my statement about Renly's having no option is also an interpretation. :))

58 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

In fact Renly implies to Stannis that he's a king specifically because Stannis is, well, Stannis

Absolutely! And that fits both your interpretation and mine. Mine would be that this shows why Renly felt that throwing in his claim and backing Stannis was simply not a viable option.

58 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The brothers are great lords in their own right, they'll always be powerful agot players, just not in the SC, their future was bright.

But again, this is the same point I'm making, you're just putting a different interpretation on it. They're powerful, so their future is anything but bright, IMO.

We agree that the Lannisters will never put the brothers in a position on the small council. Why, then, would they allow the brothers to remain in a position of power that could threaten the Lannisters outside that council? And why would the brothers not use those positions to undermine and overthrow the Lannisters? Particularly given their personalities, the Lannisters have to expect that and need to get their retaliation in first. Textually, it's what Cersei expects Tywin to do, IIRC.

58 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Stark is the real enemy, not Baratheon. And Stark is really Tully (and should be Arryn) too. Then the ones who hate Lannister the most is Martell. Oh and Targaryen, and uh GC. 

And Baratheon.

58 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

The political reality is if you murder a lord like Ned, his kingdom will go ape. This is why Tyrion and Tywin we're so upset by Ned's execution.

Not really, and for this we do have textual support. They were upset because it was unplanned, it damaged relations with the Faith, it showed Joff was either acting independently or had someone else influencing him, and because Ned had already conceded and agreed to join the Night's Watch, which removed him from the Game.

You might argue that Renly or Stannis could have been sent to the Wall as well, but before you get to that question the Lannisters would first need to defeat them.

58 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

He tried three times. Replace Cersei, Arrest Cersei, and finally just war, on not Cersei for some reason. Supposedly it was on the to do list

None of these are intended to foment a civil war, but to anticipate one that was coming anyway, in Renly's eyes. The first might have provoked Tywin to war, but one where he would be facing the other kingdoms united against him under a live Robert as King, shorter, less divisive than and much preferable to the war that would erupt if Robert were killed and Cersei/Tywin held the throne through Joff. The second was a desperate move to stop the war that was undoubtedly coming when Robert was expected to die within hours and Tywin was already engaging in provocative attacks in the Riverlands. These aren't attempts to start a war: they're attempts to come out on the winning side of one that seems inevitable.

58 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Kings don't have allies

 

They do, you know. Robert had Ned, Jon, and Hoster for a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

That's ridiculous. Renly knows Stannis, but he knows Ned too. 

 

Does he? He only meets Ned from the latter's time in King's Landing and if Stannis is actually bidding for the throne he had to pass through Ned, since he alive and in power could influence three kingdons for or against Renly.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

If Renly didn't want the throne he'd do what Ned asked and not run away to the arms of his flower.

And he would have died with Ned, they were outnumbered, if they didn't act fast (Renly's plan) they stood no chance of taking control of King's Landing and they were going to be dead or in the Wall soon enough.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

As the master of laws, ordering the GC to arrest the usurpers is well within his jurisdiction instead of Ned's plan of getting LF to bribe the police.

Do you know what's his jurisdiction as Master of Laws or are you simply inserting your headcanon?

Ned could have definitely ordered the GC to arrest the usurpers, since he was not only Hand of the King but the new regent, but he soon enough found out that GC is corrupt af and only listen to money and he had to have them on his side. 

If Ned couldn't, Renly with less power wouldn't.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Neither want to ally with Stark and both act like Stark is nothing to fear

Except Renly makes every attempt to woo them over.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

And neither did Stark? Tully, Arryn, Greyjoy and Martell? So it's just them and Tyrell, which nobody even thought of until Varys told Tyrion they're all just chilling a few miles away with their guns cocked.

None of those Houses have members with a viable claim to the Throne, the Baratheon brothers had a legit claim to the Throne, were far too powerful and well connected and didn't get along with the Lannisters.

I do not know what you're arguing anyway, the Lannisters talk or think about offing the brothers... Cersei does, Tywin does and Joffrey does.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

No negative mention either. Ned told Joff that Stannis is an enemy and Renly ran away then

So you have actually no proof that he liked them.

