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

[Lady Mila]

I understand if someone doesn't like Renly for objective reasons but when it comes with a side of "I don't like him because he should have not betrayed Stannis who, by the way, is the king by right", I stop reading. Also because, Tommen is still the king by right and not Stannis. Because it has not been officially proven that Cersei's children aren't Robert's. Hearsay and ponderous tomes don't really count.

Yes but it wasn't just hearsay and ponderous tomes to Stannis. He knew that Joff was not Robert's true born heir.

[LifeRuiner]

Renly was backed up by his immense popularity among smallfolk and among other lords, which stretched even after his death. You surely remember how his ghost energized the spirits at the Battle of Blackwater? He did have a popular vote at the time the war of the five kings started. I don't think he'd have been a perfect king but he'd have been passable enough, and better with a good hand.

he is piece of shit.

Okay then.

[salt]

He was popular when his responsibilities included looking good in shiny armor and throwing tournaments. "Popular vote" is a bit silly, the people in the Stormlands and the Reach liked him, thats about it, and if you're using "popular vote" to suggest that whichever guy happens to be liked the most and have the biggest army when the king dies is entitled to murder whoever he wants and take power, it sounds like a pretty dangerous concept.

He was a good summer lord, he would have been a terrible winter king. The smallfolk don't know the White Walkers are coming. We do.

And yes, if you were going to have thousands of your followers unnecessarily slaughtered to make an attack seem dramatic or murder children that you believe are your kin so you can seize power for purely selfish reasons, then you are a piece of shit.

[Winter's Knight]

If you read the books and got the impression that Renly was a good person, I think you missed something. He isn't Euron or Ser Gregor bad, but he is a piece of shit. He's also the only one of the contenders for the throne acting solely out of a selfish desire for power. Every other player at least has something backing them up- Dany has the restoration of her dynasty, Joffrey genuinely believed he was Robert's son, Robb was seeking righteous revenge for his father's murder and the safety of his sisters, Stannis is the rightful heir and knows the Others are coming, and even Balon freaking Greyjoy had the restoration of the Old Ways which his people lived under for thousands of years.

And Renly has the support of the people-the voice of the people is the voice of God.

All Renly had was the the pure, unadulterated, naked ambition for power for the sake of power, and him succeeding because he happened to have the biggest army at that point in time would have set a disastrous precedent for Westeros. The idea of Renly Baratheon taking the threat of the Others seriously and sending his army to the Wall is beyond laughable. Not that he could have pulled Westeros together to fight the Others or Dany even if he wanted to, he was an untested and unproven 21 year old who had never won so much as a skirmish in his life. As Donal Noye said, bronze all the way.

I find it difficult to take Donal Noye's opinion as he hasn't seen Renly since he was six years old.

Stannis only believes in the Others because of Mel and he went to the Wall because of Davos. The man is easily led apparently.

Renly at 21 and has a seat on the Small Council-that is no low feat.

Hell, he didn't even know that Cersei's kids were Jaime's. He genuinely believed he was going to murder his brother, nephews, and niece, and thought it was all quite entertaining.

He never says anything about murder and if he was-well he's no worse of than Stannis the Kinslayer, who was ready and willing to burn his nephew alive.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

And Renly has the support of the people-the voice of the people is the voice of God.

I wonder if they'd love him if they knew he was keeping the Roseroad closed and preventing food from getting in. Also, he's in a position where he actually has little responsibility. If something goes wrong, people can't blame him. But when he's in charge and things go south, see how long that popularity lasts.

Stannis only believes in the Others because of Mel and he went to the Wall because of Davos. The man is easily led apparently.

That or he's capable of listening to advice and guidance. Whatever Melisandre's error in thinking Stannis is AA, she's correct about there being a threat. And Davos' advice — that Stannis has to protect the realm to earn the throne — is sound.

Renly at 21 and has a seat on the Small Council-that is no low feat.

Because he's the KING'S BROTHER. Are you trying to say with a straight face that anything other than nepotism is at work here? And yeah Stannis is in charge of the navy, but he has actual military experience and victories that back that. Renly's in charge of what, the laws? What evidence is there that he's qualified for that position?

[salt]

And Renly has the support of the people-the voice of the people is the voice of God.

