Who wants to be king for the 'right' reasons?

[apt54]

LuisDantas

Are you actually browsing the entire thread looking for pro-stannis posts so you can simply bash his character?

No logical person could come to such kind of conclusions about Stannis as you did, man is respected and acknowledged as a capable, honorable individual by his friends/subjects/enemies alike (notice: they may not like him, but you don't need to like someone to respect them)

Well, you can spam your hate as much as you want, but hey... :cool4: hate ain't beatin' facts dude.

[Winter's Knight]

Re: Renly being peaceful

His army is the only one not shown wantonly killing peasants and burning harvests.

[James Arryn]

No logical person could come to such kind of conclusions about Stannis as you did, man is respected and acknowledged as a capable, honorable individual by his friends/subjects/enemies alike (notice: they may not like him, but you don't need to like someone to respect them)

A) I consider myself reasonably logical.

B ) And yet the bulk of Baratheon lords chose Renly over Stannis.

Well, you can spam your hate as much as you want, but hey... :cool4: hate ain't beatin' facts dude.

"facts"? You mean the ones that specifically address subjective qualifiers about fictional characters?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Re: Renly being peaceful

His army is the only one not shown wantonly killing peasants and burning harvests.

But he closes the roseroad and starves King's Landing. All armies kill peasants and burn harvests, we don't ever really see Renly's army in action but if we did I am sure we would the see the kind of pillaging, slaughter, rape, and destruction that goes along with all wars, especially wars in Westeros.

[butterbumps!]

B ) And yet the bulk of Baratheon lords chose Renly over Stannis.

Not for nothing, but the lords who side with Renly do so because they know they won't be able to get away with favors/ special treatment with Stannis in power. Renly is a lot more malleable than Stannis, so while I like the idea of popular support, I think in this case it has a lot to do with the fact that Stannis is the "truly just man."

@LuisDantas again:

I can't speak for everyone here, but the main reasons I take issue with what you're saying is because your main point is essentially anarchy- When your main argument is that whoever wants power should just take it, and that by doing so, this is somehow also "for the good of the realm," I think you do yourself a disservice because it's contradictory logic. Taking the throne on a whim/ because you think you'd be a good king = CHAOS = social order destroyed = smallfolk pay the price.

I agreed with your saying Robb is a king for rightful reasons. An important distinction in the case of Robb is that he's basically waging a war for independence of the North, elected by his own bannermen, to end subjugation under an oppressive, unjust regime (and it's good to remember that he believes the Lannisters are holding both of his sisters hostage at the time). He's directly "representing his people," who, at least in terms of bannermen, are willing to fight for this independence (the Northmen are actually a lot different in their aims than Renly's allies in this).

I think that if you want to argue against Stannis, a better point would be the issue of shadow-assassins and Melisandre's socery generally- either on the basis of having assassinated Renly, or the fact that he relied on something supernatural to further his aims rather than using his own resources. Not sure where I stand on either of these points, but I think there's a stronger argument there.

[Buried Treasure]

Regarding Aemon, its true he did not take the Black until after Egg was crowned but he was already a maester 'chained and sworn' and removed from the succession. Even had that not been a case, Aemon did not want the crown, which is not the same as Egg fighting a war to deny his brother the kingship. More interesting is the fact they held a Great Council and passed over a couple of Targaryen children to give Aegon the crown. With a succession crisis underway Targaryens were weak, but none of the other Houses tried to seize the crown - they all got together to decide which Targaryen could rule the kingdom most stabily. So it shows that even when the succession is not clear its not a free-for-all where the crown goes to whoever gets the biggest army.

I'm not sure what you consider enough justification for rebellion against a King. Or for that matter, why justification would be needed at all. In my mind it is a matter of being aware of and willing to go through the risks and prices involved, not of justification. Justification is rationalized after the fact in the songs and history books, but it doesn't change the facts or make them any more or less fair.

