Why Stannis wouldn't be a good king

[E-Ro]

But in all honesty the best i can think of in westeros is doran martell, a perfect mixture if not for his gout.

Interesting, I wasnt expecting that.

[Nick Baratheon]

If the iron throne continues to exist ( actually my favourite outcome would be that the original seven kingdoms are restored ) Stannis is our man. With Kevan dead, I think he would make the best king of them all. A hard man is needed to guide the kingdoms through hard times!

The only actual flaw is that he has no heirs except Shireen, who doesn´t seem to be the brightest to begin with,and in addition is raised by Selyse. :ack:

[GallowsKnight]

Stannis is my king. I'll admit there's certainly some people out there who'd make better rulers, there's also a legion of people who'd be worse.

However this isn't a democracy, he is King by rights and King by deeds, I didn't see anyone else save the realm from Wildlings.

As for his rule it's true he is harsh and lacks charisma. But he is also just and fair, incorruptible to petty intrigues, a financial conservative and a talented commander. You get both good and bad.

Edit: You get Davos too. There a few men like him in all the kingdoms.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Which makes him even funnier than he was to begin with . I see I´ve finally found someone with a good sense of humor :grouphug:.

Yep... although sometimes I laugh at very inappropriate things. :grouphug:

That's just gibberish. First of all, there is no such thing as right of conquest, legally.

Well. you outlined this "gibberish" pretty well in your post. Thanks, by the way; I really didn't feel like fleshing it out.

What the term means is that you defeat your opposition and make them accept your terms. In dynastic conflicts, it generally means wiping out the opposition entirely.

I am quite aware of what the term means.

Secondly, after Robert kicked the Targaryens out, and the nobility swore allegiance to him, all succession is derived from Robert, as far as the law is concerned - Robert had your allegiance, and whoever is Robert's heir, inherits it. Yes, the Targaryens might come back, defeat the Baratheons, and pronounce them usurpers, but that doesn't matter for jack shit until the moment that they defeat whoever opposes that.

I agree. Also, you're referring to when Robert took Westeros through "right of conquest", therefore becoming the legal king. Thanks.

And Stannis will obviously die before renouncing his claim - from a legal perspective, he is 100% in the right.

Following your own logic, that you originally said was "gibberish":

1. House Baratheon is currently the house legally sitting the Iron Throne since Robert Baratheon took Westeros through "right of conquest".

2. Robert Baratheon left no true-born heir, leaving his brother--Stannis Baratheon--as his rightful heir.

3. No one else has claimed the throne through "right of conquest", therefore it still belongs to House Baratheon, meaning Stannis has the only rightful claim to the throne.

4. Stannis feels it is his duty to sit the throne that is rightfully his--and remove the woman he believes killed is brother and her abomination sitting the throne as a false Baratheon.

5. The moment someone else takes the throne through "right of conquest" they become the legal king in Westeros, meaning Stannis--a man ruled by the law--will no longer have the rightful claim--in the eyes of the law--to the Iron Throne.

Your original point was that Stannis will die trying to get the throne because he will "abide the law or die".

My point is that--contrary to your original point--if Stannis is still alive when someone else conquers the Iron Throne, which is likely to happen considering the number of claimants, I doubt he will fight to the death to take a throne that is no longer his by law. That will also give Stannis time to fight the "big bad" that is coming for Westeros.

I'll admit, maybe there was some mis-communication as to what you and I were trying to imply with our statements, because I was rushing through the thread; but that was no excuse for you to rudely dismiss my comments as "gibberish", especially when your own post validated my comments.

Dear whoever started this retarded hate thread

Don't you know the first rule ?

- don't annoy the stan stans!

:agree:

[Loon Lord]

Who likes Mace Tyrell anyway? Stannis could make a lot of friends by naming Randyll Tarly the new Lord Paramount of the Reach. Some of the Reachlords don't like Mace all that much, they think his weak, and even his own mother calls him a stupid oaf.

Gregor and Ramsay are cruel. Stannis isn't. He's just.

Yes a lot of the reach lords think they should replace Mace Tyrell but there are so many of them that if one was appointed lord the others would revolt. I think Stannis is most likely to give the Reach to the Florents and there are a lot more people loyal to Mace Tyrell than to Axell Florent. If Stannis were King he would try to crush every major house that has wronged him in the past (Lannisters and Tyrells mainly) and this would create another major civil war in Westeros. Too many people hate Stannis for him to actually sit the throne.

I called him cruel mainly because of his treatment of Maester Cressen in the ACoK prologue. That was inexcusable

[Kate Poem]

If Stannis were King he would try to crush every major house that has wronged him in the past (Lannisters and Tyrells mainly) and this would create another major civil war in Westeros.

I think You are wrong. Stannis will be remember Storm's End, Renly's revolt and Mace Tyrrell in all of it, but... he would be good king. He could'nt begin his reign from something so stupid like crushing major houses of Seven Kingdoms without very important reasons. Westeros will be bloodied, winter is coming, nothing more will be more important than peace and order. Do You think Stannis does'nt know about it? Who talked with Braavosian, who made some deal with Iron Bank? Cersei?

Too many people hate Stannis for him to actually sit the throne.

Did You ask yourself why too many people hate/hated king Stannis? Littlefinger? Varys? Joffrey? Tyrrells? Lannisters? Slynt?

Did You ask yourself who is loyal to him or who is'nt/was'nt his enemy or who was neutral? Eddard Stark? Jon Arryn? Davos Seaworth? Jon Snow? Night's Watch? Deepwood Motte's trueborn owner?

I called him cruel mainly because of his treatment of Maester Cressen in the ACoK prologue. That was inexcusable

You're right. Maester Cressen loved him. It WAS inexcusable. But... who said "stop this, woman?"

