Stannis is the One True King

[DornishKnight]

If Stannis has the right to have power passed down from a usurper, so that give anyone else the right to rise against Srannis?

That's the exact problem Robert's Rebellion created. Without the Targ line, the throne is meaningless. The Starks and Greyjoys were right, let the kingdoms go their own way.

[PrincessVal]

Well, everyone's claim can be justified in a way, except for Joffrey and Renly, (at least Joffrey didn't know, I think Renly had no business claiming anything). I mean, the throne is Dany's because it was taken from her father, it is Stannis' because he is Robert's only legitimate heir, the north is a free Stark kingdom because the Targs took it from them, and so on and so forth. Everything can be traced back to suit the claimant in question, everybody has the "birthright" one way or the other. I'd definitely pick Stannis over Dany though :). Stannis would clean house, Dany's more gullible to charismatic manipulation.

[Where Boars Glow]

Well, everyone's claim can be justified in a way, except for Joffrey and Renly, (at least Joffrey didn't know, I think Renly had no business claiming anything). I mean, the throne is Dany's because it was taken from her father, it is Stannis' because he is Robert's only legitimate heir, the north is a free Stark kingdom because the Targs took it from them, and so on and so forth. Everything can be traced back to suit the claimant in question, everybody has the "birthright" one way or the other. I'd definitely pick Stannis over Dany though :). Stannis would clean house, Dany's more gullible to charismatic manipulation.

His claim was....he could do it. He was elected by the masses. He was the king the lords and commoners would have chosen. He would have gotten away with it if Stannis hadn't gone evil blood magic on him.

[Lord Manwoody]

Why was Robert chosen to be king after the rebellion succeeded? Why was he said to have "the best claim"?

[Where Boars Glow]

Why was Robert chosen to be king after the rebellion succeeded? Why was he said to have "the best claim"?

He was the eldest son of one of the houses leading the rebellion and had a maternal connection of Targaryan blood.

[gogorath]

Baratheon, Arryn, Stark and Tully rebelled. Arryn had no heir and was older. The Tully's are not a great house and Edmure, the only direct young man, was much too young. Ned would have been the next option to Robert, but remember that he was both a second son until right before the rebellion, physically less imposing and less of a charismatic personality.

In addition to being big, bold, likable and a great warrior, and his tie to the Targaryens recently (grandmother, I think), the Baratheons are also descended from a Targaryens bastard.

[Brandon Martell]

I think the Targ blood claim for Robert is BS. His warhammer is his claim. Even if Robert didn't have a Targ grandmother, he'd still be king over Ned, because he's got character.

As for the discussion on the birthrights and stuff like that, the crown shouldn't be seen as a right. It's like what Varys said at the end of DwD. Ruling isn't a right, but a duty. If Ned only saw that, he would've went with LF and Renley and captured Joffrey.

Even though Dany has a strong claim, she'd be a horrible queen. I don't care if Aegon was a Targaryen or a Blackfyre or the son of some Lyseni whore. If he's a good ruler who will put the realm to peace, I'm all for him.

[STANN1SBARATHEON]

just thought i would reignite the debate with a quote from the show:

"Robert told me to hold Storm's End, so I held it. Then he told me he was giving it to Renly, so I gave it up. Insult or not, I gave it up. Because Robert was my older brother, and he was the king, and i've always done my duty. But now I'm the rightful king, by every law of Westeros."

when he said that on tv as the episode was airing on HBO, after he made that particular comment a friend and i turned to each other and nodded in agreement. 'cause my boy stan is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne

[Knight errant]

His claim was....he could do it. He was elected by the masses. He was the king the lords and commoners would have chosen. He would have gotten away with it if Stannis hadn't gone evil blood magic on him.

the commoners don't choose anyone the Tyrells did.

[Knight errant]

The Targs don't have a claim on the throne just because they built the damn thing...com'on maaannnnnn. In any case if you still go by that foolish principle then Stan the man still applies; the Baratheons are of Targ decent it's more like the Blackfyres took over than another family. If the Targs didn't want to lose their shit they should'nt have broken THEIR oath of fealty, it's a sword that cuts two ways and they fucked up their end in recent times. Not even Dany gets it she's such a terrible candidate. As bad as Cercsi.

Stannis for life.

