Stannis is the One True King

[Hamilton]

Ageon (real or not) 'cause he is down with the smallfolk. This whole justification and sense of entitlement makes no sense. It is who is best to rule. That's subjective of course but Ageon seems like the best candidate. Just ask Varys.

[kwvapor]

What exactly are you trying to say? That Stannis is being hardheaded? I would say it is Renly being hardheaded as he is younger than stannis and lower in the line for the throne. As someone mentioned before as soon as Renly declared himself King he pretty much gave out a silent death wish for Stannis.

I'm not saying Stannis this or Renly that.

I was trying to address your notion that Stannis' offer was so sweet and generous that he ought to accept. I don't think Renly saw it in the same light. Take off your shoes and wear his for a second.

Try to understand Renly's situation at that point in time. Renly's army is massive and Stannis comes to lay out his terms. Stannis is actually being generous right? Because he doesn't understand that his generosity comes across as a slap in the face because Renly can back up what he says, or the numbers say so, so right here he confirms what he suspected that his brother thinks little to nothing of him. Even in a losing situation he'd not back down, try to talk or communicate.

I'm trying to see it from Renly's POV here. I can see how he can take that "generosity offer" as a huge insult.

So, all in all, there was really no true communication between the brothers. They both failed and lacked the capacity to understanding each other.

[bbqq]

I'm not saying Stannis this or Renly that.

I was trying to address your notion that Stannis' offer was so sweet and generous that he ought to accept. I don't think Renly saw it in the same light. Take off your shoes and wear his for a second.

Try to understand Renly's situation at that point in time. Renly's army is massive and Stannis comes to lay out his terms. Stannis is actually being generous right? Because he doesn't understand that his generosity comes across as a slap in the face because Renly can back up what he says, or the numbers say so, so right here he confirms what he suspected that his brother thinks little to nothing of him. Even in a losing situation he'd not back down, try to talk or communicate.

I'm trying to see it from Renly's POV here. I can see how he can take that "generosity offer" as a huge insult.

So, all in all, there was really no true communication between the brothers. They both failed and lacked the capacity to understanding each other.

Which would make sense, if it wasn't for the very widespread opinion of Stannis as someone who would always choose the 'honorable' thing to do, in regards to the laws of Westeros (at least publicly, it seems). I can see why Renly would emotionally be quite disappointed with Stannis not accepting his offer, but I always thought he had a bit more brains than to think Stannis might even consider it.

I considered it quite ironic that Renly tried to win his dishonorable course of action (usurping his brother to claim the throne) with honorable means, whilst Stannis tried to win his more honorable course with dishonorable means - just one of those quirks that RR Martin threw in, showing it's not the typical fantasy novel.

[Buried Treasure]

Ageon (real or not) 'cause he is down with the smallfolk. This whole justification and sense of entitlement makes no sense. It is who is best to rule. That's subjective of course but Ageon seems like the best candidate. Just ask Varys.

Really? Because I think talking about who is the rightful king makes a lot of sense - otherwise you are just throwing law out of the window. In the long term thats going to damage the kingdom, the king is the highest judge in the land and to respect the law he needs to be ruled by it as much as his subjects . Laws of succession and against treasonably rising against your overlord (I make an exception when the overlord gives provocation by murdering relatives) limit who can become king and stop the whole system descending into chaos (as it did when Renly decided to claim the Iron Throne for no better reason than he wanted it).

And what are you basing Aegon being a good candidate on? He's met a few peasants and slept in a few unglamorous places but he has never considered himself one of them, does he have some higher understanding? Does he seem to have some great ideas on the enforcement of justice throughout the kingdom that will improve the lot of the smallfolk? The scene near Volantis where he gets the GC officers to agree to follow him gives me hope he might prove a decent leader but otherwise he just seems like a kid with a half-decent education.

[Malpka]

What i am failing to understand is why people call Targeryns - conquerors, and Robert - usurper.

Quite frankly, one can say that Westeros was under occupation from Targeryns.

Additionally they dnt do much beside wandering about and bragging about their dragon blood, and their rights. As for first one i believe Gregor, Jaime, Robert and Drogo explained sufficiently how much it is worth, as for their rights - go rule Valyria.

[Lummel]

And Robert's rule was such an improvement on wandering about and bragging about their dragon rights :) ?

[David Selig]

What i am failing to understand is why people call Targeryns - conquerors, and Robert - usurper.

Because that's what they were. Pretty simple.

Ageon (real or not) 'cause he is down with the smallfolk. This whole justification and sense of entitlement makes no sense. It is who is best to rule. That's subjective of course but Ageon seems like the best candidate. Just ask Varys.

Yeah, just ask the professional liar who's really biased in this case...

Aegon is as much a spoiled and entitled brat as anyone (except Joffrey, he was in a league of his own) from what we've seen of him.

[The Dornishman's Wife]

What i am failing to understand is why people call Targeryns - conquerors, and Robert - usurper.

