Stannis is the One True King

[LuisDantas]

I agree with you on that particular post you quoted..

However, I don't agree with your statement overall. I see little difference between assasinating a man in a war camp the night before a battle, and killing him on the battlefield. It's like the difference between sniping him in the trenches and machine-gunning him down in no man's land, if we wish to extend the WW2 comparisons.

World War I and, to a perhaps greater extent, WW II were a critical point in War history exactly because weapon technology reached such a level of destructive power and impersonality that the traditional references for rights and respect for one's foes were put at risk.

Historically, war was mainly caused by rivalries that ultimately had to do with a desire for lands, natural resources or even utter glory hunting. But it always involved putting oneself on the line in order to attain those goals. It was an effective, if bloody, solution for the perpetual dilemma of how on Earth are people going to find shelter and food for everyone: by killing those one disliked and putting oneself at risk on the stead of those one liked.

Less dramatically, the very ability of raising bannermen who will sweat to build, maintain, arm and feed armies was seen as a sort of evidence of deserving success. In a way, it was what the people had in place of open elections - and in some ways it was more fair than today's elections as well.

Technology has matured to the level where such criteria no longer really worked. But sociologically we are still falling behind of the responsibilities that such wondrously destructive weaponry bring us.

Once upon a time, firearms were despised precisely because they were unfair. They made a mockery of the skill and dedication of swordsmen and those who employed them. It is my understanding that bows and crossbows had a similar backlash against them.

The idea that it matters not - or, worse, that it is better - to butcher one's enemies at a distance without running any personal risk whatsoever instead of facing them at a battlefield honorably is a travesty that shows how distant today's warfare is from anything resembling honor.

[LuisDantas]

Ok, let's get it simple.

Hipocrites, fanatics, egotistics, necromancers, kinslayers and apostate should not be allowed to rule countries. Also people that start a war to get the crown on the argument that they do not like their nephew's hair color should be closed in a sanitary and definitely not allowed to rule.

You may say that these qualities of Stannis have nothing to do with succession rights.

I'm glad to see that we agree that Stannis belongs nowhere near any throne.

Usurper's brothers should not be taken seriously when they pretend to have succession rights: you can be legiptimist or you can raise banners for your brother against the rightful king. Not both, even if some year passed, even if you definitely don't like your nephew hair color.

Those who actually show power of leadership should be taken seriously. Simple as that.

PS: Please, let's not get too deep into this, but it isn't true.

Oh yes it is. We are actually prefering freaking drones now. What better ilustration could we want?

[StannisandDaeny]

Just because he's Robert's true heir (and again, he doesn't have actual proof of this), doesn't mean anything

Ok then, following your logic, if even that doesn't mean anything, and the only thing that matters is actually getting on the throne, everyone from the lowest born peasant to the highest lord can actually declare himself King and no one would have the right to oppose him. So at most what you're saying is Stannis has as much right to the throne as anyone else. I say, however, that he has more, because he had an important hand in creating and sustaining the current legacy more so than the other current Kings or pretenders, which is where he gets his legitimacy from. Support is all about rewards, no one will go to war without a reward in mind, and even though Stannis has gained almost nothing from his support of Robert's rebellion (the contrary, rather) this doesn't mean he doesn't deserve it.

As for proof, that he doesn't have proof is irrelevant to our judgement because we *know* he is the true heir. Apparently the proof he has (as close to proof as you're going to get with technology in Westeros) was threatening enough to convince the Lannisters to cut off Ned Stark's head for discovering it ^___^

And here's another interesting fact to the people saying he should have simply backed down from killing his brother who wanted to kill him: as a King you not only fight for yourself, but also for your subjects and your heirs. Stannis can't simply put his claim down since it is his responsibility to create a future for his bannermen and children as well. His legacy, as (show) Tywin would call it. The thing is, simply, no other man than Stannis Baratheon would have continued to do his task as King and defend the North (another proof he has the realm's best interests in mind) against these odds and you just can't stand it he's still around opposing monsters like Ramsay Bolten (hey, you know what, Stannis should totally put down his weapons and let HIM rule the North!) and the Freys, both honourless corrupt bastard houses supported by the current regime for their treasonous scheming.

