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

[Dolorous Eddie]

You said what I was trying to, but much better than I could. I'm not a native english speaker, so sometimes it's very hard to find the right sentences.

Anyway, I was just arguing that some people here seem to think that the Targaryens have an incontestable right to the throne, which I don't take at face value. And I agree with you that maybe GRRM thinks so to.

As for the history gaffe, very sorry. I must brush up on British history.

[butterbumps!]

Is there any text-supported evidence that points to Renly's being a champion of the smallfolk, or giving them any heed whatsoever? IIRC, the lords like him in the same way Thoros enjoyed going on drinking binges with Robert.

Robert usurped the throne from the Targaryens and exiled Rhaella, Viserys and later Daenerys. Exiling children is not "justified". Having the bodies of Rhaenys and Aegon laid at his feet is not "justified". Having Aerys abdicate the throne and having a regency set up would have been justified.

See, the Targaryens never lost. Daenerys and Viserys lived in Essos, but the only reason they weren't claimants to the throne was because they were exiled and had no power to oppose Robert. Dany, as the mother of dragons, therefore sees herself as the heir to her father. Stannis sees himself as the heir to Robert, so he is rebelling against the annointed king, Tommen. So in that context and from the perspective of Westerosi religious conventions, Stannis is as much a rebel as any other claimant.

If I'm correct, you're saying that 1. the Targs didn't lose because Robert didn't wipe out the entire Targ line (Viserys and Dany's exile/ escape). 2. That because of this exile, they haven't had the opportunity to reclaim the throne for the Targs. and 3. That the fact that they were exiled as women and children is entirely unjustified (and by extending that logic, if they were fully grown adult males at the time of exile then it would be justified.) So... Robert was not the true king because he did not sufficiently slaughter the remaining Targs, but he's unjustified in exiling them and thereby stripping their power to challenge him. I guess what would you consider sufficient for considering Robert to have won?

What do you make of Dany's thoughts about her rightness in reclaiming the throne when you consider the scene in court where she ruled against the woman whose house was taken over in the sack of Meereen? A woman came in whose sons and husband were killed during the sack, so she fled to her brother for protection, and the next day, her house was turned into a brothel. "Dany granted her the jewels, but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it." So, at least in Dany's mind as it pertains to anyone other than herself, fleeing and being supplanted = no longer having the right to something.

[LuisDantas]

Am I the only one who thought Renly would have meant an identical civil war on his own death? Renly becoming king would have meant the line of succession died but that the power of the monarch was intact. Robert actually was in line for the throne after the Targs were all killed which is why he became king. Stannis never threatened Renly's life and had no history of insanity so unseating him wasn't the same as Robert's rebellion.

TLDR version Renly was recklessly acting as an usurper and setting the precedent that Robert's Rebellion refused to do that whoever gathers the strongest army can and should take the throne. Had Renly lived to a natural death he would have been followed by another war of five kings situations.

There is certainly the danger of a civil war whe,n the monarch dies. But it is t like Renly had any significant to contribute to it.

[LuisDantas]

It didn't happen because of Mel, but before he was going to attack Stannis, he refused to change the time of the attack out of chivalry. That meant that his knights would be half blinded riding into the sun, and hundreds more would have died trying to beat Stannis. And that's not even considering he didn't take the time to bring his entire army down to Storm's End.

That is taking the whole episode from backwards. It was Stannis being treacherous by proxy, albeit under the self-serving excuse of "saving lives".

[PatrickStormborn]

If I'm correct, you're saying that 1. the Targs didn't lose because Robert didn't wipe out the entire Targ line (Viserys and Dany's exile/ escape). 2. That because of this exile, they haven't had the opportunity to reclaim the throne for the Targs. and 3. That the fact that they were exiled as women and children is entirely unjustified (and by extending that logic, if they were fully grown adult males at the time of exile then it would be justified.) So... Robert was not the true king because he did not sufficiently slaughter the remaining Targs, but he's unjustified in exiling them and thereby stripping their power to challenge him. I guess what would you consider sufficient for considering Robert to have won?

1. The Targaryens were not all wiped out, so how could Robert have beaten them?

3. Re-read my post, because it looks as if you haven't read it properly. I said that exiling CHILDREN was unjustified. Which is correct because neither Viserys nor Daenerys was guilty of the actions that caused Robert to rebel. In contrast, Jorah Mormont's exile was justified because he broke the law.