He had the support of some people. I don't remember Dorne, the North, the West, the Iron Islands, the Crownlands, the Riverlands, or the Vale crying out for King Renly. He had the support of 2 out of 8 great houses, and the biggest army- are you saying that the guy with biggest army at any point in time deserves to rule?

Stannis only believes in the Others because of Mel and he went to the Wall because of Davos. The man is easily led apparently.

Mel told Stannis the Other's exist. So...thats bad thing? It would have been better if Stannis...didn't know they existed?

Davos gives great advice, thats why Stannis made him a knight, a lord, and his Hand.

Renly at 21 and has a seat on the Small Council-that is no low feat.

He was the kings brother. It was handed to him, and he spent that time on the council trying to tempt his King with Margery and upset his reign.

He never says anything about murder and if he was-well he's no worse of than Stannis the Kinslayer, who was ready and willing to burn his nephew alive.

Yes he did, read the chapter where Cat tries to get them to make a truce. He would have sacked King Landing and killed Joffrey, probably Tommen and Myrcella and he certainly would have killed Stannis, No worse than Stannis? If Joffrey was Robert's son, Stannis would have served him loyally to the end of his life. Stannis was next in line to Robert's throne. Renly knew he was 4th in life, but decided to kill everyone in front of him. Renly took up arms against Stannis and Joffrey (thinking Joffrey was the true heir, knowing Stannis was in front of him in the line of succession even if he was), Joffrey/Stannis did not take up arms against Renly.

[Noimporta]

And Renly has the support of the people

He has the support of the lords that command the most people.

[butterbumps!]

His brother cast aside laws and oaths and raised steel against Stannis. Its unclear if Stannis knew that he was actively killing Renly and creating the shadow- but the fact remains that Robb, Ned, and many of the other rulers we know would have killed Renly in an instant if they were in the same position. The only difference is that had he been Ned's younger brother, Ned would have personally chopped off his head.

I'm inclined to agree with this, and potentially some of the utilitarian arguments as well; that said, I think a lot of people are turned off by the actual mechanics of the killing, i.e. the magic involved, and that it was an assassination rather than facing each other in open combat or confronting Renly and sentencing him to death.

I have to favor Stannis in both reason for wanting to be king (sees it as a duty), and as being the most capable of all the contenders we've seen. The thing that's compelling about Stannis' kingship arc is that he's increasingly on the "right" side of what's going on- helping the Wall, picking up the pieces in the North. He began believing that the crown was his by right, but as the story progresses, he's the one trying to bring order to the realm.

Regarding Renly, I'm sort of confused about this. What exactly are his reasons for wanting to be king? Whenever he talks about it (to Ned, to Catelyn), his attitude is kind of like "well, why not?" He really only gives the reason that Stannis doesn't endear himself to the other lords. Doesn't Renly pretty much see all this as good sport?

I haven't seen this brought up before, but what's the thought on Robb's play for Independence in relation to the realm as a whole? I've said before that I think Robb's cause is entirely just, and that he was basically elected by his own people to represent their needs/ goals, etc. But objectively speaking, by declaring for the North, he also added a lot more bloodshed to the situation, thereby creating even more instability for the realm as a whole. I guess I wonder- should Robb have accepted the status quo for the sake of the realm, or act on behalf of his own House and subject as he did?

[James Arryn]

He had the support of 2 out of 8 great houses, and the biggest army- are you saying that the guy with biggest army at any point in time deserves to rule?

I don't know what he's saying, but I'm saying:

A) That it's certainly a powerful argument.

B) That it more than likely means he will, barring supernatural interference.

What more should he need?

And also remember that this is what he has...so far. That he acquired the greatest might that quickly speaks very highly to what he would do with more time. Remember that until Greatjon sugested TKITN, some Northern lords were already suggesting bending the knee to him. This would be before the might he had assembled had even proven his authority in martial fact as everyone, including Cat, thought was just a matter of time. Supposing there's no shadowkiller and he defeats Stannis as he certainly would have, how many more turn to him as an alternative to the Lannister coalition? How many more would he even need?