Ned didn't tell him Stannis was an enemy, as far as Joff knows, Ned's treason died with him, Renly leaving doesn't make him an enemy either.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Spying

Can you mention a couple of them?

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Robert was dead Stannis been stole the fleet. Its beyond obvious at this point that Renlys stealing his thunder

Stannis left with the fleet a good year before Robert's death.

Renly doesn't read the books.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Because nobody visited them. Renly did, Stannis wanted to. Stannis eventually meets Buckets and Sansa will soon meet the Vale.

This doesn't make sense. They didn't love Stannis because he didn't visit them?

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

As soon as Renly died, with Stannis waving them in, they formed a straight line

Yeah, when Renly's dead. Just as Loras fights for the Lannisters when Renly's dead.

I'm talking about when he's alive and they weren't going anywhere near Stannis if Renly didn't want them to, which is why he's killed.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Stannis was mustering. He would have mustered more if Renly didn't crown himself

He wouldn't. The only viable force Stannis had in hand was Robb and he's soon gone. None of Renly's forces would have jumped to his side otherwise.

 

@Takiedevushkikakzvezdy

 

Quote

Exactly, and if there is one thing we can with certainty say about Renly it's that he's not good at that. Just look at his pavilion in ACoK.

I think the only way Renly would become a good king is if he had a Hand who could rein in his partying impulses, i.e not Mace Tyrell.

Why? Nothing about Renly in ACOK shows that he spends like crazy.

 

 

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Do we know this for sure? It might as well be that the Tyrells asked Renly to suggest it to Robert, since he is Robert's brother.

As Ran has indicated, there is textual evidence that Renly was the plotter there. Varys tells Illyrio that Loras writes letters to Highgarden urging Mace to send Margaery to court, indicating this whole thing is not a Tyrell idea (or rather: not one originating with Mace or Olenna).

Then Renly himself essentially confirms he wanted to make Margaery queen when Stannis confronts him about the fact that he just married the girl he originally wanted to put into Robert's bed.

More circumstantial evidence there is that Loras is the one who is very much in love with Renly ... while we have no evidence that Renly felt the same way about Loras (the talk about Renly's old servant implies Renly had a servant who knew how to keep her tongue, possibly indicating that more than just Renly-Loras sex was going on in Renly's chambers). Most importantly, though, the continuation of the story reveals that Loras Tyrell isn't a plotter nor particularly bright as a political player. He is manipulated into joining Joff's KG, triggering Olenna's decision to poison Joffrey, and later Cersei baits him into volunteering for the suicidal Dragonstone mission.

Loras isn't the guy coming up with a rather weird plan to use his sister to entice King Robert to set aside the queen who already gave him three children. He wouldn't be smart enough for that, nor would his rather close relationship make it likely he would ever consider such a possibility. The implementation of the plan could, perhaps, end with the alleged desired goal - Margaery as the new queen - but it would be much more likely that Margaery would just become Robert's mistress, resulting in her not living the proper life of a highborn daughter.

Thinking about it - one can even wonder whether Renly didn't really care all that much whether Margaery would become Robert's queen - that could have just been the possible result he used to sell the whole plan to Loras. Rather, his goal could simply have been to give Robert another Lyanna who would captivate and his affection and interest and allow him, Renly, to feed Robert whatever political ideas he wanted to implement. Margaery as Robert's mistress could already severely reduced Lannister influence at court - and that was Renly's goal there.

Insofar as Stannis' role after Robert's death is concerned:

The idea that Renly ever thought Stannis would stick with Joffrey or the Lannisters is very unlikely. Stannis all but abandoned Robert when he took the fleet and removed himself to Dragonstone. He had effectively left his seat on the council, wasn't part of the government anymore, but still controlled the royal fleet. It could have seen as a prelude or the preparation of a rebellion against Robert.

Just because Robert ignored Stannis' actions there doesn't mean the other players at court did. I'd say that a crucial reason why Tywin thinks he has to deal with Robert's brothers is that neither of them remained or returned to KL after Robert's death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ran said:

There's no evidence at all that the idea came "from the Tyrells". In fact, Varys notes that Loras and Renly were sending Mace letters trying to persuade him. The TV show seems to have been the thing that turned it all into Renly being manipulated by the Tyrells, but that's a deviation from the books.