What do you make of Dany's thoughts about her rightness in reclaiming the throne when you consider the scene in court where she ruled against the woman's whose house was taken over in the sack of Meereen? A woman came in who's sons and husband were killed during the sack, so she fled to her brother for protection, and the next day, her house was turned into a brothel. "Dany granted her the jewels, but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it." So, at least in Dany's mind as it pertains to anyone other than herself, fleeing = giving up your right to something.

Firstly, a house is very different to a kingdom. But Dany is right; the law can't help someone who gave up their property for survival. Which is why Dany won't land in Westeros, walk up to Tommen and ask for her kingdom back. She'll need to take it back, just like the woman who lost her house. That doesn't mean that Dany has no right to the throne (and it doesn't mean that the woman has no right to her house); it just means that it no longer belongs to her. She will have to take it back.

[LuisDantas]

I think it's safe to say that Most want Stannis as the king of Westeros and the rest "know" he is the best king out there. :commie:

We have no evidence whatsoever that Stannis would be a better King than, say, Victarion. Why do you feel otherwise?

If you ask me why I would want Stannis as my king, it's because that guy would be just, fair and honest. He wouldn't be easily manipulated. When invading a country, he punishes his own men if they pointlessly murder or rape. That definitely gets my vote. Also, he has THE best claim to the throne considering the throne apparently is following "Baratheon" lineage and Tommy, Joffrey aren't true heirs and rather children born of incest.

He is Melisandre's puppet, a self-serving hypocrite with delusions of righteousness. No go.

As for his claim, it rests entirely on a law that he can't prove to support him and troops that he gained treacherously. And then there is the matter of religious repression. The guy just isn't a real player.

[Kate Poem]

New news from You: Stannis was traitor, great. You said earlier Renly had'nt obligations for his crowned "nephew" or his older brother or his dead brother's "heirs", no one. And, of course, he was'nt usurper.

Did You try say Stannis HAD obligations for Renly?

What do You think, if Joffrey had black hair and blue eyes, would Stannis proclaim himself king or serve his nephew loyally?

I am sure - he would serve Joff Baratheon loyally.

And Renly?

I. AM. NOT. SURE.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

See, the Targaryens never lost. Daenerys and Viserys lived in Essos, but the only reason they weren't claimants to the throne was because they were exiled and had no power to oppose Robert. Dany, as the mother of dragons, therefore sees herself as the heir to her father. Stannis sees himself as the heir to Robert, so he is rebelling against the annointed king, Tommen. So in that context and from the perspective of Westerosi religious conventions, Stannis is as much a rebel as any other claimant.

When the high lords swore fealty to Robert and accepted his kingship, they took the Baratheons as the new royal family. Alive or not, the Targs did lose and are no longer the recognized royal family. Dany sitting on her hands in Essos saying that she's Aerys' heir doesn't mean squat because the noble families — whose recognition is essential to gain legitimacy — stopped recognizing the Targs and started recognizing the Baratheons. It's not just that the Targs got their asses handed to them in the war. It's that the recognition shifted. You can say they never lost if it makes you feel better, but they did. Perhaps you're saying that Robert should have actually assassinated them (and I mean actually tried to, not just Viserys' paranoid delusions that Dany believed).

Tommen is anointed based on a lie. The Baratheons are the new royal family and Stannis is Robert's legitimate heir.

[butterbumps!]

1. The Targaryens were not all wiped out, so how could Robert have beaten them?

3. Re-read my post, because it looks as if you haven't read it properly. I said that exiling CHILDREN was unjustified. Which is correct because neither Viserys nor Daenerys was guilty of the actions that caused Robert to rebel. In contrast, Jorah Mormont's exile was justified because he broke the law.

Firstly, a house is very different to a kingdom. But Dany is right; the law can't help someone who gave up their property for survival. Which is why Dany won't land in Westeros, walk up to Tommen and ask for her kingdom back. She'll need to take it back, just like the woman who lost her house. That doesn't mean that Dany has no right to the throne (and it doesn't mean that the woman has no right to her house); it just means that it no longer belongs to her. She will have to take it back.