[Malpka]

Another interesting thing - Stannis actually forgot about his honoronly twice:

First time, joining Robert in rebelion

Second time actually during talk with Renly - all he suppose to offer him was surrender - then execution or Wall ( end of the day Renly did commit high treason), instead he offered him place in Council and being his heir in case he wont have son.

Once upon a time, firearms were despised precisely because they were unfair. They made a mockery of the skill and dedication of swordsmen and those who employed them. It is my understanding that bows and crossbows had a similar backlash against them.

The idea that it matters not - or, worse, that it is better - to butcher one's enemies at a distance without running any personal risk whatsoever instead of facing them at a battlefield honorably is a travesty that shows how distant today's warfare is from anything resembling honor.

Bolded - you actually quoted (slightly changed) very first rule of war since the first war - the very reason why armor, castles, Wall appeared, reason why ambushes, terrain advantage are important part of warfare.

Firearms, and crossbows (not bows) were despised actually because they were blow to the very idea of nobility - because of them common villager (someone who was perceived as something between cattle and cannon fodder) all the sudden became match for a "noble knight", who all his life practiced combat, after few days of practice with either crossbow or firearm. So one may say that they actually make war more fair, than it was before.

Another question why people call Robert Usurper not Liberator?

Another thing, beside right, which make Stannis best candidate for a king - he doesn't actually want the throne - he is only going to take it because by right it belong to him.

[bbqq]

World War I and, to a perhaps greater extent, WW II were a critical point in War history exactly because weapon technology reached such a level of destructive power and impersonality that the traditional references for rights and respect for one's foes were put at risk.

Historically, war was mainly caused by rivalries that ultimately had to do with a desire for lands, natural resources or even utter glory hunting. But it always involved putting oneself on the line in order to attain those goals. It was an effective, if bloody, solution for the perpetual dilemma of how on Earth are people going to find shelter and food for everyone: by killing those one disliked and putting oneself at risk on the stead of those one liked.

Less dramatically, the very ability of raising bannermen who will sweat to build, maintain, arm and feed armies was seen as a sort of evidence of deserving success. In a way, it was what the people had in place of open elections - and in some ways it was more fair than today's elections as well.

Technology has matured to the level where such criteria no longer really worked. But sociologically we are still falling behind of the responsibilities that such wondrously destructive weaponry bring us.

Once upon a time, firearms were despised precisely because they were unfair. They made a mockery of the skill and dedication of swordsmen and those who employed them. It is my understanding that bows and crossbows had a similar backlash against them.

The idea that it matters not - or, worse, that it is better - to butcher one's enemies at a distance without running any personal risk whatsoever instead of facing them at a battlefield honorably is a travesty that shows how distant today's warfare is from anything resembling honor.

There is lots I disagree with here, but it would be a rather lengthy (and not completely on-topic) argument I don't currently have time for.. I'll just say that I don't consider one method of killing more morally right than another.

[StannisandDaeny]

Exactly, if he simply wanted personal gain he would have given up and simply consolidated his power because he never stood much of a chance to begin with. Even when he commanded larger hosts they gave him little choice: he had to march his host on King's Landing or lose them, and the Northmen would only follow him to liberate Winterfell. No doubt part of Stannis' motivation is also he has seen the corruption in King's Landing, such as Janos Slynt (things Robert did not care for), and wants to get rid of such figures.

edit: thanks for that bbq, you're completely right.

[Inara]

Ok, so my post totally disappeared. Not sure what happened when the site went down. But to sum up what I had said -

Robert's rebellion ended with Aerys and Rhaegar were killed, the first because of political dissatisfaction, the second for more personal reasons, but their children - Aegon, Rhaenys, Viserys, and Daenerys, were innocent of the charges laid at Aerys's feet. Aegon was the rightful Targaryen heir, and Viserys after him. If the problem was with the individuals and not the dynasty, the correct course of action would have been to install a regent until Aegon was of age (like what the Tyrells managed to do with Tommen, as Joffrey was deemed unsuitable).