Okay, let's say Robert lives and Margaery becomes his consort. What would Renly get out of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Okay, let's say Robert lives and Margaery becomes his consort. What would Renly get out of it?

Influence as the guy who helped hook his brother up with his new queen, both with Robert and with the Tyrells, whose daughter he made into a queen? Even more so if this ultimately leads to Mace Tyrell as Hand, he'd owe Renly big.

Oh, yeah, and he deals with the not-inconsiderable problem of the Lannisters having too much influence at court through Cersei. Cersei hated him and Stannis. Getting rid of her gets rid of a potentially fatal headache.

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Influence as the guy who helped hook his brother up with his new queen, both with Robert and with the Tyrells, whose daughter he made into a queen? Even more so if this ultimately leads to Mace Tyrell as Hand, he'd owe Renly big.

I think Renly may have preferred it if Margaery had made him Hand in the future by whispering in Robert's ear rather than Mace, but that's just a detail.

More important, though, is the simple fact that the Tyrells effectively are already Renly's 'in-laws of a sort' due to his relationship with Loras. Margaery already is kind of his sister-in-law, just as Mace is his father-in-law.

People tend to forget that. Margaery-Renly is later just the marriage to ensure that the royal line continues - the actual 'married couple' are Renly and Loras. It is their affection and relationship that formed this alliance, not Margaery and Renly.

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Oh, yeah, and he deals with the not-inconsiderable problem of the Lannisters having too much influence at court through Cersei. Cersei hated him and Stannis. Getting rid of her gets rid of a potentially fatal headache.

That is the bigger issue - Margaery would be the new queen replacing Cersei and subsequently reducing Lannister influence at court. But as I said in the past, I think George failed to develop Renly's issues with Cersei enough. We know enough to understand why she would view both Stannis and Renly as threats to the claims of her children due to the twincest thing, but Renly is clearly a new player at court, and it feels just completely odd that Cersei would openly give him the feeling she loathed or disliked him. Renly wasn't Stannis - he was pleasant and likable enough. Did Renly never try to get along with or befriend Cersei? If so, why not? In light of how long Cersei and Robert were married, Cersei could have easily enough acted as a surrogate mother to Renly, assuming he spent time as a page and squire at the Red Keep. Robert could have kept him at Storm's End the entire time but we don't know that he did.

We don't even know if Cersei's own evil designs against Renly weren't a reaction to his Margaery plan - which was so well-known that even Stannis picked up on it before he removed himself to Dragonstone. Thus it is clear that Cersei knew or suspected this as well - something that seems to be reflected by her talk to Jaime at Winterfell where she fears that Robert might leave her for another Lyanna.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Does he?

Yes

Quote

"My father always told the truth." Sansa spoke quietly, but even so, it was hard to get the words out.

"Lord Eddard, yes, he had that reputation, but they named him traitor and took his head off even so." The old woman's eyes bore into her, sharp and bright as the points of swords.

 

4 hours ago, frenin said:

And he would have died with Ned, they were outnumbered, if they didn't act fast (Renly's plan) they stood no chance of taking control of King's Landing and they were going to be dead or in the Wall soon enough.

It was the same plan, except one had Joff (Ned/Renly) as king while the other was just Stannis

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Do you know what's his jurisdiction as Master of Laws or are you simply inserting your headcanon?

Ned could have definitely ordered the GC to arrest the usurpers, since he was not only Hand of the King but the new regent, but he soon enough found out that GC is corrupt af and only listen to money and he had to have them on his side. 

If Ned couldn't, Renly with less power wouldn't.

Master of laws, it's self explanatory

That's what Ned believed, because he was a fool.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Except Renly makes every attempt to woo them over.

Every attempt? Cat shows up to his house uninvited and he keeps her hostage and makes fun of her.

What's the other attempts?

4 hours ago, frenin said:

None of those Houses have members with a viable claim to the Throne

So Stark made his own throne

4 hours ago, frenin said:

the Baratheon brothers had a legit claim to the Throne, were far too powerful and well connected and didn't get along with the Lannisters.