With all due respect, I think you should re-read my post: That the fact that they were exiled as women and children is entirely unjustified (and by extending that logic, if they were fully grown adult males at the time of exile then it would be justified.)

Regarding your second point: You hold the belief that the Targs did not lose because they were not fully erased, as well as the belief that the Throne no longer belongs to her family (i.e. that the Targs lost it). Yet, additionally, you believe she has a right to the throne. I guess I'm confused as to how you reconcile all those contradictory beliefs.

And I think her decision regarding the house is actually pretty good parable in relation to her desire for the Throne. According to her, fleeing for survival means you lost all "rightful claim." For all she speaks of the injustice done by "the Usurper," I think it's interesting that she ruled in favor of the "usurpers" in the woman's case.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

What do you make of Dany's thoughts about her rightness in reclaiming the throne when you consider the scene in court where she ruled against the woman whose house was taken over in the sack of Meereen? A woman came in whose sons and husband were killed during the sack, so she fled to her brother for protection, and the next day, her house was turned into a brothel. "Dany granted her the jewels, but ruled the house was lost when she abandoned it." So, at least in Dany's mind as it pertains to anyone other than herself, fleeing and being supplanted = no longer having the right to something.

You know, I've read that passage several times and I can't believe it never occurred to me that it paralleled Dany's situation. Add "hypocrite" to the list of strikes against her.

1. The Targaryens were not all wiped out, so how could Robert have beaten them?

3. Re-read my post, because it looks as if you haven't read it properly. I said that exiling CHILDREN was unjustified. Which is correct because neither Viserys nor Daenerys was guilty of the actions that caused Robert to rebel. In contrast, Jorah Mormont's exile was justified because he broke the law.

1. He beat them because the other nobles stopped recognizing the Targs and started recognizing the Baratheons. You assume that someone hasn't "won" until he's killed every last one of the opposition, and that isn't necessarily true. If the major houses in Westeros didn't consider the Targ dynasty finished, whether Viserys and Dany were alive or not, they wouldn't have recognized Robert's dynasty.

2. He could have had them killed. They're lucky exile was all they got.

Firstly, a house is very different to a kingdom. But Dany is right; the law can't help someone who gave up their property for survival. Which is why Dany won't land in Westeros, walk up to Tommen and ask for her kingdom back. She'll need to take it back, just like the woman who lost her house. That doesn't mean that Dany has no right to the throne (and it doesn't mean that the woman has no right to her house); it just means that it no longer belongs to her. She will have to take it back.

1. You've never heard the phrase "a man's house is his castle"? I'm sure it works for women, too.

2. First you said that Dany is still the rightful heir because the Targs never lost. Now you're admitting that the Seven Kingdoms do not actually belong to her and she has to fight to get them back. So which is it? Please explain to me how someone can still have rights to something that no longer belongs to them. If something doesn't belong to you, by definition you have no rights to it. If you think Dany's claim to Westeros is valid, you need to accept that the decision she made about the woman's house is hypocritical.

[Dolorous Eddie]

Tommen is anointed based on a lie. The Baratheons are the new royal family and Stannis is Robert's legitimate heir.

I agree with everything you said and I still think Stannis is the best choice. But the truth is, lie or no lie, Tommen is the king now and we have no reason to believe that given proper council he wouldn't grow up to be a good ruler. So if I was from Westeros and served only the kingdom, with no personal interest and no allegiance to any house, I probably wouldn't care whether he was legitimate or not. I'd just serve him and hope for peace.

[Silverin]

It is obviously Tommen. He wants to be King so he can outlaw beets. There is no better reason than that.

Joke aside it is Mance. All he wanted to be free, but he takes leadership to unite the wildlings to help them escape through the Wall from the Others.

Him aside I don't think anyone has a really good reason for wanting to be King/Queen. maybe the best one is Stannis, at least he went to help at the Wall. So he at least considers hid duties as a King.

Or shoot me but Tommen. At least he does not try to justify himself with some higher moral (that those who do, usually lack) and actually wants to learn how to rule so that when he finally will practice his power, he will be a good king. That is already more than most of them (cough*Renly, Dany, Robert*cough) do. And he still just a kid, yet he already knows what all the above seem to ignore, that ruling is not easy and having the right is not enough, you have to be prepeared for that. And yeah I just said Tommen has a better attitude than Dany, since he wants to learn how to rule BEFORE he starts to practice, while Dany wants to learn how to rule by experimenting on peoples lives.