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I haven't seen this brought up before, but what's the thought on Robb's play for Independence in relation to the realm as a whole? I've said before that I think Robb's cause is entirely just, and that he was basically elected by his own people to represent their needs/ goals, etc. But objectively speaking, by declaring for the North, he also added a lot more bloodshed to the situation, thereby creating even more instability for the realm as a whole. I guess I wonder- should Robb have accepted the status quo for the sake of the realm, or act on behalf of his own House and subject as he did?

Robb didn't really declare for the north. His bannermen declared for him.

Robb accepting the status quo would have been to bend the knee to someone who wrongfully executed his father and who never should have been king in the first place. It's entirely possible that the Lannisters would still have exacted punishment of some sort — bloodshed, unfair taxation, troop levies, whatever — from the North and the Riverlands even if Robb did sue for peace. He wasn't acting just on the behalf of his house. If that were the case, he could have taken his men, retreated north beyond Moat Cailin and been virtually unassailable. He didn't leave the Riverlands for the Lannisters to pillage at will; he stayed south to fight them.

[salt]

I don't know what he's saying, but I'm saying:

A) That it's certainly a powerful argument.

B) That it more than likely means he will, barring supernatural interference.

What more should he need?

And also remember that this is what he has...so far. That he attained the greatest might that quickly speaks very highly to what he would d with more time. Remember that until Greatjon sugested TKITN, some Northern lords were already suggesting bending the knee to him. This would be before the might he had assembled had even proven his authority in martial fact. Supposing there's no shadowkiller and he defats Stannis as he certainly would have, how many more turn to him as an alternative to the Lannister coalition?

I want to be clear, Renly was a great player in the game of thrones. I think he was an awful person, but I respect him as a player. With little more than a marriage and the ability to look good he united the Stormlands and the Reach into the strongest force in Westeros, and without supernatural intervention would have laughed his way to the Iron Throne while much more skilled men like Tywin and Stannis would have been trampled under his shiny boots.

However, while you might be able to take the Iron Throne by winning a popularity contest, thats not going to help when Dany and/or the Others show up.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I want to be clear, Renly was a great player in the game of thrones. I think he was an awful person, but I respect him as a player. With little more than a marriage and the ability to look good he united the Stormlands and the Reach into the strongest force in Westeros, and without supernatural intervention would have laughed his way to the Iron Throne while much more skilled men like Tywin and Stannis would have been trampled under his shiny boots.

However, while you might be able to take the Iron Throne by winning a popularity contest, thats not going to help when Dany and/or the Others show up.

Yes. And to add, none of that would make him a good king, which is what the question is posing.

[butterbumps!]

Robb didn't really declare for the north. His bannermen declared for him.

Robb accepting the status quo would have been to bend the knee to someone who wrongfully executed his father and who never should have been king in the first place. It's entirely possible that the Lannisters would still have exacted punishment of some sort — bloodshed, unfair taxation, troop levies, whatever — from the North and the Riverlands even if Robb did sue for peace. He wasn't acting just on the behalf of his house. If that were the case, he could have taken his men, retreated north beyond Moat Cailin and been virtually unassailable. He didn't leave the Riverlands for the Lannisters to pillage at will; he stayed south to fight them.

Sorry if I was unclear about this-- I meant to ask whether even though it's a given that Robb was elected by his own bannermen as King and to wage war against the Lannisters/ gain Independence for the North, if following through with this was the right move in the context of the realm as a whole. It was, without a doubt, the right move for the sake of the North (his own subjects), but whether this was ultimately best for the realm. I guess it just raises the question of Lordly agency and responsibility between their own subjects versus the realm at large.

I know Gregor was out terrorizing the Riverlands before the War of 5 Kings started, but iirc, the Lannisters became even more efficient at destroying the Riverlands wholesale because of Robb's war campaign. And I don't recall that the Lannisters threatened the North with taxes or military occupation, but I'm willing to stand corrected if that's the case.

For the record though, I think it was ultimately the right move.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Sorry if I was unclear about this-- I meant to ask whether even though it's a given that Robb was elected by his own bannermen as King and to wage war against the Lannisters/ gain Independence for the North, if following through with this was the right move in the context of the realm as a whole. It was, without a doubt, the right move for the sake of the North (his own subjects), but whether this was ultimately best for the realm. I guess it just raises the question of Lordly agency and responsibility between their own subjects versus the realm at large.