I do not know what you're arguing anyway, the Lannisters talk or think about offing the brothers... Cersei does, Tywin does and Joffrey does.

Cersei was talking shit and a Joffs an idiot. What'd did Tywin say about killing them prematurely?

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Stannis left with the fleet a good year before Robert's death.

Obviously up to something

4 hours ago, frenin said:

This doesn't make sense.

That's Westeros

4 hours ago, frenin said:

I'm talking about when he's alive and they weren't going anywhere near Stannis if Renly didn't want them to, which is why he's killed.

Yup

4 hours ago, frenin said:

He wouldn't. The only viable force Stannis had in hand was Robb and he's soon gone. None of Renly's forces would have jumped to his side otherwise

If Renly didn't crown himself then his supporters would have followed Stannis. Same with Robb, Joffrey and Moonboy for all I know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2022 at 5:42 PM, Adelstein said:

I think Renly vs Stannis is the topic that won't die - how many years has it been since AGoT/ACoK and we're still relitigating it?

To be fair, it's much more fun to have these debates than arguments on whether Daario is really Benjen and Euron. This is the best ASOIAF-related discussion I've had in a long time. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Yes

How does quote tie in whether Renly actually knew Ned.

Ofc that by reputation alone, Ned was unlikely to commit treason for Renly  but that's different than knowing him.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

It was the same plan, except one had Joff (Ned/Renly) as king while the other was just Stannis

It wasn't the same plan. you have read the books.

  1. Ned and Renly seize the royal children, Cersei is neutralized and Ned is confirmed as regent. Cersei is removed from court.
  2. Ned gets the  GC to help him, he seizes Cersei and Stannis is named king.

Plan 1 is feasible if they acted fast, the Lannisters wouldn't have time to react, Plan 2... Well we know how that went, Renly wasn't stupid enough to bet his life on Petyr, he was right. If Renly had stayed, he would have been jailed and killed right away.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Master of laws, it's self explanatory

So you actually don't have a proof. We have seen plenty of master of laws, none of them with actually judiciary powers. Those powers are the domain of the King/Regent and his Hand,

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

That's what Ned believed, because he was a fool.

Except that he's named regent and Cersei seizes him anyway because she has bribed the Gold Cloaks.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Every attempt? Cat shows up to his house uninvited and he keeps her hostage and makes fun of her.

What's the other attempts?

He tries to convince her that fighting is futile and he even agrees to Robb to keep his title so long he pays him homage.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

So Stark made his own throne

What has that to do with what we're discussing? We're talking about the Iron Throne, there's no reason to goalpost.

The Barathteon brothers were a threat to the Lannisters, so they had to go.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Cersei was talking shit and a Joffs an idiot. What'd did Tywin say about killing them prematurely?

  1. Cersei wasn't talking shit. You can't dismiss the passages you don't like as that lol.
  2. Idiot or not, Joff had every intention to kill them, just as he did kill Ned. He didn't learn to hate his uncles on his own.
  3. Tywin says to Tyrion that he hoped to have more time to deal with Robert's brothers, Renly had already made his bid to the throne by then but it would take months for Stannis to make his claim.

 

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Obviously up to something

To the readers sure but to the council it seemed that Stannis was just sulking for not been made Hand Which wasn't that far off.

 

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

If Renly didn't crown himself then his supporters would have followed Stannis. Same with Robb, Joffrey and Moonboy for all I know

Why would they?  Would they just ignore Renly's wishes? Because in the books it's made clear that wasn't happening.

You're not really arguing seriously are you?;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come the death of Robert, Renly on the throne was the best option for the longevity of the realm & most of our protagonists. 

It's amazing how many people are angered by this topic - a Renly lives scenario is quite fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, frenin said:

Plan 1 is feasible if they acted fast, the Lannisters wouldn't have time to react, Plan 2... Well we know how that went, Renly wasn't stupid enough to bet his life on Petyr, he was right. If Renly had stayed, he would have been jailed and killed right away.