[Light a wight tonight]

I get the impression that Renly was "Robert Lite". Not interested in governance so much as the perks that go with the title. At least there wouldn't be 16 bastards cluttering up the scenery.

Stannis may be unlovable but he's honest and competent. Which might mean Varys or Littlefinger would try to take him down.

[Ame]

There is certainly the danger of a civil war whe,n the monarch dies. But it is t like Renly had any significant to contribute to it.

I don't mean any disrespect and sorry if I come across wrongly but in this case your wrong. A legitimate monarch who inherited the throne legitimately through the line of succession has a much better chance of passing on the crown to his heir then a person who just used opportunism to unlawfully steal the crown from those in front of them. Renly thought he was behind Joffrey, Tommen, maybe Myrcella (GRRM puts enough holes in so I'm not sure about her so maybe scratch her) and Stannis. That is at least three people with a better claim, and possibly four. What Renly winning would mean is that the line of succession no longer matters and once the monarch dies to the strongest goes the title. Such a precedent would make it much more likely that on his own death his heir would be challenged by brothers who felt they deserve the crown more just like he challenged his own brother and his nephews and niece. By setting the precedent that the line of succession is irrelevant Renly would have been doing harm to it that couldn't be repaired.

ETA-The criticism of Robert Lite is unfair to Robert. Robert was forced to rebel for his own life by a literally insane king who was burning people alive. Renly was in no danger from Joffrey or Stannis before he rebelled and declared himself king.

The other criticisms are however fair, I never read anything he said showing he had any ideas for governance.

[JKeats]

What does Stannis think he is going to do if he becomes King? Will he put the whole realm to the fire if they wont accept Rhllor?

Of course not. He make Davos Seaworth his Hand knowing full well that he did not hold with R'hllor. He trusts and respects Jon Snow, who makes no secret of his faith in the Old Gods. A good portion of his northern army are non-believers, but they fight for him anyway.

[LuisDantas]

New news from You: Stannis was traitor, great. You said earlier Renly had'nt obligations for his crowned "nephew" or his older brother or his dead brother's "heirs", no one. And, of course, he was'nt usurper.

Did You try say Stannis HAD obligations for Renly?

What do You think, if Joffrey had black hair and blue eyes, would Stannis proclaim himself king or serve his nephew loyally?

I am sure - he would serve Joff Baratheon loyally.

And Renly?

I. AM. NOT. SURE.

Personally, I don't see why anyone should have been loyal to Joffrey, aregardless of his parentage. He was as much a psycho as Mad Aerys, if not more so. Even Tyrion felt the need to remove him.

[LuisDantas]

I don't mean any disrespect and sorry if I come across wrongly but in this case your wrong. A legitimate monarch who inherited the throne legitimately through the line of succession has a much better chance of passing on the crown to his heir then a person who just used opportunism to unlawfully steal the crown from those in front of them.

To some degree, that is probably true. Still, it would seem to me that following the letter of the law is in practice a minor factor; having the military power, political support and love of the masses are three much more significant factors.

To use an in-story example, the Dance of Dragons (not the fifth book, but the conflict that put House Blackfyre in the spotlight somewhere around years 150 to 200 after Aegon's Landing) happened despite a clearly established line of succession, because the designed successor did not have quite enough support. That is how things happen in practice, as well.

Renly thought he was behind Joffrey, Tommen, maybe Myrcella (GRRM puts enough holes in so I'm not sure about her so maybe scratch her) and Stannis. That is at least three people with a better claim, and possibly four. What Renly winning would mean is that the line of succession no longer matters and once the monarch dies to the strongest goes the title.

Yes, that is just about right.

Such a precedent would make it much more likely that on his own death his heir would be challenged by brothers who felt they deserve the crown more just like he challenged his own brother and his nephews and niece.

Quite possibly.

However, succession troubles are fueled by political instability and insatisfaction, far more than by any confusion about how to apply the laws.

Let's assume for a moment that Joffrey was indeed Robert's son (a possibility, I hasten to add, that we can't completely discard; if we accept that dragons and wights exist and Beric Dondarrion died six or seven times, surely it is not inconceivable that one of Robert's son might have had blond hair despite no previous Baratheon having it).