Robb's responsibility was to the North and the Riverlands. That's it. If he'd been like Renly and declared himself king over the whole country, it'd be different. But he never set out to be anything more than a regional king.

[James Arryn]

I want to be clear, Renly was a great player in the game of thrones. I think he was an awful person, but I respect him as a player. With little more than a marriage and the ability to look good he united the Stormlands and the Reach into the strongest force in Westeros, and without supernatural intervention would have laughed his way to the Iron Throne while much more skilled men like Tywin and Stannis would have been trampled under his shiny boots.

Cool. I don't get the terrible person stuff. In his conversation with Cat I got the sense of a slightly more modern King, actually concerned with the welfare of his realm. I got the sense that she at times was frustrated that he wasn't totally sharing her priorities, but why on earth should he? And compared with the Northern lords she has been surrounded by for decades, most Southron lords are going to seem frivolous.

But, to go further, so what if he seems frivolous? First of all, he also seems exceptionally intelligent and able. So, how is that frivolity getting in the way? Moreover, in a world where so many smart people put on masks to diminish the threat they seem to pose to those around him, why would someone who was clearly perceptive enough to sense the dangers in the political air not do likewise? And lastly (on this aspect) popularity was an extremely important aspect of being a medieval monarch. So he has a penchant for pageantry...that shouldn't be condemned the way it has been here...it's not the same world/time. A monarch who didn't grasp pageantry in the medieval world was as unwise and hollow as one who would seem to overemphasize that aspect in the post real-politique world...if you lean that way. I'd say most current election campaigns suggest the modern equivalent is still at least as important as the substance.

But moving on to that substance, from a reductionist's POV.

Renly had demonstrated that he was:

*smart

*charismatic

* perceptive

*popular across a variety of dividing lines

*brave

*capable of being either decisive or patient depending on the needs of the moment.

*politically aware.

*concerned for the welfare of his people.

*conscious of the weaknesses of his brother's reign.

*capable of maintaining a huge army in the field without losing cohesion or momentum, either by personal ability or the ability to appoint skilled adjuncts.

*capable of effectively taking important tasks on personally or effectively delegating.

*relatively honorable. Remember, there is no inference that he ever sought to undermine Robert's authority or even assassinate him. More, when he and Stannis recognize the danger the Lannisters are becoming to Robert, Stannis bails to Dragonstone while Renly tries to find a way to diminish the Lannister threat to Robert by trying to organize a replacement marriage.

I don't see what's lacking in a great king, personally. I wonder how much the implication of an underlying and undefined 'softness' inferences of homosexuality raises in so many in the modern world plays a role in the...well, undefined underlying softness people associate with him. Especially when it's unconsciously confirmed by the pussification (apologies) of the character by the tv series...for, whatever reason.

However, while you might be able to take the Iron Throne by winning a popularity contest, thats not going to help when Dany and/or the Others show up.

Really? I think Renly has a greater chance to charm her than Tywin does to buy her, or Stannis does to brow-beat her or beat her dragons into submission. Not much, granted, but I don't see how this distinguishes him from any of the other players.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I don't see what's lacking in a great king, personally. I wonder how much the implication of an underlying and undefined 'softness' inferences of homosexuality raises in so many in the modern world plays a role in the...well, undefined underlying softness people associate with him. Especially when it's unconsciously confirmed by the pussification (apologies) of the character by the tv series...for, whatever reason.

I don't think Renly would be a bad king because he's gay any more than I think Dany would be a bad queen because she's a woman, and I don't really appreciate the insinuation. He's "soft" because he prefers perks and pageantry to actually doing the hard work and earning his throne the hard way. Can you imagine Renly going to Winterfell in a damn blizzard to save "Arya Stark" in order to win the North's support? I can't. Catelyn saw through the chivalry parade from day one, and I'm pretty sure she didn't know Renly was gay.

[James Arryn]

I don't think Renly would be a bad king because he's gay any more than I think Dany would be a bad queen because she's a woman, and I don't really appreciate the insinuation.

Wasn't directed at anyone specifically, but more addressing a fairly common and often unconscious association made in modern fiction/historical analysis. So I don't feel the need to apologize, but I regret that you took it as somehow directed at you.

He's "soft" because he prefers perks and pageantry to actually doing the hard work and earning his throne the hard way.