There is no indication that Cersei wanted to kill Renly right away. Renly and Cersei clearly weren't best friends, but keep in mind that Cersei also didn't intend to kill Ned - despite the animosities between their families, despite the attempts on Bran, despite the Mycah incident, despite Ned knowing about the twincest and Cersei knowing that Ned knew about that and the attempt on Bran.

She offered Ned to return to Winterfell when he attempted to establish himself as Lord Regent, and she wanted to spare his life even afterwards.

Renly didn't know about the twincest and whatever bad blood there was between him and Cersei was not important enough for George to develop it in detail. Cersei certainly had reason enough to fear Renly's claim in light what she knew about the twincest ... but that she could deal with easily enough by keeping Renly prisoner and/or taking Storm's End away from him.

She didn't necessarily need his head.

If we imagine that Cersei arrested and executed Renly in the wake of Robert's death this would be a devastating blast to Joff's cause and public image. Even more so if Renly had committed no crime and was just arrested for the crime of being Robert's youngest brother. Renly was well-loved throughout the Realm and his ties to the Tyrells would ensure that in addition to the Stormlords the Reach might also rise up against the Lannister regime.

Cersei was smart enough to realize what Ned's execution caused the Northmen and Riverlords to do ... executing Renly could have had a similar effect. In fact, one imagines that many people would have overcome their dislike of Stannis, siding with him once he declared himself, if only to punish the Lannisters for their crimes.

1 hour ago, frenin said:

 

Idiot or not, Joff had every intention to kill them, just as he did kill Ned. He didn't learn to hate his uncles on his own

Joff only talked like that after it had become clear to him that his uncles were not doing homage to him and were thus viewed by his mother and his government as enemies of the Crown.

Not that Joff's opinion on the matter mattered all that much. The boy was King of the Crossbow and the Hares, not the King of Westeros...

1 hour ago, frenin said:
  1. Tywin says to Tyrion that he hoped to have more time to deal with Robert's brothers, Renly had already made his bid to the throne by then but it would take months for Stannis to make his claim.

In context, this means that Tywin correctly expected that Stannis and Renly would not be okay with a Lannister-dominated regency government for King Joffrey ... it doesn't mean he intended to kill them, nor that he was sure Renly and Stannis would crown themselves. Dealing with Stannis and Renly doesn't mean they have to be killed. It can also be a different kind of settlement. Tywin also dealt with the Vale problem in ASoS (by making peace with Lysa), just as Tyrion dealt with the Dornishmen in ACoK (or at least he believed he did).

In context, Stannis/Renly suffering a decisive military defeat and ending up being captured by the Lannisters could allow the latter to use them to strengthen Joffrey/Tommen's claim by having them publicly acknowledge them as Robert's sons and doing homage to the rightful king.

And that we also have to consider for Cersei's earlier plans for Robert's brothers. She also wanted to deal with them. That can include to murder them ... but it could also mean plans to ruin one or both of them in a less drastic fashion. For Stannis it could simply mean to convince Robert to take Dragonstone from him and throw him off the council. Then Stannis would just be a titular lord with no land or retainers. A political non-entity who could never hope to challenge Cersei's children.

In Renly's case one could also think about him being ruined in a scandal, possibly some plot involving his homosexuality (one imagines that he could have gotten into trouble if a young nobleman accused him of rape), leading to his exile.

Whatever we think about Cersei - she is not an experienced murderess at the time of AGoT. And killing not one but both of the king's brothers would have been a very difficult and dangerous thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

 

Exactly. A fundamental problem with Westeros. Robert didn't inherit a feadual kingdom, he inherited a Targaryen kingdom.

The dragon feasts on sheep and horse alike. Stannis thought of compromising with Lysa, Robb, Renly. But that's not what Aegon did. That's not what the Greens did and it's not what Robert did at Pyke.

Fire and blood baby. Thats what built that throne, that's what it takes to hold it.

This only works with dragons.
 

Without dragons even the Targaryen kingdom was just another feudal kingdom where the usual rules apply. That’s the irony of the Targ rule between Morning and Dany, and most of their rulers seemed to realize it. I think for a time the chance they might hatch more probably added a bit of trepidation, but Summerhall probably put that to bed. There’s also the benefits of preserving the status quo if you are amongst the people who benefit from it.
 