Having a family member (Robb, Ned, Jon Arryn) or future father-in-law (Robert) summarily killed by the king is enough to count for me. Justification rationalised after the fact is just making up excuses. I'm talking about before acting deciding 'is what I am about to do right or wrong?' (morally and legally). Had Renly asked himself that question he would have answered to himself 'No, Joffrey is Robert's trueborn son and legal heir and I should not be taking up arms against him.'

My take on it, supported by his speech to Catelyn from right before he learned of Stannis' arrival at Storm's End, is that Renly didn't care one way or another about the letter of the law. He was unwilling to support either Joffrey or Stannis, and rightfully so IMO. He saw himself as a better ruler than either and acted accordingly, as is of course his right. Sure, it goes against the letter of the law and is risky to the extreme, but that is how those things roll.

I agree here, except that I think he was in the wrong. Not caring about the law does not make ones action's lawful.

Actually, it does, since the law is established by the powers that rule. Law is a political tool. Renly wouldn't "force" anyone to "ignore" anything; he would decree that he is the lawful King and so it would be. Much as Joffrey did before him by way of Cersei. Much as Robert did before them. Much as Aegon and pretty much any King in either Westeros or in History ever did.

I think this is the route of our disagreement. Law is more than just having the biggest army, that is might. New laws can be decreed by a king, and it is from him that justice flows (he is the highest judge in the practice of law) but laws also exist by convention and the morals of society. And kings are subject to law. If a king were to stab his brother during a meal he would probably get away with it because he commands armies and in charge of dispensing justice, that would not mean he is not a murderer and kinslayer.

So with Joffrey, he is not Robert's trueborn heir so he cannot be lawful king. Thats not about the kingship, it's about the laws of marriage and succession in the 7 kingdoms. Just because he sat on the throne thinking he had the right and the Lannisters had big armies does not change the legal truth.

True enough, but you are forgetting that people have a right to rebel if they feel unconfortable against such arrangements. In fact, they must have such a right; loyalty can't be assumed until and unless one's subjects act to confirm it. When Joffrey took the Throne, he had all sorts of people sworn fealty to him. Because it was foolish to simply assume that everyone who swore for Robert would agree to swear for him automatically and without exception. It is a grave thing if a major Lord refuses, but it is not an illegal act; on the contrary, the law is meaningless if it does not allow for such a possibility.

What do you mean by uncomfortable? Renly's didn't like the Lannisters being the power behind the throne but that gives him no legal basis for crowning himself. If he suspected Cersei of killing Robert with the fortified wine he might have been right to take up arms against the Lannisters to remove Cersei as Regent, but not to overthrow Joff.

I sure do. For one thing, he was possibly the most peace-oriented claimant. His one fault was his lack of desire to accept a separate Kingdom of the North.

He raised an army because he wanted the throne. It hardly counts as peace-loving to me. If he wasn't all out committed to war like Tywin and Robb were that may be because none of his family members were captured or killed by the enemy.

I'm not sure where you are coming from. Warfare is a very expensive activity, certainly far more than tourneying. I will grant you that Renly was overconfident, but from what I recall of Catelyn's ACOK chapters he had good reasons to assume that his forces would ravage Stannis'; he simply had far more soldiers (Stannis' strength was in his fleet, not his armies). As for helping Jon Arryn, even assuming that it is that clear-cut, how can we gauge the relevancy to the current situation? Jon Arryn may well have relied on Stannis' help far more than on Renly's to rule as Robert's Hand. I don't know that he did, but it sounds quite believable; we know that they were fairly close, enough so to share their suspicions about the paternity of Cersei's sons. Still, it doesn't follow that Renly can't choose good advisors of his own. In fact, it doesn't even follow that Jon Arryn did a reasonable job as Hand of the King. We must consider that Arryn failed to protect the Seven Kingdoms from Robert's excessive spending, as well as from the counsel of the likes of Petyr Baelish and Grand Maester Pycelle. He seems to have been a good enough man, but was he a good ruler? I don't think we can trust that he was.