But of course, Robert knew that he couldn't leave those children alive. They would have grown up angry and vengeful. Though he might not have personally killed (or try to kill) the Targaryen children, others did so, and he made no move to punish them, instead giving those crimes his silent approval. All of this can be considered a legitimate move by a new monarchy, and as difficult as it is to stomach, from his perspective, it had to be done.

The problem stems from the fact that he didn't dispute the right of the Targaryens to sit on the Iron Throne; instead, he validated it by using his heritage as justification for why he should be king over any other possible claimant. So really, his reign wasn't a new dynasty but continuing the old one, just through a more distant offshoot. Robert's hypocrisy - using his Targaryen blood to be king but denying the rightful heirs of Aerys - spat on the laws of succession. So the problem that Stannis (and Daenerys) is facing now is a direct result of the situation Robert created, in which the king with the right is denied by the king with the might.

If either gain the throne, they'll do as as new conquerers, not as a rightful ruler since Robert has proven that right doesn't matter. This means that Stannis doesn't deserve the kingship more than anybody else. Just because he's Robert's true heir (he doesn't have actual proof of this), doesn't mean anything because he can't actually get on the throne. It doesn't matter if Stannis is a better man than Robert or Aerys. It doesn't matter if he'll make the kingdom better or worse. He needs the support of allies to take the throne from a more terrible king, which puts him exactly where Robert was 20 years ago.

[Urien the Ragged]

Of all the kings fighting for control of Westeros, I stand behind Stannis Baratheon, I firmly believe throne is righty his and his claim is the best, Dany may be the mother of dragons and the chosen one the prophecy speak of send to mankind to fight the others, but Stannis is the rightful king of Westeros.

here's why,

The Targaryens came to Westeros and conquered the kingdoms and turned it into one big realm. Ok. But after three hundred plus years of incest to keep bloodlines pure, and horrible kings like Maegor the Cruel, Baelor the Befuddled, Aegon the Unworthy, and of course the Mad King, the people of Westeros finally had enough. And when the dragon prince kidnapped Lyanna and father and son Stark were murdered before the Iron Throne, that was the tipping point.

The people rebelled and went to war against the throne, they overthrew the Mad King, and they put a new king on the Iron Throne. That hilarious party drinking carouser Robert Baratheon. He may not have been a great king, but there was peace under him and Jon Arryn, even Ned Stark said the realm had 17 years, 17 good years under them.

To make a long point short, the people rebelled, they made Robert their new king, he dies, his "children" are really Jaime's bastards, so the throne belongs to Stannis. In my mind Dany has no claim. Dragons yes, but no claim to the throne. She may be chosen to fight the others yes, but by the rights of Westeros the throne isn't hers.

i know it's all a matter of perspective, that she feels the throne does belong to her because it was stolen from her family, but as the readers we know the truth, the people had enough of the Targaryens and put an end to their rule. maybe i'm just playing favorites because i think Stannis Baratheon is a badass and one of the best characters, but i thought i would share my thoughts on this matter on my first ever thread post. any thoughts, anyone?

what made the throne Robert's? a Targaryen grandmother and lots of swords.

The whole theme beind ASOIAF is that the throne belongs to whomever can take it by force, just as the throne of England belonged to Henry Tudor, who had a weak claim to the throne, but a campaigning mother and allies who were more enemies of Richard of Gloucester than friends.

Dany has dragons, an army, and a rightful claim to the throne above the usurper Baratheons, who are absolutely the definition of usurpers, no matter how nice or honorable they may be.

[Inara]

Ok then, following your logic, if even that doesn't mean anything, and the only thing that matters is actually getting on the throne, everyone from the lowest born peasant to the highest lord can actually declare himself King and no one would have the right to oppose him. So at most what you're saying is Stannis has as much right to the throne as anyone else.