But ruling like a dragon when you possess none was kinda what Aerys did more and more as his madness increased. It’s kinda how Stannis rules, ie ‘my authority is unquestioned, I am appointed by god/fate/? and your only purpose is to serve me well. All else is treason.’ That’ll maybe work for a few, but most need a lot more return on their investment. Unless you are the kind of person who inspires love and devotion amongst the majority. 
 

Ie, ruling through brutality or sheer will can work in a feudal society for a time, or sometimes, but generally that bill comes due because unless you have endless lands to bestow, the currency of feudal leadership is the loyalty of their retainers.

Edited by James Arryn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, James Arryn said:

This only works with dragons.
 

Without dragons even the Targaryen kingdom was just another feudal kingdom where the usual rules apply. That’s the irony of the Targ rule between Morning and Dany, and most of their rulers seemed to realize it. I think for a time the chance they might hatch more probably added a bit of trepidation, but Summerhall probably put that to bed. There’s also the benefits of preserving the status quo if you are amongst the people who benefit from it.
 

But ruling like a dragon when you possess none was kinda what Aerys did more and more as his madness increased. It’s kinda how Stannis rules, ie ‘my authority is unquestioned, I am appointed by god/fate/? and your only purpose is to serve me well. All else is treason.’ That’ll maybe work for a few, but most need a lot more return on their investment. Unless you are the kind of person who inspires love and devotion amongst the majority. 
 

Ie, ruling through brutality or sheer will can work in a feudal society for a time, or sometimes, but generally that bill comes due because unless you have endless lands to bestow, the currency of feudal leadership is the loyalty of their retainers.

Word. I mean from Aegon iii to roughly modern times KL had no dragons, though Blackfyres were a nice distraction for a bit. I agree that Summehall was probably an eye opener. 

In the olden times Aerys could have used a dragon to sumbit Duskendale, but if Aerys can't rule one little town then how can he rule seven kingdoms?

Stannis pretty much understands this, which is why he uses unconventional weapons (leeches, sacrifices, shadow babies, stone dragons). But Renly wants to do things like Robert did at Pyke. His weapons are alliances and teamwork, which like, is not how Westeros functions. Betralyes and backstabbing is more the Sunset Kingdoms way. Besides Renly wasn't 100% on the compromising side of things anyway as he refused to allow Robb to split

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Without dragons even the Targaryen kingdom was just another feudal kingdom where the usual rules apply. That’s the irony of the Targ rule between Morning and Dany, and most of their rulers seemed to realize it. I think for a time the chance they might hatch more probably added a bit of trepidation, but Summerhall probably put that to bed. There’s also the benefits of preserving the status quo if you are amongst the people who benefit from it.

I think there is still a big difference between the Targaryen dynasty and the Baratheon usurper and his heirs.

For one, dragons or not, the Targaryens were successful in establishing themselves as a semi-divine, super-human dynasty thanks to the Doctrine of Exceptionalism. That gave them much more authority and power than a more mundane royal dynasty.

I mean, you see how special and aloof Daeron II's sons and grandsons are in THK, more than fifty years after the last dragon has died. The difference between the depiction of Baelor and Maekar and Aerion and Egg compared to Robert, Stannis, Renly, and Cersei's children is striking.

Also, the united Realm is a young thing and while the later Targaryen kings lacked the dragons, they still have the aura and reputation that comes from being a descendant of Aegon the Conqueror, Jaehaerys I, etc.

Robert, on the other hand, is just a usurper who is not even born to royalty, being much farther removed from his royal great-grandfather than even Daemon Blackfyre was. He wasn't born royalty, he stole the throne, and he could only ascend it because a group of powerful lords supported him.

Robert's kingship is much more feudal in the sense that only a coalition of Westerosi lords made him king, indicating that they can unmake him just as easily.

The Targaryens were viewed as foreign and neutral outsiders with the special blood and powers of Old Valyria, but Robert Baratheon is just a Westerosi lord among Westerosi lords ... the Lannisters think they are a nobler family than the Baratheons, and Jon Umber makes it clear that the Targaryens won the allegiance of the North, not the Baratheons.