That would make him as "legitimate" as Stannis believes himself to be. It would even make the War of Five Kings somewhat simpler (not necessarily less bloody). But in all fairness, does anyone expect the Westerosi to simply shrugh and hope that time alone makes his rule more palatable or at least shorter? Personally, I just don't see how Joffrey's rule could have lasted without a lot of bloodshed.

By setting the precedent that the line of succession is irrelevant Renly would have been doing harm to it that couldn't be repaired.

In the sense that History can only go forward, I guess I agree. That is such a minor factor in the complex and bloody history of Westeros, however, that I am not even sure it is fair to call that "harm".

ETA-The criticism of Robert Lite is unfair to Robert. Robert was forced to rebel for his own life by a literally insane king who was burning people alive. Renly was in no danger from Joffrey or Stannis before he rebelled and declared himself king.

That is somewhat arguable. Joffrey was a very dangerous King, even for his own supporters. I can't really blame Renly for refusing to support him, and in all honesty I don't think even Ned, Robb or Stannis would have failed to challenge his rule even if they knew for a fact that he is Robert's son.

Joffrey simply did not have what it took to survive in the Iron Throne, and in fact his death had little or nothing to do with the challenges for the legitimacy of his claim; he died because he was a dangerous sociopath that his supporters couldn't stand to keep alive.

The other criticisms are however fair, I never read anything he said showing he had any ideas for governance.

And in that he is remarkably alike nearly all other claimants. IIRC the exceptions are Joffrey himself and Cersei, for what little good it made them - and the ideas were quite inept at that.

[butterbumps!]

However, succession troubles are fueled by political instability and insatisfaction, far more than by any confusion about how to apply the laws.

I think you have that backwards. A lot of instability and dissatisfaction is caused by disregarding/ not consistently applying laws (as well as the abuse of power by those in charge).

Let's assume for a moment that Joffrey was indeed Robert's son (a possibility, I hasten to add, that we can't completely discard; if we accept that dragons and wights exist and Beric Dondarrion died six or seven times, surely it is not inconceivable that one of Robert's son might have had blond hair despite no previous Baratheon having it).

That would make him as "legitimate" as Stannis believes himself to be.

I think assuming that Joffrey, Tommen, Myrcella are Jaime's offspring is about as certain as death and taxes.

I still challenge your definition of "legitimate."

Legitimate (From the Oxford English Dictionary):

--Of a child: Having the status of one lawfully begotten

--Genuine, real

--Conformable to law or rule; sanctioned or authorized by law or right; lawful; proper

--Of a sovereign's title: Resting on the strict principle of hereditary right. Hence, said of a sovereign, a kingdom, etc.

None of these canonical definitions of "legitimate," especially the one pertaining specifically to a sovereign's title, apply to your notion of "legitimate" as anyone's "right" to take the throne.

Personally, I just don't see how Joffrey's rule could have lasted without a lot of bloodshed.

I'm inclined to agree. But....

I can't really blame Renly for refusing to support him, and in all honesty I don't think even Ned, Robb or Stannis would have failed to challenge his rule even if they knew for a fact that he is Robert's son.

Joffrey simply did not have what it took to survive in the Iron Throne, and in fact his death had little or nothing to do with the challenges for the legitimacy of his claim; he died because he was a dangerous sociopath that his supporters couldn't stand to keep alive.

A Rebellion against Joffrey (whether based on his not being a Baratheon, or not being a good king) would have resulted in the eldest heir to the winning house taking the throne based on Westerosi ideas of "legitimacy."

Even if I go with your premise that Renly has a "legitimate right" to the throne for a second, do you have any specific textual evidence to suggest that he'd be a particularly good king (i.e. that he'd be just, take care of smallfolk, etc.)? I'm asking because you also argue for Renly's "legitimacy" on the basis that you think he'd be a good king.

[LuisDantas]

I think you have that backwards. A lot of instability and dissatisfaction is caused by disregarding/ not consistently applying laws (as well as the abuse of power by those in charge).

That would only be possible if laws were sources of wisdom, which they are not.

Laws are human creations, and human discernment will unavoidably trump them at every turn.

