[Book Spoilers] EP 205 Discussion

[Died a Hero]

I think I figured out why they've decided to use the second name for crows (ravens) for Bran's dreams.

Bloodraven.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Died a Hero

[Jory]

Maybe you are forgetting that both the Night's Watch and the Ironborn hold actual elections, then.

More to the point, if you are willing to allow that there must be a King, both common sense and actual history show that inheritance laws are useless or worse as a way of deciding who should be the King.

I can see the appeal of believing that the True Lawful Successor should be King and put the painful matters of succession to rest. Unfortunately, that Does Not Work. Laws are blind, and can't possibly tell an inept or cruel monarch-to-be from an Aegon V. That is why people can and must trump their letter every time.

For an actual historical example (and argument against strict laws of succession by blood), see this Wikipedia paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia....e_Good_Emperors

Except using the Roman example as an argument is stupid because nothing like it exists - the closest the books come is when Stannis offers to name Renly his heir in place of Shireen, in fact.

1) The Night's Watch is made up of rapists and thieves. It's not the governing body of Westeros.

2) The Iron Islands haven't had "elections" for a thousand years, at least. The one time they tried it afterwards, the election gave them Euron. Great system?

If, from your point of view, inheritance laws re: kingdoms are meaningless, then that's fine. Nobody is going to be able to convince you otherwise, and the general lack of anything but constitutional monarchies would suggest that people generally think you're right. That has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with Westeros. You also made a ton of flat-out wrong points about Stannis in this thread, but I've already covered them fairly cohesively in countless other Stannis threads where you're quick to attack him, so I won't really bother. I know it must seem cool to have a man whose duty, honor, justice, etc., is "completely a fiction, conjured up by the reader and other characters" but unfortunately that just isn't the story you're reading.

[J_Crews]

None of them knew that he was a betrayer and a kinslayer, however. Odds are good that in fact Stannis changed a lot for the worst since they last saw him.

Kinslayer, yes; betrayer, no... and we still don't know to what extent he was aware during the whole shadowbaby thing. What we can see with our own eyes is that he was clearly feeling remorse and even a little guilt after Renly died. But even all of that is in the past. Once he went north, he changed for the better.

[Jory]

No, no, no. Nope. No way whatsoever.

What is it that makes some people think that Lords can be someone's bannermen against their wish, and without their explicit consent?

Or, for that matter, that Stannis can be the "rightful" King when he did not establish his right in any way, shape or form? Without proof that he is Robert's successor, nor a favorable judgement from someone else?

He knows it's true, we know it's true, this line of reasoning is just so strange to me. His right comes before Renly's, either way.

Renly had actual support. Stannis had an unproven claim, an unhealthy amount of hurt pride, and a failing and rotten moral character that led him towards broken tactics.

Stannis had been loyal to his elder brother all his life. Renly couldn't even do that, even though Stannis was unlikely to ever have any more sons - which meant Renly would most definitely have succeeded him. It's bizarre how you attribute pride to Stannis and not Renly. How prideful to you have to be to name yourself king with no claim whatsoever, with people who only back you because you have a pretty face? No, Renly (in the books) was not - truly - qualified to rule. He was a fool, and he was surrounded by fools, and he thought the world of himself. No matter how you look at it, Renly was a traitor, and he died for it.

By the way, his "failing and rotten moral character" was what led him to save the kingdom from the wildlings and try to rescue Arya.

[J_Crews]

No, no, no. Nope. No way whatsoever.

What is it that makes some people think that Lords can be someone's bannermen against their wish, and without their explicit consent?

Because he's the flipping King. Even their lands are actually his lands. In an absolute monarchy, true alloidial (sp?) ownership of all land rests with the king and is parceled-out to vassal lords in return for fealty and service. Those bannermen owe fealty to Storm's End and Highgarden, which owe their fealty, in turn, to the Iron Throne... of which Stannis is the rightful holder.

Or, for that matter, that Stannis can be the "rightful" King when he did not establish his right in any way, shape or form? Without proof that he is Robert's successor, nor a favorable judgement from someone else?

And who, pray tell, would have the right to make any such judgement? The Sealord of Bravos? That isn't how medieval monarchies worked.

Renly had actual support. Stannis had an unproven claim, an unhealthy amount of hurt pride, and a failing and rotten moral character that led him towards broken tactics.

So, his younger brother had a better claim? Actually, Stannis's claim (and Robert's before him), as eldest brother and therefore head of House Baratheon goes back to the fact that their grandmother was a daughter of Aegon V Targaryen, so Renly's B.S. about the rules of succession not mattering when Robert took the throne was just that... B.S. They rebelled against the Mad King and only after they'd won was Robert crowned instead of Ned or Jon Arryn because he had the better claim.