One could summarize the situation like this, I think:

The post-dragon Targaryens could still get everything they wanted from their subjects ... if it was just things they wanted for themselves and their family. If it involved reforms changing the feudal framework of the society they lived, i.e. limiting or breaking the powers of the lords, etc. then this didn't work.

But a Targaryen king could clearly do things and get away with things the later Baratheon kings wouldn't even dare trying. The best example there would be the royal incest, but you also see how weak Robert looks in the Mycah incident compared to the situation we encounter in THK.

Robert and his successors also needed powerful marriage alliance to try and consolidate their power, resulting in the family of the queens gaining almost royal power themselves. Something like that never happened with the Targaryen kings, and that's not because they preferred to marry within the family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, nyser1 said:

Come the death of Robert, Renly on the throne was the best option for the longevity of the realm & most of our protagonists. 

Again, though, it depends on what you mean by longevity. As we have discussed before, Renly was quite the spender, and it's safe to assume that Stannis would have a wiser approach for the treasury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Robert and his successors also needed powerful marriage alliance to try and consolidate their power, resulting in the family of the queens gaining almost royal power themselves. Something like that never happened with the Targaryen kings, and that's not because they preferred to marry within the family.

Hightowers did exactly that in the dance. Only by sheer luck, and lots of death and carnage did they manage to lose what they stole.

But I'm on board generally with the rest of your post.

7 minutes ago, Takiedevushkikakzvezdy said:

Again, though, it depends on what you mean by longevity. As we have discussed before, Renly was quite the spender, and it's safe to assume that Stannis would have a wiser approach for the treasury.

Renly, from what we see liked to spend, for sure. And while flaunting the trappings of power wasn't the worst thing for Robert, that's only because Petyr was a genius with the books. I suppose LF could be team Renly, but we know he's probably got grander schemes.

Stannis on the throne will be bad. Aerys bad. As discussed he thinks he's governing a Targaryen kingdoms which is why even in twow sample he says colorful things like

Quote

Stannis glowered up at Theon where he hung. "You are not the only turncloak here, it would seem. Would that all the lords in the Seven Kingdoms had but a single neck... "

. Petyr explains it thoroughly to Ned, Stannis and the realm bleeds. 

This is not to say Renly would be a good option, I've never been marveld by anything he did, I suppose he'd be an adequate king if nothing out of the ordinary happens, but that's not a thing.

 

Post Robert shows that the IT can't hold up against the 7 kingdoms, it has to be tyrannical to gain the throne but can't be too tyrannical to hold it. It just can't work which is why the Sunset Kingdoms were fractured for 10k years before the dragon showed up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Hightowers did exactly that in the dance. Only by sheer luck, and lots of death and carnage did they manage to lose what they stole.

The Hightowers didn't have the same amount of power as the Lannisters or Tyrells. Otto was Hand, and Alicent the queen, but that was it. And they were both from a lesser branch of House Hightower and didn't staff the entire court with their relations. I'm not saying Alicent and her dad had no influence at court, but their role in the Dance has to do with Alicent's ability to give Viserys I Targaryen sons.

Robert had to marry Cersei to secure the allegiance of her family and later he was dependent on her father's money. Joffrey could only save his throne with Tyrell help, resulting in his and Tommen's court being staffed with more and more Tyrells.

There is a clear difference there. The Baratheons were dependent on those families to either acquire or keep their royal power (and also, in Robert's case, the help of the Arryns and the Starks), the Targaryens at best allowed folks who married into the family to influence policies ... but neither Viserys I nor any other Targaryen king was ever dependent on the power or money or support of his wife's family to gain or keep his throne.

In fact, it is rather striking how many a dragonless Targaryen king could afford to have no queen (Maekar) or queens from lesser houses like the Penroses or Blackwoods. Not to mention Baelor Breakspear as the Heir Apparent being married to a Dondarrion.

It is quite characteristic for the main series that the royal house isn't that powerful or prestigious. It is due to the erosion of royal power and prestige during Robert's reign that something like the War of the Five Kings can happen.

And people do make a mistake, I think, when they project the Baratheon situation back onto the dragonless Targaryen kings.