[hiraeth]

My first impressions of Stannis was that he was kinda a scuzzball, but by the end of aDwD and the bonus chapter I found myself loving the guy. Justice-wise, he's the closest thing to a King Eddard we're ever going to get. Not the King Ned we need or deserve, but the King Ned we are stuck with, so to speak.

If Jon is alive, and if R+L=J - than he would be the best king for Westeros - imagine the mixture of Ned's upbringing with the Targ bloodline + exquisite leadership skills in the making at the Wall. He would be far better king than Stannis, with a much better claim then him, better upbringing than Aegon and better leadership skills than Dany. And, justice-wise, Jon is the closest thing to a King Eddar we're going to get... And imagine the surprise on Stannis' face when he learns he must bend the knee before the kid he threatened to many times a day... Although I like Stannis very much, enjoy his sense of humour, it seems to me that he would not be the best king, due to his lack of flexibility... His "my way or the highway" attitude is not a good recommendation for a future king...

[hiraeth]

Yes, every chance. Unless I missed some important scene. Or something happened off-panel, I suppose.

And perhaps also because he would rather not run the risk of being surrounded by enemies. Anyway, I fail to see how that involves denying Stannis any chance to surrender or give up.

Renly refused to turn his back to Stannis, but he never made a point of killing him.

I just don't see how acknowledging an army that is obviously coming after his territory amounts to refusing Stannis a chance to surrender.

No, it is not. Nor is it any evidence that he encouraged or even allowed them to kill Stannis if they could help it, either. You are assuming instructions that we never saw him give.

You can't blame Renly for realizing that Stannis is not a man who allows himself to be captured alive. Or maybe you disagree? The Stannis I picture simply wouldn't accept such a defeat. Am I misjudging Stannis in this regard, perhaps?

Yep. They did. So did Renly with respect to Stannis, who did not return the favor. Nor did Stannis bother to spare the lives of the smallborn Iron Islanders that he captured, or at least that what he tells Jon in the letter that we saw in Chapter 35, page 471 of ADWD.

Stannis has an unhealthy lack of regard for the human life, and he has shown that consistently for three books now (four if we include AFFC, but that would not be fair).

Nope, not by a long shot.

By that measure Stannis ought to be featured in one of the Saw movies by now.

Almost, actually.

There is an important distinction to be made between death by warfare and murder. Warfare is, at its best, a ritual of proud people taking the measure of each other to solve irreconciliable differences. It involves attempts at scaring the other side towards surrender or flight as much as it involves the display and actual use of martial power. When even minimally honorable, warfare also involves allowing and accepting said surrender or flight from one's opponents.

That is basically why murder and death in battle aren't interchangeable. Murder is meant to kill with no significant considerations of martial mettle, honor or ethics. Warfare is meant to be something else entirely.

Yes, it would. And it works both ways. It is just as true that Stannis would greatly benefit from giving up his own claim and supporting Renly instead.

For that matter, the benefits for everyone would indeed be far greater than if Renly supported Stannis instead.

I wonder why so many people bring the one scenario but not the reverse. Is the idea that Stannis "deserves" the throne _that_ much convincing?

But we all know that the brothers are psychologically incapable of living at the shadow of each other, so the whole matter is of academic interest only.

Uh, because he had the means and the opportunity - and yes, the right - to clean Stannis clock yet would rather not?

Would you let Renly rule your country? I wouldn't...

[Where Boars Glow]

Would you let Renly rule your country? I wouldn't...

I am not a huge Renly supporter....but i think he would have done a better job then any of the "Kings" since Robert.

[Kate Poem]

I am not a huge Renly supporter....but i think he would have done a better job then any of the "Kings" since Robert.

Maybe he would have done it, but not there, not in this time. He was "summer king". He had big army, powerful allies, charisma, beautiful queen, handsome Knight of Flowers, pretty clothes and tent full of things. He was loved by smallfolk. He was in Robert's Small Council as Master of Law and he ruled in Storm's End. He had loyalty of his bannermen.

Maybe Stannis's opinion about Renly's nonexistent work in Small Council was false, but we saw what Renly did when pregnant teenager's life was in danger - nothing. When Jon Arryn proved (?) before Robert Janos Slynt's corruption, Robert had all in his royal backside and Stannis protested - Master of Law said and did nothing.

Stannis is the One True King of Westeros, no one other.

[King Bobby B]

I don't think you can say anyone is the "one true king". As Renly says, anyone can "claim" the throne. The rule of the world has always been that if you can take it, it's yours. Whoever has the strength to keep the Iron Throne is the king of Westeros, and there will never be any one true king, because the throne will always be fought over.