[TheCube]

Stannis would make a good king, because he is just.

He would also make a bad king, because he's a religious fanatic (or backed by them) who burns people for his god.

[Nictarion]

He had his own brother killed by a demon. Who knows what he and Mel would do with unlimited power. He woukd probably end up another mad king killing people for the smallest infractions or slight to him.

[a free shadow]

I'm sorry if there already was a thread about this, but I was thinking who would be the best king of Westeros and I discovered why Stannis wouldn't:

He is so just that he would finish offending every powerful house and the result would be civil war and rebellions.

So, what do you think?

Good observation :ninja: I was usually thinking about his morals (that are one in theory and different in practise), while deliberating, if he is fit to be king.

Strictly thinking, he should punish almost every house (major or not) for treason. And the "just" punishment for treason is not simply gold or a few fingers. So not many would suffer him long enough for him to do any good that he might be capable of (which I doubt again).

[GallowsKnight]

He had his own brother killed by a demon. Who knows what he and Mel would do with unlimited power. He woukd probably end up another mad king killing people for the smallest infractions or slight to him.

His brother who was a traitor and was planning on killing him, was killed by a type of magic which we haven't yet seen if it's allegiance is to good or evil. An event that happened only with indirect approval from Stannis.

When we see her POV the biggest issue with Melissandre isn't that she's some power-hungry monster, but that she's a well-meaning fanatic who exaggerates her competence.

We see that Stannis can be reasonable in his judgement. He pardons (if not forgets) the Lords who swore to Renly. While he punished Davos, we see that smuggling can often merit death, so in a way it was lenient.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

He would also make a bad king, because he's a religious fanatic (or backed by them) who burns people for his god.

He has burned criminals, not just random people. There is a difference there, however slight it may be.

And before I am misquoted or my comment is taken out context; it is morally wrong for Stannis to burn people.

He had his own brother killed by a demon.

:bang: It was not a demon.

Who knows what he and Mel would do with unlimited power. He woukd probably end up another mad king killing people for the smallest infractions or slight to him.

What you are implying goes against everything we know about Stannis Baratheon.

[The Great Walrus]

He had his own brother killed by a demon. Who knows what he and Mel would do with unlimited power. He woukd probably end up another mad king killing people for the smallest infractions or slight to him.

I...I cannot comprehend the sheer stupidity and ignorance in this statement...

[Talleyrand]

Because his closest adviser is (as well as himself slightly) a religious fanatic for the wrong religion in nation swept up in religious fervor and support for the 7. When they were willing to arrest and try the Queen and Queen Mother on charges of adultery how do you think they're going to react to the man who goes around burning symbols of their religion and people who stand up for it.

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

His brother who was a traitor and was planning on killing him, was killed by a type of magic which we haven't yet seen if it's allegiance is to good or evil. An event that happened only with indirect approval from Stannis.

When we see her POV the biggest issue with Melissandre isn't that she's some power-hungry monster, but that she's a well-meaning fanatic who exaggerates her competence.

We see that Stannis can be reasonable in his judgement. He pardons (if not forgets) the Lords who swore to Renly. While he punished Davos, we see that smuggling can often merit death, so in a way it was lenient.

:agree:

[The Great Walrus]

Because his closest adviser is (as well as himself slightly) a religious fanatic for the wrong religion in nation swept up in religious fervor and support for the 7. When they were willing to arrest and try the Queen and Queen Mother on charges of adultery how do you think they're going to react to the man who goes around burning symbols of their religion and people who stand up for it.

Not exactly accurate, but okay...

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Because his closest adviser is (as well as himself slightly) a religious fanatic

Stannis is not in the slightest a religious fanatic; and his closest adviser is Davos, not Mel.

for the wrong religion in nation swept up in religious fervor and support for the 7. When they were willing to arrest and try the Queen and Queen Mother on charges of adultery how do you think they're going to react to the man who goes around burning symbols of their religion and people who stand up for it.

When Stannis gets enough men to take King's Landing, I'm sure he will have the power to deal with the Faith Militant.

[Talleyrand]

Not exactly accurate, but okay...

Which part is inaccurate?

[GallowsKnight]

Because his closest adviser is (as well as himself slightly) a religious fanatic for the wrong religion in nation swept up in religious fervor and support for the 7. When they were willing to arrest and try the Queen and Queen Mother on charges of adultery how do you think they're going to react to the man who goes around burning symbols of their religion and people who stand up for it.

I don't know the Red Religion could be dangerously tempting to a lot of commonfolk. The priests and priestesses possess obvious power, it's very flashy and it's a religion focused on conversion like Islam.

I could honestly see it spread in a place like the Riverlands (thanks to the BWB) where the commonfolk have been devestated despite their faith in the Seven.

[Talleyrand]

Stannis is not in the slightest a religious fanatic; and his closest adviser is Davos, not Mel.

Burning symbols of other religions and allowing people to be burned is one of the few indicators that someone might be a bit of a fanatic. Plus Davos is a tad out of commission right now

When Stannis gets enough men to take King's Landing, I'm sure he will have the power to deal with the Faith Militant.

So his solution after just winning a no doubt hard fought civil war is to fight another one?

[Lady Tippy Wolfsbane]

Burning symbols of other religions and allowing people to be burned is one of the few indicators that someone might be a bit of a fanatic. Plus Davos is a tad out of commission right now

I disagree. They are indicators that Stannis does not believe in the gods and it questioning the power of R'hllor.

Also, so is Mel as far as Stannis is concerned.

So his solution after just winning a no doubt hard fought civil war is to fight another one?

He would have no choice if the Faith Militant rose against him.