Yes, Stannis has the same right as anyone else - even a peasant. Of course, the chances of anyone supporting someone of such low birth is extremely minimal, but if anyone would, it ironically would be Stannis. But people do have the right to oppose any contenders just as they have the right to support them, and that's my point. A well-loved and benevolent monarch has the love of his people and the support of his lords. That's where Aerys went wrong. Stannis believes that people should support him not because he'd make a good king but because his right is the lawful one - funny, that sounds like the guy his brother deposed. So what's the difference?

I say, however, that he has more, because he had an important hand in creating and sustaining the current legacy more so than the other current Kings or pretenders, which is where he gets his legitimacy from. Support is all about rewards, no one will go to war without a reward in mind, and even though Stannis has gained almost nothing from his support of Robert's rebellion (the contrary, rather) this doesn't mean he doesn't deserve it.

This is contradictory to the assertions you make about Stannis's character. If a man is so driven by duty that he ignores his own wishes, then he does not seek a reward. If all Stannis cares about doing what is right, then he shouldn't be so hung up over the things he thought he deserved but didn't receive.

And if we're going to talk about rewards - Tywin Lannister had a very big role in creating Robert's dynasty. Cersei was Robert's wife, and he's pretty much bankrolling the Seven Kingdoms. Jaime's murder of Aerys was what allowed Robert to take the throne. Even if Tommen and Joffrey are not Robert's trueborn heirs, they are grandchildren of the man who ran Aerys's kingdom and played a big role in Robert's. No doubt that's how Tywin feels - that he also played great a role in Robert's dynasty, and thus his family deserves some of the rewards as well.

Robb Stark's father was the reason Stannis was rescued from the siege at Storm's End. And yet I don't recall Ned asking for or even receiving a reward. And Ned, dutiful friend that he was, went to war for Robert again during the Greyjoy Rebellion. And when he found out the truth about Cersei's children, he tried to do something about it, instead of fleeing to Dragonstrone and hiding like Stannis did.

As for proof, that he doesn't have proof is irrelevant to our judgement because we *know* he is the true heir. Apparently the proof he has (as close to proof as you're going to get with technology in Westeros) was threatening enough to convince the Lannisters to cut off Ned Stark's head for discovering it ^___^

By now, the rumors of Tommen's illegitimacy has spread across the entire world. No one cares except for Stannis. Everyone else has heard these rumors, but Tommen has power and support, and no one is disputing his fitness to rule as Robert's heir. Even the High Septon is turning a blind eye. Nor does it matter to Daenerys, the other claimant to the throne, because whether he's Jaime's son or Robert's, Tommen and his family are her enemies.

And here's another interesting fact to the people saying he should have simply backed down from killing his brother who wanted to kill him: as a King you not only fight for yourself, but also for your subjects and your heirs. Stannis can't simply put his claim down since it is his responsibility to create a future for his bannermen and children as well. His legacy, as (show) Tywin would call it. The thing is, simply, no other man than Stannis Baratheon would have continued to do his task as King and defend the North (another proof he has the realm's best interests in mind) against these odds and you just can't stand it he's still around opposing monsters like Ramsay Bolten (hey, you know what, Stannis should totally put down his weapons and let HIM rule the North!) and the Freys, both honourless corrupt bastard houses supported by the current regime for their treasonous scheming.

Do you think Stannis would have gone north if Melisandre hadn't pushed the issue? Melisandre is a huge influence on Stannis, and if she had told him to go to the Summer Islands to fight pirates because it would help him become king, I think he'd do it too. I'm not saying that he doesn't have the best interests of the realm at heart, but I think without Mel, if Stannis had gotten that plea from Castle Black, he wouldn't have taken it any more seriously than the other lords in Westeros. Besides a handful of Northern lords and Tyrion Lannister, the Night's Watch is just a joking matter to the other houses.

And yes, I'm sure Stannis would never tolerate people like the Frey's and Boltons. But his intolerance for corruption doesn't change the nature of his own hypocrisy, and that's his acceptance of R'hllor. He forces his followers to accept this religion, punishing those who stand against it. He burns down Weirwoods, spitting on the Old Gods, which is an accepted religion in Westeros, and he forces the Wildlings to convert as the price for them to stay. But Stannis himself doesn't believe in R'hllor. It's just convenient for him pretend to worship the Red God when in reality, this guy's as atheist as they come in Westeros.