It is true that rulers, judges and lawyers don't feel like using their discernment honestly all that often. Still, it is unrealistic to expect laws to be wise on their own.

I think assuming that Joffrey, Tommen, Myrcella are Jaime's offspring is about as certain as death and taxes.

If you say so. It doesn't really mean a lot, as far as laws are concerned. Not until and unless actual proof can be produced. Can you think of any?

I still challenge your definition of "legitimate."

Legitimate (From the Oxford English Dictionary):

--Of a child: Having the status of one lawfully begotten

--Genuine, real

--Conformable to law or rule; sanctioned or authorized by law or right; lawful; proper

--Of a sovereign's title: Resting on the strict principle of hereditary right. Hence, said of a sovereign, a kingdom, etc.

None of these canonical definitions of "legitimate," especially the one pertaining specifically to a sovereign's title, apply to your notion of "legitimate" as anyone's "right" to take the throne.

I don't lend a lot of attention to that kind of definition. They have little meaning or purpose outside of court cerimonies.

I'm inclined to agree. But....

A Rebellion against Joffrey (whether based on his not being a Baratheon, or not being a good king) would have resulted in the eldest heir to the winning house taking the throne based on Westerosi ideas of "legitimacy."

In the absence of more convincing criteria, yes, it would.

I see no reason to assume such an absence, however.

Even if I go with your premise that Renly has a "legitimate right" to the throne for a second,

Why, no, he doesn't! No one does! Unless you believe in a divine right to rule, which I certainly don't.

Thrones aren't a right, but rather a conquest or perhaps an inheritance.

Renly claim, however, was quite honest and legitimate. Unlike Joffrey's, which relied in (as far as we know) false premises, or Stannis', which depends on unproven ones. It was what it appeared to be: an out-of-sequence appeal to his supposed superion qualities as a potential ruler.

Renly's claim was, quite openly, a direct challenge to the letter of the law.

And that is ok. Contrary to what some people seem to feel a duty to believe, laws are in some sense supposed to be challenged, or otherwise we would still be dealing with slavery. Defying law is not in itself wrong or immoral; it is only a matter that may have serious consequences. Running underground railroads was once unlawful. Renly never said that he was the lawful successor to Robert. He just claimed, IMO quite reasonably, that the law shouldn't be followed blindly and that ultimately it is support and military might that a King makes.

Far as we can tell, Renly sincerely believed that it would ultimately be best for Westeros if he ruled over it instead of Stannis or Joffrey. I sure do, although I wish he had more of a desire to accomodate for Robb.

do you have any specific textual evidence to suggest that he'd be a particularly good king (i.e. that he'd be just, take care of smallfolk, etc.)? I'm asking because you also argue for Renly's "legitimacy" on the basis that you think he'd be a good king.

It is of course arguable. It is hard enough to reach consensus if real life, present day rulers are competent, after all, so I'm not expecting to prove that fictional ones - and dead ones at that - would be fair.

Still, I think it is a fair extrapolation from what we have seen:

- Renly correctly evaluated the risks when Robert was mortaly wounded, presented then to Ned, and offered a course of action that might well have resulted in a more stable, far less bloody and conflicted scenario than any that can happen now.

- Renly chose to cut the food suply lines to King's Landing in order to pressure the Lannisters away from their claim, which arguably was the most human approach to the matter.

- He has been shown to be neither false nor deluded in his ambitions. He is a refreshingly honest ambitious man who, quite simply, wants to rule and doesn't bother producing a reason why he "must" be the One True Ruler regardless of actual aptitude. Lacking such dangerous pretenses, he may well turn out to be more reasonable and open-minded than most.

- He was realistic (and succesful) in his strategy for gaining support. He would have sieged King's Landing with minimal bloodshed, if only Stannis hadn't pulled House Tyrell towards an alliance with the Lannisters.

I will take such a man over a Joffrey or Stannis anytime.

[The King in the South]

Uh?

When did that happen?

When Renly is preparing to attack Stannis, Mathis Rowan notes that it would be better to attack at night, as Stannis would not be prepared. Renly states that would be unchivalrous, to which Mathis or Tarly replies that it probably save thousands of their soldiers lives. Renly says nope, because apparentely being un-chivalrous is worse than hundreds of conscripted peasants and loyal soldiers being slaughtered.