Four words: silver hair / purple eyes. They were the ultimate master race and had magical creatures to bolster their claim and burn anyone who denied that claim. They milked it, abused it, and finally lost it.

[Malpka]

Because that's what they were. Pretty simple.

Sorry, my fault, i phrased it wrong.

What i meant was - why they call conquerors rightful kings, and Robert usurper.

And Robert's rule was such an improvement on wandering about and bragging about their dragon rights :) ?

Compare Robert rule to Daenrys, and Aerys, and Robert suddenly becoming amazing ruler :).

Plus he got bonus points simply because his mount doesn't wander around eating children.

[Buried Treasure]

What i am failing to understand is why people call Targeryns - conquerors, and Robert - usurper.

Quite frankly, one can say that Westeros was under occupation from Targeryns.

Aegon didn't owe fealty to anyone else, he wasn't committing treason just by picking up a sword.

And once he had gotten oaths from everybody else he and his heirs could expect loyalty - and anybody breaking their oath would have been a traitor (there is an argument to be made about the validity of oaths made under duress but I will leave that aside for now).

Robert owed fealty to Aerys and had presumably sworn him an oath. Those who call Robert an Usurper would say that Robert broke his oath and committed treason by fighting a war, then sat himself upon Aery's throne. The alternative view is that Aery's actions nullified Robert's oaths, that he did not commit treason and that he was perfectly justified in deposing the Targaryens - in which case he is not an usurper, just the new king.

[Kate Poem]

Are you saying that Renly deserved to die because he refused to kneel for Stannis? Or because he lacked manners?

I don't think he deserved to die for lacking of manners.

If Renly could think in that way, for example: "hmm, this boring, bald, stiff etc.etc. etc. etc. etc. idiot is my older brother. He has moustached, crazy, fanatical, ugly etc. etc. etc. etc. wife. He slept with her once on year or less frequently. It is completely sure - he will die sonless. Now he offered me place in his Small Council and title of Crown's Heir. It is funny, I can defeat him: I have army, I have support, I have my both sweet Tyrells etc. but - but - maybe really will be better fight with Lannisters, no with each other? Hmm, but what with Tyrells? Mace wanted see Margaery in crown now... And my lords, what with them? I can lost my face... But, if I'll explain them everything, they'll understand me. They love me. And who knows how long Stannis will be live?" everything would be... better and funny life for Crown Prince Baratheon.

[Malpka]

Aegon didn't owe fealty to anyone else, he wasn't committing treason just by picking up a sword.

And once he had gotten oaths from everybody else he and his heirs could expect loyalty - and anybody breaking their oath would have been a traitor (there is an argument to be made about the validity of oaths made under duress but I will leave that aside for now).

Robert owed fealty to Aerys and had presumably sworn him an oath. Those who call Robert an Usurper would say that Robert broke his oath and committed treason by fighting a war, then sat himself upon Aery's throne. The alternative view is that Aery's actions nullified Robert's oaths, that he did not commit treason and that he was perfectly justified in deposing the Targaryens - in which case he is not an usurper, just the new king.

Actually I am on the "new king" side

By the way - noble speak to a king about situation very similar to whole Robert, Rhaegar, Lyanna mess:

http://www.elook.org/literature/dumas/louise-de-la-valliere/3789.html

Website seems fine so link should be safe.

[Young Wolf's Vanguard]

What i am failing to understand is why people call Targeryns - conquerors, and Robert - usurper.

Quite frankly, one can say that Westeros was under occupation from Targeryns.

Additionally they dnt do much beside wandering about and bragging about their dragon blood, and their rights. As for first one i believe Gregor, Jaime, Robert and Drogo explained sufficiently how much it is worth, as for their rights - go rule Valyria.

really outstanding examples you have there, and btw Lorch is missing

[Malpka]

really outstanding examples you have there, and btw Lorch is missing

Thank you, I was hoping someone will appreciate it :).

As for Lorch true i forgot, somehow i find him least memorable person in the book, not sure why though.

One can only hope that you don't believe, that examples I gave (namely Gregor, I dont really blame Jaime for Aerys) and deeds they involve, are in any way acceptable for me.

[Young Wolf's Vanguard]

Thank you, I was hoping someone will appreciate it :).

As for Lorch true i forgot, somehow i find him least memorable person in the book, not sure why though.

One can only hope that you don't believe, that examples I gave (namely Gregor, I dont really blame Jaime for Aerys) and deeds they involve, are in any way acceptable for me.

killing children is not a proper way of taking Targaryens' measure. Robert did well with Rhaegar who was only capable fighter of his family at the time. Rest are coldblooded murderers and oathbreakers that will pay for their crimes (as much as I admire Jaime for killing pyromancers and saving KL he is still the oathbreaker and child-killer)

[Jayaris]

That is preposterous. Renly gave him every opportunity to give up or even to join him.