For a guy who claims to be so straight edge, I find his actions upon this matter hypocritical, and it speaks to me of a weakness in his character. He goes on and on about all the hard decisions he has to make and how he's fighting for the throne because it's his duty, but he's pretty quick to bend his own rules when it suits his purposes.

[mcb]

Another question why people call Robert Usurper not Liberator?

Because they are Targaryen loyalists.

Did anyone else call Robert an usurper?

Another thing, beside right, which make Stannis best candidate for a king - he doesn't actually want the throne - he is only going to take it because by right it belong to him.

Oh, yes, he wants it very much. He just claims differently, but really - when, precisely, did he act (not talked) like a man who doesn't want the throne?

[Noimporta]

Do you think Stannis would have gone north if Melisandre hadn't pushed the issue?

When inquired about his motive to come to the wall, Stannis specifically states that it was Davos who convinced him.

[StannisandDaeny]

You're saying there's no difference between Aerys and Stannis? Well, that's about as far as bias goes. I'm not even going to point out their differences since they're obvious enough to anyone willing to open his eyes for the man Stannis is and not the man you want to think he is.

Even if you're going to hold *your* perception of his character against him (which again has nothing to do with him being the rightful King, which he is) and the rules by which he fights, Stannis still easily comes out on top placed next to the instigators of the Red Wedding, the murderers of Ned Stark and the butchers of the Riverlands so I don't see the point in discussing any of this at all.

Ned Stark tried to do something about it yes. And he died. Here's proof that Stannis doesn't want to be King: he could have brought this matter up much earlier and revealed it to Robert, it was only after the Lannisters murdered his brother (which he's aware of) that he declared himself King. Though he (claims he) didn't love his brother, it's his duty to avenge him by eradicating the twisted scheming scum that is the Lannisters.

As for the matter of religion, did you grasp the difference between King's Men and Queen's Men? He does have unbelievers with him. He didn't force the Northerners currently (let's hope so) marching alongside him to worship the Red God either. So saying he's forcing everyone to believe in the Red God doesn't hold much ground either.

Following the arguments that the law is irrelevant, I suppose that means if someone has the power to kick you out of your house, nothing should be done against him either as long as he has the power. Or you could kick him out again once you have the power, until he returns with all his friends. And nowhere someone can say 'stop this madness, this house belongs to that person over there by the law!', instead, people will keep fighting forever. What is the end result? Anarchy. You see, your logic makes no sense and doesn't think of the broader spectrum, just a limited one where you can deny Stannis' claim. If you don't like him, just admit that, because there's no question Stannis is the one true king, and the best choice to top it off. Or would you rather see a boy king on the throne when the realm is threatened by the Others, one who worships gods that so far have appeared powerless, while Stannis has rallied his people behind the god that is the natural enemy of the Others? I think not. Refusing to use the knowledge we as a reader have ('bla bla he has no proof') to form your judgement is another indication of how biased you are towards King Stannis.

[Buried Treasure]

Here's proof that Stannis doesn't want to be King: he could have brought this matter up much earlier and revealed it to Robert, it was only after the Lannisters murdered his brother (which he's aware of) that he declared himself King. Though he (claims he) didn't love his brother, it's his duty to avenge him by eradicating the twisted scheming scum that is the Lannisters.

I don't like Stannis but I do agree he is Robert's heir and that makes him king (at least to everybody who gave Robert fealty- those who spent his reign in exile obviously can argue differently).

You are wrong with this point however, by not revealing the truth about Cersei's children to Robert Stannis made it more likely he would become king. As long as Robert remained ignorant he could not act to sire trueborn heirs - ensuring that Stannis would be the next rightful king. If Robert had been told the truth early enough he could have divorced Cersei (or executed her for treason) and remarried.