Spending money on tourneys does show a lack of foresight as he did know how much the Iron Throne was in debt (even writing off the 3 million owed to Tywin Lannister). But on the whole I'd agree with you he was quite able (if perhaps not as able as he thought he was). And charm and likeability are talents not to be underestimated in a king.

Out of all the choices to rule the 7 kingdoms I actually think Renly was one on the ones who would have done a better job. But I still think his claim was totally unlawful.

[Ser Leo Targaryen]

IMHO on the moment Joffrey was anointed King, it doesn't matter anymore if he had the right to it or not. He IS king! And therefor a new dynasty starts!

In a way you might even say that he won the throne, after all Ned did try to keep him from becoming king, and the Lannister's influence in the court managed to secure him the kingdom. Even though everybody knew he wasn't the rightful heir (I mean the council that supported him), they gave him the throne anyway.

The rest is in the past! I don't care if he won the throne in a big cool revolution, or using treachery! He's the new king, long live the king!

That makes Tommen his legitimate heir. And also makes Stannis claims as righteous as Dany's, and even Renly.

That's what i think Luis was trying to say by declaring that anyone who wants the throne will have to take it by force!

It happened many times through our history as well. The 100 years war started because the English king was the rightful heir to the French throne (through his French mother), but the Frenchs preferred to give it to his cousin, since they didn't want a british sitting in their throne. Was this cousin the rightful heir? No! But that didn't keep him form starting a new Valois dynasty that lasted for 200 years....

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Well, then the throne is not Stannis either, but Tommen, rightfully. A Baratheon-Lannister dinasty has begun, and Tommen is the rightful king!

Uh, no.

Tommen is only king because people think he's part of the Baratheon dynasty. The Lannisters are NOT the royal family in the way that the Baratheons are. Tommen's claim is through Robert. Because he's not actually Robert's son, he's not legally the king. If the Lannisters want to be the rightful royal family, they need to openly declare themselves and demand fealty from the high lords as Lannisters. Their power is derived from the FALSE notion that the children are Baratheons.

[Dolorous Eddie]

Disclaimer: I swear I'm not taking this too seriously and I realise it's just a book. That being said, here's my two cents:

I'm not a supporter of monarchy in general, but neither am I a staunch republican. I recognise some merit in monarchic regimes (please don't give me grief over this) in that it is often the best way of securing unity within a country. But I do find it amusing that some of you seem to think that anyone has the "right" to be king. Obviously it is a hereditary title, otherwise it would defeat the purpose, but seldom does a dynasty begin because the king had a "right" to reign. It's not like anyone has a sign that says "The rightful king" running through their veins. A dynasty begins because someone has the military strength or popular support it takes to rule.

In short, Stannis has as much of a right to the throne as any Targaryen. More, perhaps, as he heir to the previous king.

So if, say, a Frey has the power to take the throne, when do their heirs become a king by right and not usurpers? 20, 30, 300 years on?

Arguing that Targaryens are the rightful rulers is tantamount to saying that Queen Elizabeth II should abdicate in favour of a "son of York"...

/pointless monologue

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Stannis wants it because it is his 'right'. He doesn't care he is fighting a seemingly doomed cause, or that he is fighting against stability, he just wants what is 'his'.

Dany/Viserys are the same as Stannis, really.

The difference between Stannis and Dany, in my mind, is that Stannis is actually doing something proactive to defend Westeros from the wights/Others, and working to earn the loyalty of people in the north by taking up causes that are important to them. He's in Westeros, on the ground, actually working and negotiating and building alliances with the people he intends to rule.

[Jaehaerys Sand]

The difference between Stannis and Dany, in my mind, is that Stannis is actually doing something proactive to defend Westeros from the wights/Others, and working to earn the loyalty of people in the north by taking up causes that are important to them. He's in Westeros, on the ground, actually working and negotiating and building alliances with the people he intends to rule.

True, but it goes beyond that. Daenerys only sees herself as avenging her family. Stannis sees himself as doing his duty to his brother and to the realm. he believes that he is the only one that can restore justice to the seven kingdoms and end corruption (probably true). That's why I prefer Stannis's claim.