[J_Crews]

Except using the Roman example as an argument is stupid because nothing like it exists - the closest the books come is when Stannis offers to name Renly his heir in place of Shireen, in fact.

1) The Night's Watch is made up of rapists and thieves. It's not the governing body of Westeros.

2) The Iron Islands haven't had "elections" for a thousand years, at least. The one time they tried it afterwards, the election gave them Euron. Great system?

If, from your point of view, inheritance laws re: kingdoms are meaningless, then that's fine. Nobody is going to be able to convince you otherwise, and the general lack of anything but constitutional monarchies would suggest that people generally think you're right. That has nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with Westeros. You also made a ton of flat-out wrong points about Stannis in this thread, but I've already covered them fairly cohesively in countless other Stannis threads where you're quick to attack him, so I won't really bother. I know it must seem cool to have a man whose duty, honor, justice, etc., is "completely a fiction, conjured up by the reader and other characters" but unfortunately that just isn't the story you're reading.

Thank you.

[Dragon greyscale]

Eeeek!  I don't really like reading that.  I understand the need for changes to the plot by the TV adaptation... but I don't like the idea of the TV adaptation polluting the original story GRRM is telling/going to tell.

Seriously? How would you even notice that? There is no material to compare! Or is my sarcasm meter broken?

[J_Crews]

His right comes before Renly's, either way.

Exactly

[J_Crews]

Stannis had been loyal to his elder brother all his life. Renly couldn't even do that, even though Stannis was unlikely to ever have any more sons - which meant Renly would most definitely have succeeded him. It's bizarre how you attribute pride to Stannis and not Renly. How prideful to you have to be to name yourself king with no claim whatsoever, with people who only back you because you have a pretty face? No, Renly (in the books) was not - truly - qualified to rule. He was a fool, and he was surrounded by fools, and he thought the world of himself. No matter how you look at it, Renly was a traitor, and he died for it.

Right. Show Renly versus book Renly is a big difference. Book Renly did nothing in his whole life of consequence, aside from dress in fancy clothes and throw masquerade balls.

[DirePenguin]

I wish they'd show the actual siege of Torhen's Square. Getting a bit sick of the series skipping most warfare battles and only hint about them in conversation/after maths.

I'm so happy there's no porn.

[BlackTalon]

No, no, no. Nope. No way whatsoever.

What is it that makes some people think that Lords can be someone's bannermen against their wish, and without their explicit consent?

What on earth are you talking about???

OF COURSE a bannerman gets no choice about what lord they follow!

Do you seriously think that House Umber or House Cerwyn could suddenly decide "Humdeedoo, red and gold go better with my wife´s lipstick, from now on I´ll be bannerman to Tywin Lannister instead of Robb Stark!"

Good luck with that!

If you are born heir to a house tha has always been sworn to some other house, you too will automatically be sworn to that house, that is basically the essence of the feudal system.

As far as the "rightful king" and the "right to the throne" are concerned: At the end of the day a throne will always go to the person that is strong and popular enough to TAKE the throne, as has been shown again and again, in our history as well as in the history of Westeros, by Aegon the Conqueror as well as by Robert Baratheon. As one memorable line in "Shogun" by James Clavell goes : "Rebelling against your lord is ALWAYS treason ... unless you win."

It is just indicative of Stannis' rigidity and inflexibility that he seems to be unable to grasp this.

Edited May 2, 2012 by BlackTalon

[Jern Ormen]

I hear you and I actually agree on a philosophical level, but the point is moot. We aren't debating political science here. The Iron Throne is passed from ruler to heir, by right of birth and blood. The end.

That's my point.

To Luis,

Political Science has no place in Westeros. Stannis has the best claim because of his blood and birth. He is Renly elder brother, therefore he is before Renly in the line of succession. It may not be just or even right, but its the way things are done in Westeros.

The Iron Island's kingsmoot and The King in the North are still more or less still based on the principle of blood and birth.