[StannisandDaeny]

Robert was surrounded and heavily influenced by Lannisters (as well as heavily reliant on them), his reaction is at most unpredictable and I'm more prone to believe he wouldn't believe his brother (because it meant losing face to him as well and he didn't really have much to win by it, save the loss of support of the Lannisters and a lot of debts to pay to the Iron Bank with no one to lend him money). And if he was convinced, Robert would have murdered Cersei and her children (I trust Ned's judgement on this since he knew him better than I do, I also think Ned would have had a better chance of convincing Robert since he had no stake in the matter and Robert didn't dislike him). I don't think that's something Stannis wants on his conscience, yes I do think he has one. I think Stannis was finally convinced to take up the crown when he saw how horrible the Lannisters were, murdering King Robert and Ned Stark both, not to mention the crap they pulled on the populace. When he declared himself King Joffry sat on the throne, who is not exactly a benevolent ruler, something that became even more clear by his treatment of Sansa. I do think Stannis still had his spies at King's Landing to know at least these basic things.

[LuisDantas]

Another interesting thing - Stannis actually forgot about his honoronly twice: First time, joining Robert in rebelion Second time actually during talk with Renly - all he suppose to offer him was surrender - then execution or Wall ( end of the day Renly did commit high treason), instead he offered him place in Council and being his heir in case he wont have son.

Uh? I honestly don't know what to make of this.

Bolded - you actually quoted (slightly changed) very first rule of war since the first war - the very reason why armor, castles, Wall appeared, reason why ambushes, terrain advantage are important part of warfare.

I have no idea what you mean here either. What would that first rule of war be?

Firearms, and crossbows (not bows) were despised actually because they were blow to the very idea of nobility - because of them common villager (someone who was perceived as something between cattle and cannon fodder) all the sudden became match for a "noble knight", who all his life practiced combat, after few days of practice with either crossbow or firearm. So one may say that they actually make war more fair, than it was before.

If one defines "fair" by some criteria adversarial to social classes, I suppose one might. Not sure I see the point here, either.

Another question why people call Robert Usurper not Liberator?

Not too many people do - not even Ser Barristan, who supports Daenerys, does. It really depends on the perspective of he who judges Robert.

Another thing, beside right, which make Stannis best candidate for a king - he doesn't actually want the throne - he is only going to take it because by right it belong to him.

That is just wrong on so many different levels...

[LuisDantas]

There is lots I disagree with here, but it would be a rather lengthy (and not completely on-topic) argument I don't currently have time for.. I'll just say that I don't consider one method of killing more morally right than another.

Your privilege.

I sure do consider a method of killing that involves a chance to fight back or surrender superior to one that involves tricking the other party into believing that there will be a truce until an accorded time, however.

I am weird that way.

[LuisDantas]

Exactly, if he simply wanted personal gain he would have given up and simply consolidated his power because he never stood much of a chance to begin with.

The books make it quite emphatically clear that Stannis is much too emotionally fragile to accept that.

For that matter, they also make it very clear that Stannis is starving for power and prestige.

Even when he commanded larger hosts they gave him little choice: he had to march his host on King's Landing or lose them, and the Northmen would only follow him to liberate Winterfell. No doubt part of Stannis' motivation is also he has seen the corruption in King's Landing, such as Janos Slynt (things Robert did not care for), and wants to get rid of such figures. edit: thanks for that bbq, you're completely right.

He has convinced himself of that, I suppose. Doesn't change the fact that he has consistently been willing to look the other way when it furthers his ambitions.

[StannisandDaeny]

Did you really need 3 posts in a row for that? You're very committed to bringing Stannis down aren't you?

Hungry for power and prestige? And suddenly that's a negative thing, too... That's only your interpretation, and funny coming from someone who is quite fond of Renly, lol. Against these odds, chances are bigger he'll lose the power he had, so that argument doesn't really work either. Stannis isn't emotionally fragile as you suggest, in fact, I'd say he's the most rigid character in the series when it comes to emotions, lol. Again, all this is irrelevant to his rightful claim, though, you're simply summing up the reasons you don't like him.