And I have three issues with Renly's claim. The first is that I don't believe that he really would have been a better king, for reasons I've already outlined. The second is that by disregarding Joffrey's, Tommen's, and Stannis's claims, he's essentially destroying the line succession for the entire kingdom. Even unintentionally, he's set the precedent that any brother/relative can usurp one person's claim if they believe they are the better ruler. And third, popular support isn't a particularly strong reason when your support hinges on bribery. His support from the Tyrells is entirely due to him making Margaery his queen, a straight up bribe.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

True, but it goes beyond that. Daenerys only sees herself as avenging her family. Stannis sees himself as doing his duty to his brother and to the realm. he believes that he is the only one that can restore justice to the seven kingdoms and end corruption (probably true). That's why I prefer Stannis's claim.

This part about Stannis reminds of one other area where he's superior to Dany: Stannis would rather hear a brutal truth than an ass-kissing lie. He recognizes the merit in seemingly low-class people (like Davos) and can take advice and hear disagreements. Dany surrounds herself with yes men. Barristan's a good guard but he's been trained to be subservient, and that's not something a good monarch needs.

[Drogon's Personal Trainer]

Disclaimer: I swear I'm not taking this too seriously and I realise it's just a book. That being said, here's my two cents:

I'm not a supporter of monarchy in general, but neither am I a staunch republican. I recognise some merit in monarchic regimes (please don't give me grief over this) in that it is often the best way of securing unity within a country. But I do find it amusing that some of you seem to think that anyone has the "right" to be king. Obviously it is a hereditary title, otherwise it would defeat the purpose, but seldom does a dynasty begin because the king had a "right" to reign. It's not like anyone has a sign that says "The rightful king" running through their veins. A dynasty begins because someone has the military strength or popular support it takes to rule.

In short, Stannis has as much of a right to the throne as any Targaryen. More, perhaps, as he heir to the previous king.

So if, say, a Frey has the power to take the throne, when do their heirs become a king by right and not usurpers? 20, 30, 300 years on?

Arguing that Targaryens are the rightful rulers is tantamount to saying that Queen Elizabeth II should abdicate in favour of a "son of York"...

/pointless monologue

However (and I AM a monarchist) once a dynasty is established, until that dynasty dies out, its members are the rightful monarchs. We know from our history that the throne has been won in battle (Henry VII over Richard III), handed out to others due to religious/political machinations (George the sodding First), or has passed to the nearest living heir (William IV to Victoria). See - you either accept hereditary monarchy or you don't. Simple as that - no half measures. It's a monarchy, not a meritocracy. If we go with this argument, Daenerys (in the absence of a male Targaryen - the jury's out on Aegon's veracity) is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. But if we accept that thrones can be won in battle, Robert won the throne from Aerys and killed Rhaegar into the bargain. If you accept that, as in the case of Henry VII over Richard III, then Stannis is the true heir (bearing in mind the illegitimacy of Joffrey, Myrcella and Tommen).

I'm not sure where George himself stands on all this - he does call Robert's war a 'rebellion' which bears the implicit notion of usurpation against the rightful king.

It's an interesting argument, but if we accept the Baratheons as having seized the throne and made it theirs, then Stannis has to be the rightful king - as much as I love Renly :bowdown:

We're dealing with a pseudo-Mediaeval world here. In history the two claimants would have been Daenerys and Stannis. When considering who is more suitable to rule - well, that's not what monarchy has ever been about. I agree with Apple's comment that Dany is not surrounded by good advisers, however - which every monarch DOES need. So, if I was going purely on 'best candidate for the job' bearing in mind the rules of hereditary monarchy, I would have to go with Stannis.

ETA: Elizabeth II would not be abdicating in favour of a 'son of York', Eddie - she would be abdicating in favour of a Stuart. ;) But in any case, there's a hhuge difference between 300 years of dynastic history and the few meagre years we have in the books (between Aerys's death and the events of GoT etc.)

[TheFlayedMan]

he Baratheons usurped the Targaryens. Just like the Lannisters have usurped the throne from Stannis.