He certainly did not expect Stannis to take those chances. No one who knows Stannis did. But he can't be faulted for denying Stannis the chance, because he did not.

Every chance? His own generals informed him it was not necessary to siege Storm's End, he decided to attack because he was worried that people might think he was scared of his brother.

The only advice he gives to his men is not to desecrate his brother's body - Is that every opportunity? When Ned and Rob broke the Iron Islands they didn't kill everyone simply because the battle had begun, they afforded Balon Greyjoy every opportunity to surrender.

I get that you like Renly, but honestly in his last chapter all he does is insult his brother, then threaten Catelyn and talk about what a big man he is. Got what was coming to him..

Oh, and a murder can't be treacherous when you tell them beforehand you will kill them. If anything that's an open and upfront murder..

Just because he offered Stannis an opportunity to surrender doesn't even mean he did it for him, it would be a great benefit for Stannis to relinquish his claim to the Throne as that would make Renly the rightful heir when he takes over.

Really don't understand why you think Renly was being a nice guy or that he was affording him anything..

[Babeldygob]

The Targaryens were overhthrown. Whether it's for good reasons or not doesn't matter. They were overthrown and the rightful heir to the throne is now Stannis. Stannis won't bend the knee to a Targaryen with a claim that isn't even a claim. Imagine a long lost son of Julius Caesar claiming Europe for his own, because his daddy was killed and replaced...

[LuisDantas]

Which would make sense, if it wasn't for the very widespread opinion of Stannis as someone who would always choose the 'honorable' thing to do, in regards to the laws of Westeros (at least publicly, it seems). I can see why Renly would emotionally be quite disappointed with Stannis not accepting his offer, but I always thought he had a bit more brains than to think Stannis might even consider it.

Renly never thought Stannis would consider it. He knew his brother. But he ought to make the offer all the same, out of basic decency and courtesy.

In fact, Renly was so certain that Stannis would refuse his terms that he gave orders involving the dead body of his brother. There are those who see in that evidence that Renly's offer wasn't sincere, even.

Remember, it was Stannis that went (literally) out of his way in order to face Renly, not the other way around. Renly was very surprised that Stannis chose him as a target instead of the Lannisters.

That said, I would assume that Renly knew his brother well enough to understand that Stannis is not much of an honorable man. Davos certainly holds a high opinion of Stannis, but the actual facts show it to be an artifact of his perception, or perhaps a reputation no longer earned.

Other than arguably his scolding of Janos Slynt, nothing that Stannis does in ACOK, ASOS or ADWD suggests that Stannis has even average regard for honor.

On the other hand, he freely admits to Davos that he is hurt by his lack of prestige and is willing to bend rules to try and change that. And indeed, he has consistently bent and challenged rules, customs and traditions ever since in order to fulfill his ambitions. He brought discord and danger to the Night's Watch, put his closest followers on a fools's chase that drove them to famine and canibalism, and made no objection to putting those desperate people who followed him at the burning stake despite knowing full well that it was essentialy his own fault that they went to such depths.

I considered it quite ironic that Renly tried to win his dishonorable course of action (usurping his brother to claim the throne) with honorable means, whilst Stannis tried to win his more honorable course with dishonorable means - just one of those quirks that RR Martin threw in, showing it's not the typical fantasy novel.

Renly wasn't dishonorable, not in the slightest. Unsupported by the laws and with little regard for the blood succession customs, for certain. But that falls far short of dishonorability, particularly given how questionable are the rival claims. Never mind that the Iron Throne wasn't created out of honor but rather by force of arms in the first place, which makes the whole matter of considering Renly dishonorable weird to begin with.

There is irony at work here, but it is rather that Stannis consistently acts dishonorably yet keeps a discourse of being a bastion of honor - and, when out in the North, literally being the chosen one from God despite being cause and accomplice of dreadful human sacrifices and other crimes.

[Fearsome Fred]

Renly wasn't dishonorable, not in the slightest. Unsupported by the laws and with little regard for the blood succession customs, for certain. But that falls far short of dishonorability, particularly given how questionable are the rival claims. Never mind that the Iron Throne wasn't created out of honor but rather by force of arms in the first place, which makes the whole matter of considering Renly dishonorable weird to begin with.

Must the land be plunged into a bloody war every time power changes hands? The laws of succession protect everybody, and deserve to be honored for that reason alone.

Renly's bid for the throne was utterly contemptible.

Nor does it matter that others besides Stannis may have a colorable claim. Renly is certainly not one of them.

[mcb]

The Targaryens were overhthrown. Whether it's for good reasons or not doesn't matter. They were overthrown and the rightful heir to the throne is now Stannis. Stannis won't bend the knee to a Targaryen with a claim that isn't even a claim. Imagine a long lost son of Julius Caesar claiming Europe for his own, because his daddy was killed and replaced...

You might wanna rethink that example... Considering that when Julius Caesar got killed, his (adopted) son ruled the Roman Empire for forty years, as per Caesar's last will.