What? Where? When? He's still in KL attending all the Small Council meetings, trying to find ways to protect Robert/lessen the Lannister threat when Robert is drinking and whoring and Stannis is gnashing his teeth in Dragonstone. Meanwhile he is also winning the loyalty of the Storm Lords and the Reach. Then he moves immediately and decisively when Robert is fatally wounded, reaches out to Ned and thereafter does exactly what he should, rising from a non-contender to the prime contender by virtue of his efforts/decisions. Even neutral observers like LF and Tyrion respect how he orchestrates everything up until the shadow.

How exactly is this a man not doing the 'hard work'? I mean, not even when compared with Robert or Stannis...but even just in general?

Can you imagine Renly going to Winterfell in a damn blizzard to save "Arya Stark" in order to win the North's support? I can't.

If he legitimately saw it as a threat? Not sure. Point being, he wouldn't have needed to. Remember, that wasn't Stannis first move either...Storm's End and KL came first. It was only after his ability to attack the latter was eliminated that he went in another direction. You can laud him for that it you want...but it seems selective. For example I also can't imagine him sending a shadow assassin to kill Stannis.

Catelyn saw through the chivalry parade from day one, and I'm pretty sure she didn't know Renly was gay.

She did and she didn't. As I said, there is much to read in her interaction with him on my side of the argument, too.

Oh, and beyond the gay thing and tv aspect, I think another aspect inaccurately re-framing Renly is consequentialism (sic). BECAUSE he lost we later post-actively conclude he must have been wanting in some respect, and overlook the fact that he lost to the unknowable (shadow-killer). I think that too is a potentially not-quite-conscious mental process.

Edit: Didn't Cat pick up on the gay thing? I seem to think she does...and within the context where she is 'seeing through' Renly, too.

Edit II: Yes, just checked, she does, and in that context. (Bitterbridge). In fact it's even more clear than I thought...she goes from observing that Renly is ignoring his attractive new wife and instead paying attention to Ser Loras and shifts thoughts to wondering about his 'frivolity', if I've got it right.

[butterbumps!]

Robb's responsibility was to the North and the Riverlands. That's it. If he'd been like Renly and declared himself king over the whole country, it'd be different. But he never set out to be anything more than a regional king.

I've never contested whether Robb was justified, doing the right thing for his people, or the fact that it was a war for independence in which he'd be the head of a a sovereign nation that would be formally broken off from the governance of the Iron Throne.

I'm just saying that the interests of his own subjects conflicted with the interests of the realm, as per massive bloodshed, additional instability of the realm, and the destruction of the Riverlands (the overwhelming majority of which happened because Robb was declared, and was also contributed to by his campaign directly; iirc, Edmure is the one who argues against burning crops). By seeking independence, and thereby stability for his own subjects, he escalated major instability for the realm as a whole. I side with Robb, but I was just trying to be objective about the costs of his part in the war as it pertains to "the good of the realm," even though I realize the "good of the realm" isn't his goal.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I side with Robb, but I was just trying to be objective about the costs of his part in the war as it pertains to "the good of the realm," even though I realize the "good of the realm" isn't his goal.

But if the good of the realm isn't his goal, why are you measuring him in that context?

[butterbumps!]

But if the good of the realm isn't his goal, why are you measuring him in that context?

I guess I'm trying to keep my own evaluations of characters consistent and objective. Despite my love of Robb and Northern independence, I would argue that the smallfolk of the realm, as well as the state of North in particular are SIGNIFICANTLY worse off now than they were before.

Just to play devil's advocate:

--had Robb stayed at Winterfell and never rebelled, Theon, Ramsay, Roose, etc would not have happened.

--Winterfell would have been able to ensure winter food storage and provisions in the North, as is its traditional responsibility to its smallfolk.

--In all probability, there would have been more stability in the North.

--The Wall would have a guaranteed ally in the Stark at Winterfell (granted, no one knows of the impending danger, but that doesn't negate its existence).

So, even though his intention was not the "good of the realm," but "the good of the North," it could be argued he failed on behalf of the North, all while causing a great deal of additional suffering to the realm at large. I guess I think it makes the question of the war he waged a bit richer to consider it in this light, precisely because his reasons are so right.