[Knight errant]

If Jon is alive, and if R+L=J - than he would be the best king for Westeros - imagine the mixture of Ned's upbringing with the Targ bloodline + exquisite leadership skills in the making at the Wall. He would be far better king than Stannis, with a much better claim then him, better upbringing than Aegon and better leadership skills than Dany. And, justice-wise, Jon is the closest thing to a King Eddar we're going to get... And imagine the surprise on Stannis' face when he learns he must bend the knee before the kid he threatened to many times a day... Although I like Stannis very much, enjoy his sense of humour, it seems to me that he would not be the best king, due to his lack of flexibility... His "my way or the highway" attitude is not a good recommendation for a future king...

He'd be a terrible King. Fanboyism has clouded your judgement.

Edit: Let me explain my reasoning.

Good leadership : Constantly pisses off his men and purposely Alienates them - distances himself from them - that isn't good leadership. Robb (And Rob Bara and Eddard...) got to know their men and win their loyalty, Jon did not and in fact almost every encounter ignored the rather reasonable council of his advisers and didn't even try to change their views, causing more splitting away from him.

Upbringing: WHAT? Better than Aegon's? Although both of their heritages are unknown at the moment Aegon has a much better upbringing, he speaks multiple languages, has been trained much better than any average Lordling or their bastard son and understands ruling much better than most people in the Gots.

Justice wise: Yeah , guy's pretty sound and follows his conscience. Not much to say, really.

Stannis: He won't have to bend the knee to a disposed half bastard with a minor claim to the throne and then only if he conquers it. He'd slay him like Renly if he didn't bend the knee.

to Summarize he'd make a good master of Laws or small council member/ maybe Lord at best but as we can see from his stint as NW commander getting ceaser'd isn't being a good leader and nothing he does in that time is particularly good leadership, saying he's smarter than other candidates is folly too with the information we have on them, you're just saying that because you like the character - and he is a good character.

Also, his sense of humour haha, nice touch. Maybe he's just angry no one gets his jokes? :P

[Knight errant]

I am not a huge Renly supporter....but i think he would have done a better job then any of the "Kings" since Robert.

Then you are a fool, he's an ineffective fop who happened to be charismatic enough and lucky enough to meet a guy who'd pawn of his daughter to have some legitimate blood on a Throne. Tyrells after all are just lucky stewards themselves.

[Where Boars Glow]

Maybe he would have done it, but not there, not in this time. He was "summer king". He had big army, powerful allies, charisma, beautiful queen, handsome Knight of Flowers, pretty clothes and tent full of things. He was loved by smallfolk. He was in Robert's Small Council as Master of Law and he ruled in Storm's End. He had loyalty of his bannermen.

Maybe Stannis's opinion about Renly's nonexistent work in Small Council was false, but we saw what Renly did when pregnant teenager's life was in danger - nothing. When Jon Arryn proved (?) before Robert Janos Slynt's corruption, Robert had all in his royal backside and Stannis protested - Master of Law said and did nothing.

Stannis is the One True King of Westeros, no one other.

I don't understand how everything you just listed here makes Renly a bad king? In fact these are all good traits for a ruler? The ability to scream redfaced at the King...who was a drunk...and quick tempered.....and doesn't like you, seems more like something a dumbass would do then a great king.

Now personally i don't think that Stannis is a dumbass. mainly just socially awkward. Which is not a good trait for kingship.

[Where Boars Glow]

Then you are a fool, he's an ineffective fop who happened to be charismatic enough and lucky enough to meet a guy who'd pawn of his daughter to have some legitimate blood on a Throne. Tyrells after all are just lucky stewards themselves.

You call me a fool sir? :P

What makes you think forming an alliance between two massively powerful houses during a time of upheaval that allows you to jump the line of succession through force of arms and political savvy is luck?

When Ned spelled out his idiotic plan in Kings Landing and Renly tried to save him from himself...to no avail...was that luck?

I would say luck was having your estranged bored housewife join a cult which brought you a mistress who birthed demon assassins who murdered your brother before his inevitable triumph much closer to luck.

Then again i am a fool :)

[Nick Baratheon]

In my opinion this whole iron throne shit is ....well...shit !

I think the seven kingdoms should be seperated again, with 7 different kings.

Stannis for stormking!!!!