And wiling to look the other way, like when? When he gave Renly a choice to join him even after he'd become a condemned rebel, when he spared the lords who had become rebels fighting under Renly? When he cut off Davos' fingers? If you think Stannis 'looks the other way' it's pretty clear to me you don't understand his character at all. Obviously his convincing of the hill tribes proves he's also able to do more than simply say 'I'm the King, you should follow me!' as you're suggesting. It's a known fact Stannis told Robert to get of rid of Janos Slynt's corruptness, and Robert simply laughed it off. So he hasn't simply 'convinced' himself of that, it's simply the truth he's against corruptness, something King's Landing could very well use.

Stannis is a man who was despised already long before the start of the series despite his service to the realm, while everyone is unable to attribute *concrete* crimes to his name rather than their personal dislike of him: it was likely it was rather the Drunk King's (undeserved) dislike for him that caused everyone to follow this opinion like sheep.

[Inara]

You're saying there's no difference between Aerys and Stannis? Well, that's about as far as bias goes. I'm not even going to point out their differences since they're obvious enough to anyone willing to open his eyes for the man Stannis is and not the man you want to think he is. Even if you're going to hold *your* perception of his character against him (which again has nothing to do with him being the rightful King, which he is) and the rules by which he fights, Stannis still easily comes out on top placed next to the instigators of the Red Wedding, the murderers of Ned Stark and the butchers of the Riverlands so I don't see the point in discussing any of this at all. Ned Stark tried to do something about it yes. And he died.

Right, and your views have no bias at all?

What I said was that Aerys also had the right of kingship, and the belief that by blood he was owed the allegiance of every man. Stannis and Aerys shared that belief. That's quite different than saying that there's no difference between them. Nor did I say that Tywin, Ned, and Stannis were the same, only that Tywin and Ned also played a very big role in not just putting Robert in power but keeping him there, which means that if Stannis has a right to expect a reward for supporting Robert (which is a point you made, not me), so do they.

Basically, to sum up what I said, since I don't think you understood it, is that Stannis's belief in his right and his belief that he deserves his just rewards doesn't make him stand apart from all the other aspirants to the throne. It makes him one of them.

As for the matter of religion, did you grasp the difference between King's Men and Queen's Men? He does have unbelievers with him. He didn't force the Northerners currently (let's hope so) marching alongside him to worship the Red God either. So saying he's forcing everyone to believe in the Red God doesn't hold much ground either.

King's Men and Queen's Men - they are all his men. It was Selyse who ordered Lord Sunglass burned alive, but she is Stannis's queen. Same goes for Melisandre - whether Stannis knew about the Shadow Baby or not (I think he did, but we don't know for sure), Melisandre is in his service. She is committing murder in Stannis's name. She is burning down idols and Weirwoods and people. Whatever Selyse, Mel, and their men do, Stannis is accountable for that, otherwise he can't be a king. It's why the Martells blame Tywin for the death of Elia, even though it was Gregor Clegane who did the actual killing.

My point here is that Stannis himself doesn't believe any of Mel's visions. I don't think he even believes in the Azor Ahai prophecy. He just sees it as a means to an end and is just pandering to Melisandre's demands. And yet he's allowing others to believe in it on his behalf, and what's more, others are suffering for it as well. That is not honest.

Following the arguments that the law is irrelevant, I suppose that means if someone has the power to kick you out of your house, nothing should be done against him either as long as he has the power. Or you could kick him out again once you have the power, until he returns with all his friends. And nowhere someone can say 'stop this madness, this house belongs to that person over there by the law!', instead, people will keep fighting forever. What is the end result? Anarchy. You see, your logic makes no sense and doesn't think of the broader spectrum, just a limited one where you can deny Stannis' claim.

The funny thing is, you're right. This happens all the time. People use superior force and power over innocents all the time, even if those innocent people have the law and morality on their side. How many times have people lost their homes and their lives because of another man's greed and corruption? In both Westeros and the real world.

If a king cannot hold a throne, he can't be king. It doesn't matter if it's his right. This goes back to Aerys. He was a horrible king and lost the support of his lords. You contend that Aerys deserved to be removed from power even though he belonged on the throne by law. Robert and his friends kicked Aerys out because they had the power and the numbers.