Both Stannis and any Targaryen claimant will have to take the throne by force if they want it.

The Lannisters haven't usurped the throne from the Baratheons. They, and by they I mean Cersei, are passing Tommen off as a Baratheon. So... the Baratheon dynasty is still in power, and the successor to that dynasty is Stannis.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I'm not sure where George himself stands on all this - he does call Robert's war a 'rebellion' which bears the implicit notion of usurpation against the rightful king.

What's interesting about this is ... Aerys lost. The Targaryens lost. And in this society, there's a very real belief that the gods will reward and/or reveal the "legitimate" players. That's kind of the entire point of trial by combat — if you're innocent, the gods should give your victor the win and if he doesn't win, you must be guilty. So in that context and from the perspective of Westerosi religious conventions, if the Targaryens were justified, Robert's rebellion should have failed, no?

[James Arryn]

We're dealing with a pseudo-Mediaeval world here. In history the two claimants would have been Daenerys and Stannis. When considering who is more suitable to rule - well, that's not what monarchy has ever been about. death and the events of GoT etc.)

Don't agree at all. Several examples contrary to this idea spring to mind: In England alone we have Harold , RIchard II as you mentioned and as such the entire subsequent Ws of the Rs...especially RIchard of York's original claim...the Anarchy, Henry I over Robert Curthose, Edward II's deposition, etc. etc.

Basically medieval monarchy was about 2 things; some claim to the throne, however superior or inferior to others coupled with the material ability to attain/sustain it. It certainly wasn't about primogeniture alone.

[Winter's Knight]

What's interesting about this is ... Aerys lost. The Targaryens lost. And in this society, there's a very real belief that the gods will reward and/or reveal the "legitimate" players. That's kind of the entire point of trial by combat — if you're innocent, the gods should give your victor the win and if he doesn't win, you must be guilty. So in that context and from the perspective of Westerosi religious conventions, if the Targaryens were justified, Robert's rebellion should have failed, no?

Except Robert was picked to be king because he has some Targ blood and was thus adjudged to have the best claim.

[salt]

Robb and Renly have struck me as the most worthy characters that have gone in for a spot of kinging. They seemed to genuinely want to be king for the good of their people and realm.

They saw the king's role as serving the people, and seemed relatively respected and popular amongst nobles and commoners alike.

Renly?

Are you serious? If we're talking about book Renly here, I disagree completely. He was a frivolous, ambitious, ruthless plotter who dreamed with glee about murdering his family members and would have thrown away the lives of thousands of men who left their family and homes to fight for him because an attack at dawn seemed cool and dramatic. To think of him being King when the long winter comes...so long Westeros. Fuck King Renly a million times over, without a doubt one of the worst candidates for the throne.

[Noimporta]

While who's in it for the right reasons is definitely a point to consider, in the end, that doesn't mean they'd make a good king/queen. Tywin Lannister was in the game for all the worst reasons, yet it's strongly suggested he was one of the best administrators the realm has ever had.

[salt]

Tywin Lannister was in the game for all the worst reasons, yet it's strongly suggested he was one of the best administrators the realm has ever had.

Thats up for debate.

Tywins goals were defending and expanding the prestige and respect of House Lannister, defeating their enemies, and strengthening their power. One could argue that those aren't exactly bad reasons- they just happened to clash with the goals of many beloved characters. Having a strong, feared leader isn't necessarily a bad thing. There is nothing to suggest that Tywin was a cruel or tyrannical ruler to his vassals or smallfolk. Remember Balon's reaction to Robb's suggestion to attack Casterly Rock? This is a man who rebelled against the King twice, who prides himself on being bold and fearless, and declared war on the vast North which had a much larger army than he did- yet he doesn't even entertain the thought of attacking the West for 10 seconds, saying that Casterly Rock is too well defended. If I'm a peasant, it sounds like the Lord of Casterly Rock might be a pretty good ruler to live under- the guy who prefers to ends wars with quills and ravens rather than the traditional way- sending you, your sons, and your brothers to die.