Crow's Eye ends up winning the Kingsmoot primarily because he is a Greyjoy (The Great House of the Pyke region) and was able to sway the masses to his cause, mainly due to piss poor showings from the other candidates. But the fact still remains that a Greyjoy, descendants of the Grey King won the Seastone Chair, keeping the line of succession intact

Robb is declared King in the North by his bannermen. Once again, primarily due to the fact that he is a Stark (The Great House of the North). Guess who was the last King in the North? That's right, a Stark, The King who Knelt during Aegon's Conquest. Once again, a Stark is named King in the North, picking up where the last King left off, not breaking the line of succession

[Little Miss Sunshine]

Ok, very late to the party but my internet is crap for streaming. Anyway, let's get to the point:

I found this episode to be very weak comparing with the previous one. Not just because IMO ep. 4 was the best of the bunch and put me all over the emotion spectrum, but also due to faults of its own:

• Renly's death - I know that they must simplify everything to the core for tv-viewers-only, but c'mon, seriously??? It was lame having the shadow actually stabbing his heart. It could have been handled in some other way explicit enough for non-book-readers to understand, but without all this cliche-cheesyness. Plus, in my point of view, the way the portrayed the scene, with Renly removing his armour instead of donning it, diminished and weakened what made this scene so powerful - which was the fact that even strong, fully armored men were no match for the Lord of the Light and his power.
  

• Loras's reaction - my second "c'mon" yelled at my laptop screen in less than 2 minutes (never a good thing). Call me nitpicky, but young, reckless, "live fast die young" Loras would never have such a "cold", rational approach to Renly's death. The way it was depicted in the books seemed more believable. And since in the show they brought up Renly-Loras relationship more explicity than the books ever did, I really think there was no need to change this aftermath.
  

• Bran's "sea in Winterfell" dream - I get that they needed to introduce it in some way, but I really hope this doesn't mean the Reeds will be written off.
  

This being said, I really liked the interactions between Arya and Tywin, the Qarth scenes (that Qaithe's mask was simply awesome and nothing like I've picture it!), and the actress who plays Brienne grows on me more with each episode! Also good to see Littlefinger talking and acting like Littlefinger for once.

EDITED for spelling

Edited May 2, 2012 by Little Miss Sunshine

[Ghost714]

I just want to say thank you to the posters that have been rightfully arguing in favor of Stannis, keep up the good work. It's very nice to find a thread where I am not the only one, I only wish I had checked this thread sooner, so I could have added my voice to the conversation along with you guys. You guys covered everything very well though, so the only thing to do now is say good job.

[legba11]

On rewatch, one thing I like about this episode is we've clearly added two members to Sansa's, "Thinks she lives in a high fantasy world rather than Westeros" club. Brienne and Jorah. These two (and both very well done, Jorah continues to be a MUCH better character on the show). It's sad watching them flail under the reality which is Westeros. (sad in a way which makes great theater).

Stannis:

Another Stannis fan. He is far from perfect, but so are all of the potential butts that could sit the Iron Throne. Unless Lord Davos is somehow going to get his butt there, give me Stannis. Maybe Doran Martell too, but he is not too healthy, and I don't like his heirs.

At the end of SoS, Stannis has a clear face turn. This is Westeros, so heel and face are not so clearly defined, but that is what SoS is all about. The two major face turns (since her keeps killing the faces off). First Jaime, and then Stannis. Stannis was never quite the heel Jaime was, but he is close in the show.

[boojam]

I just want to say thank you to the posters that have been rightfully arguing in favor of Stannis, keep up the good work. It's very nice to find a thread where I am not the only one, I only wish I had checked this thread sooner, so I could have added my voice to the conversation along with you guys. You guys covered everything very well though, so the only thing to do now is say good job.

I think Stephen Dillane has done a fine job as Stannis, and he's gonna be around a long time.

I think Carice van Houten has been fine as Melisandre , and she's gonna be around a long time.

Lately van Houten's dialog and stage direction has not been so dour, I hope they can find the proper grove for her.

[bloodymime]

So, his younger brother had a better claim? Actually, Stannis's claim (and Robert's before him), as eldest brother and therefore head of House Baratheon goes back to the fact that their grandmother was a daughter of Aegon V Targaryen, so Renly's B.S. about the rules of succession not mattering when Robert took the throne was just that... B.S. They rebelled against the Mad King and only after they'd won was Robert crowned instead of Ned or Jon Arryn because he had the better claim.

I'm not arguing with you because you're clearly right in that it mattered to them who had a drop of Targaryen blood in their veins but why the heck does a culture strong in thousands of years of their own history decide the Targaryens are the only royalty by divine right after a few hundred years. They don't even seem to have much of an impact on Westeros.

Everybody's still speaking the common tongue. Outside of KL and Dragonstone the Targaryens don't seem to have actually built anything. I've been told they're responsible for the opening up trade and the kingsroad. I don't know how accurate that is but at least the kingsroad makes sense since it comes out of KL but it's not even a clearly Valyrian road like the one Tyrion travels on in Dance, it's a freaking dirt road. I don't see people travelling down that dirt road and reflecting on how amazing the Targaryens are in their magnificence to create a dirt road where once only dirt stood.