I see what you are saying, that a rightful king is owed the support of his liege lords, that he shouldn't have to resort to force and power to keep his throne. But feudal monarchy has nothing to do with how good a king will be. It's about his bloodline and his right to rule. Stannis thinks he should be king not because of any innate qualities that might make him a better king but because of his right by blood. But it was Robert who changed that. Never mind that Aerys was a bad king. As far as Westeros was concerned, Aerys was the rightful king, and no one in Westeros disputes the legitimacy of the Targaryen dynasty, not even Stannis. Now Stannis wants to go back to the way things were, but he can't expect people to support his rights when his own family came into power by deposing Aerys, who despite his madness was still the rightful king.

If you don't like him, just admit that, because there's no question Stannis is the one true king, and the best choice to top it off. Or would you rather see a boy king on the throne when the realm is threatened by the Others, one who worships gods that so far have appeared powerless, while Stannis has rallied his people behind the god that is the natural enemy of the Others? I think not.

I don't recall ever stating that I dislike Stannis. I actually do like the guy. As a character, he's fascinating, and he has many qualities that other lords lack. I especially appreciate his willingness to see beyond a man's birth - I don't think even Ned Stark was that open minded. However, that doesn't mean I'm incapable of seeing his flaws. He is prone to hypocrisy and doesn't have the compassion to balance out his sense of justice.

Nor did I say that I did not wish to see Stannis on the throne. If I had to chose between the personal merits of him, Tommen, or Daenerys, I would choose Stannis.

But this thread is about whether Stannis, as Robert's heir, deserves to be king. And my answer to that was that he wasn't because of the reasons I already stated - 1. That his right doesn't matter because he can't back it up (his "proof" wasn't enough to sway people from supporting Tommen and that he doesn't have the support of most of his fellow lords), and 2. Robert's actions during the rebellion contradict the assertion that right is more important that might.

Refusing to use the knowledge we as a reader have ('bla bla he has no proof') to form your judgement is another indication of how biased you are towards King Stannis.

The readers know a lot of things. The characters in the novels don't. Stannis can't become king by convincing the readers. He has to convince his subjects. So while we may have irrefutable proof that Tommen is bastard born, all the other characters have is Stannis's assertion. The people that also knew for sure are either dead (Ned, Jon Arryn), won't do anything about it (Tyrion, Varys, possibly LF), or are a part of it (Jaime, Cersei).

I think Stannis was finally convinced to take up the crown when he saw how horrible the Lannisters were, murdering King Robert and Ned Stark both, not to mention the crap they pulled on the populace. When he declared himself King Joffry sat on the throne, who is not exactly a benevolent ruler, something that became even more clear by his treatment of Sansa. I do think Stannis still had his spies at King's Landing to know at least these basic things.

So you are saying that if Joffrey had been a good king despite being bastard born, Stannis would have been okay with it. By that same vein, if Joffrey had been trueborn but a horrible king, Stannis would have stood against him.

That pretty much contradicts everything we know about Stannis.

[Malpka]

Uh? I honestly don't know what to make of this.

That was stated for the people claiming Stannis lack of honour

I have no idea what you mean here either. What would that first rule of war be?

To inflict maximum damage on the enemy, with little to none casualties to your forces

If one defines "fair" by some criteria adversarial to social classes, I suppose one might. Not sure I see the point here, either.

That was just correction to your statement

That is just wrong on so many different levels...

It is not.

See what i did here?

This is contradictory to the assertions you make about Stannis's character. If a man is so driven by duty that he ignores his own wishes, then he does not seek a reward. If all Stannis cares about doing what is right, then he shouldn't be so hung up over the things he thought he deserved but didn't receive.

If you are talking about Stannis complaining about being send to Dragonstone instead of Sterom's End - he didn't want reward, Storm's End should go to him by law, as he was the older brother. Also not sure who state that in the book, but Robert send him to Dragonstone because he needed strong ruler there - meaning even Robert recognize Stannis wil be strong ruler.