Barristan Selmy remarks that Jaehaerys II was generally viewed as a weak king (mostly due to his physical infirmities) but when he recalls how Jaehaerys would have dealt with the Yunkai'i compared to Hizdahr, we kind of get the picture that even Jaehaerys II was a stronger king than Robert who couldn't make a sovereign royal decision in the entire Mycah affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Post Robert shows that the IT can't hold up against the 7 kingdoms, it has to be tyrannical to gain the throne but can't be too tyrannical to hold it. It just can't work which is why the Sunset Kingdoms were fractured for 10k years before the dragon showed up

Eh, not cuckolding your king and siring bastards that sets up the ground for a massive civil war. Had Robert's children being his/had there been at least enough plausible deniability to not spur curiousity. There wouldn't have been war and the real would have lasted.

After AGOT, Renly was the only one with enough support and charisma to defeat or win over his enemies quickly enough. Every other option just was less and less appealing, Tywin and Kevan were the last person who could have kept the realm together. Even if Aegon or Dany conquer the south, they are not going to try and take the north with winter coming.

 

 

3 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

but if Aerys can't rule one little town then how can he rule seven kingdoms?

Through his nobles, through alliances. Aerys was best pals with two of the most powerful nobles in the Realm. That's how medieval and ancient kings did too.

 

Quote

. Petyr explains it thoroughly to Ned, Stannis and the realm bleeds. 

Petyr was lying lol, the only one who was going to surely bleed with Stannis's coming to the throne was Petyr.

Stannis getting the throne wuth Ned's support means that he has the backing of two kingdoms, potentially three and Renly wins nothing going against Stannis so he's likely to bend the knee too.

Stannis would have been a bad and entitled king but only the Lannisters, Petyr and Varys had reason to fear or not back him. And they were far too isolated for them to mount a credible threat anyway.

Edited by frenin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, frenin said:

After AGOT, Renly was the only one with enough support and charisma to defeat or win over his enemies quickly enough. Every other option just was less and less appealing, Tywin and Kevan were the last person who could have kept the realm together.

Tywin and Keaven in their lifetime kept the realm together. Look, you can count banners like Renly but I'm not impressed. Robb was undefeated in the field, Euron undefeated in voodoo, Doran in vengeance. Renly couldn't rule the sunset because the sunset can't be ruled without dragons. That's obvious now.

48 minutes ago, frenin said:

Through his nobles, through alliances. Aerys was best pals with two of the most powerful nobles in the Realm. That's how medieval and ancient kings did too.

Aerys lost

49 minutes ago, frenin said:

Petyr was lying lol, the only one who was going to surely bleed with Stannis's coming to the throne was Petyr.

Stannis getting the throne wuth Ned's support means that he has the backing of two kingdoms, potentially three and Renly wins nothing going against Stannis so he's likely to bend the knee too.

Stannis would have been a bad and entitled king but only the Lannisters, Petyr and Varys had reason to fear or not back him. And they were far too isolated for them to mount a credible threat anyway.

Petyr probably embellished the fact that Tyrell would war rather then support Stannis, but others?

Yea Petes croaked, Varys, Lannister children and parents, he told Slynt straight up he woulda killed him. Stannis is a tyrant who would have burned his nephew like he burned his father in law. 

Stannis is convinced that he must rule like a Targaryen (cuz duh) but that's not possible without Targaryen muscle, realm would bleed. LF saw it true

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There is a clear difference there. The Baratheons were dependent on those families to either acquire or keep their royal power (and also, in Robert's case, the help of the Arryns and the Starks), the Targaryens at best allowed folks who married into the family to influence policies ... but neither Viserys I nor any other Targaryen king was ever dependent on the power or money or support of his wife's family to gain or keep his throne.

I suppose that's true. Dragonstone and Summerhall must have helped

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Barristan Selmy remarks that Jaehaerys II was generally viewed as a weak king (mostly due to his physical infirmities) but when he recalls how Jaehaerys would have dealt with the Yunkai'i compared to Hizdahr, we kind of get the picture that even Jaehaerys II was a stronger king than Robert who couldn't make a sovereign royal decision in the entire Mycah affair.

Truly a terrible king. The Much affair is sad but it's just some rando kid and a dog. The Tyrion catspaw affair is egregious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...