Nearly all the great monuments and castles come from before the Targaryens came around and despite all the other mistakes Robb's being King of the North to me is making the most sense. Maybe it was the Greatjon pointing it out but someone certainly did, the dragons are gone, piss on them and lets get back to our ways.

[Elfangle]

I'm very interested in the whole Who is king discussion going on here. But the thruth is that even all of the contenders (Stannis, Renly, Joffrey...) are usurpers. Dany still by all laws and regulations the rightfull queen of Westeros. The reason why Robert wanted all the Targs death is very important. Off course there is his personal vendetta against Rhaegar but he also has political motives. As long as there is a Targ alive his claim to the throne will never be absolute and he will be a usurper. The Targs were the first ruling dynasty of the 7 kingdoms and no revebellion, succesfull or not, will change that. A new dynasty can only begin when there is no Targ left anymore. It doesnt matter whether Robert had a blood connection with the Targs, as long as Dany is alive she will be the rightfull queen (and Viserys even before her). If all the houses and people in whole Westeros would kneel before Robert, they would all be traitors. The only other option would be when the heir of an house kneels before the usurper and therefore denounces his own claim to the throne. None of the Targs did this (Thruth be told, they might not have the chance since they were all killed).

Stannis is off course being hypocrite since he thinks that according to all laws and regulations he is the rightfull king while he should know that that claim can only be made by Dany. Only when she dies will he be the rightfull king. If Dany would give birth to a child, her claim would automatically pass on to that child ( off course whether she can have a baby is not sure).

The fact that Dany is still alive means that Stannis his claim is just as weak as Renly's. Renly has exactly the same amount of right to become king as Stannis. Off course this is just the pure theoretical part.

There is a huge difference between being the theoretical king and the actual king (the one that holds the power). But since Renly at the point had a far stronger force than Stannis, that makes him the more succesfull usurper of the two.

Im just trying to show that Stannis is a hypocrite. He is hiding behind rules and laws while those same rules and laws make him as much as a king as they do with Renly or Joffrey.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Elfangle

[Elfangle]

I'm not arguing with you because you're clearly right in that it mattered to them who had a drop of Targaryen blood in their veins but why the heck does a culture strong in thousands of years of their own history decide the Targaryens are the only royalty by divine right after a few hundred years. They don't even seem to have much of an impact on Westeros.

Everybody's still speaking the common tongue. Outside of KL and Dragonstone the Targaryens don't seem to have actually built anything. I've been told they're responsible for the opening up trade and the kingsroad. I don't know how accurate that is but at least the kingsroad makes sense since it comes out of KL but it's not even a clearly Valyrian road like the one Tyrion travels on in Dance, it's a freaking dirt road. I don't see people travelling down that dirt road and reflecting on how amazing the Targaryens are in their magnificence to create a dirt road where once only dirt stood.

Nearly all the great monuments and castles come from before the Targaryens came around and despite all the other mistakes Robb's being King of the North to me is making the most sense. Maybe it was the Greatjon pointing it out but someone certainly did, the dragons are gone, piss on them and lets get back to our ways.

Off course your right in that aspect but you have to draw the line somehwere. Because if you draw that conclusion further you might also pose the question: Why are hour Stark or Lannister the leading houses in their area? Why not Cerwyn or Crakenhall? In that respect you might even ask why one person can rule over another? For the sake of the discussion there has to be a point that we acknowledge one person above all the other. At some point the kings of the seven kingdoms decided to bend the knee to one house or person. In this case it was house Targaryen. So the royal dynasty of the united seven kingdoms started then and there.

[Buckwheat]

I think this episode was much better than the last one. Likely I mostly have this impression because of the absence of the pointless naked scenes.

I loved Arya and Tywin scene.

I am very happy that Rickon has made an appearance, one could almost forget he exists if he were not there.

Pyat Pree was creepy from the first moment he appeared on screen. He made me feel really uncomfortable, which I guess was the point. Quaithe looked weird and not as good as him, I think. I hope she talks to Dany as well some time.

I liked Rakharo much better than the new bloodrider. He was willing to accept and learn about another culture. This new one, whatever his name is, just wants to destroy everything he does not understand.

I am sad about the absence of the Reeds.

What is with Doreah and Jhiqui haitng each other? Jealousy, because each one thinks Dany likes the other more? Anyway, it was fun to see. And hear "it is known."