Did Stannis wanted Robert Baratheon to Die?

[Seven Bloody Hells]

Stannis could read the writing on the wall. He did feel slighted about not being named hand after Jon Arryn, but realized there was no way to prove the incest, so he got out before things got out of hand.

[Antler's Fury]

He bitches about his duty to the realm, but when he could have put his ambitions aside, supported Renly, and done something that truly helped the realm he chose not too.

So Stannis uphoding his lawful ambitions is somehow worse than helping Renly uphold his greedy ambitions?

I'm not defending Renly, he was a smug little shit, but Stannis could have been the better man and chose not too.

How is acquiescing to usurpation being the better man?

Stannis could never have gained the Tyrell alliance like Renly did and the only reason Mace supported Renly was cause he made Margaery his queen.

So Mace was also a greedy, usurping piece of shit. Fuck the Tyrells.

If Renly hadn't declared himself then the Tyrells probably would have reached out to the Lannisters sooner (or vice versa) and Stannis would have been even more fucked than he is now.

Actually, they don't agree to the marriage alliance until just before Blackwater, and only barely save Joff's sorry ass. If Renly had just bent the knee to Stannis, then the Blackwater invasion could have happened long before the Tyrell alliance, and before Tyrion's arrival in KL. With no Tyrells, and no chain, the city falls, and Joff's head ends up on a spike. Then the Tyrells have no choice but to declare for Stannis and satisfy themselves with marrying Renly.

[Draco_Dracul]

Not so much want, as apathetic to and willing to exploit Robert's death. He wouldn't have tried to actively kill Robert, but he did nothing to save him and would have continued to do nothing to save him (he had a whole year to try and do so after all). Doing nothing would have little chance of having negative consequences for him, unless both the incest and the fact that he knew about the incest became known, then he would have still gone to the wall, but as just another prisoner.

[Lord Varys]

I think we can compare Stannis to Prince Maekar in this whole affair. Maekar retreated to Summerhall after Aerys I ascended the Iron Throne and did not name him Hand of the King. Maekar served on his father's Small Council, but he did not want to continue to serve there under Aerys in any other capacity as Hand of the King.

Maekar apparently considers Bloodraven to be not trustworthy, perhaps even as a danger to Aerys and his brother Rhaegel and his children (at least insofar as he might believe that Uncle Bloodraven may intend to usurp the throne for himself). Yet he refuses to help Aerys against this real or imagined threat.

When Jon Arryn dies, Stannis has no proof whatsoever that 1. he was poisoned and 2. that Cersei's children were not Robert's children. He may have gone to Robert, he may have done everything in his power to help him, but that could only have worked if Robert had trusted him. As Robert's Hand, Stannis would have had the authority and the opportunity to investigate Jon Arryn's death as well as Cersei and her children. But going to Robert with an incest-and-poison story without any proof after Robert had just shown that he did not want Stannis in a position of power and authority would have only led to his own demise. If Robert had not trusted Stannis in this, Cersei may have well tried and succeeded in convincing Robert to try and execute Stannis for treason. For the very least, Stannis may have been exiled.

Sure, Stannis could have stayed at court to try to convince Ned the way he had convinced Jon Arryn to look into things. But Jon Arryn was killed, and he had any reason to believe that Cersei would murder him as well before he had any opportunity to talk to Ned and/or Robert. So getting out of KL was a smart move, essentially the same thing Lysa did.

The possibility to recruit Renly to his cause was slim. We learn in ACoK that Stannis knew about Renly's intentions to make Margaery Robert's new queen. That indicates that Stannis suspected that Renly would be no help in this.

Then there is also Stannis's personality to consider: He had serious issues with Robert, issues that extended to Ned as well. He did not want to serve under Ned Stark. Just as Maekar was not willing to serve under Bloodraven.

Stannis assessment was correct in my opinion. He knew that he would never survive Jon Arryn if he stayed at KL. Especially since he most likely deduced that many of the other powerful players at court - Varys, Littlefinger, Pycelle - had also figured out the truth about the incest, and may have their own reason to prevent the truth from coming out. He did not know or suspect that Lysa and Littlefinger killed Jon Arryn, but he must have been very aware that neither Littlefinger nor Varys wanted him to succeed Robert (if only to prevent him from firing/executing them). So he would have assumed that they would have been as motivated as Cersei to get rid of him. They might have produced evidence of him lying about Cersei had he gone to Robert, or they might have assassinated him before he had the chance.

[Sullen]

How is acquiescing to usurpation being the better man?

Because murdering your brother and starting a war (Or at least, prolong one) is considerably worse than acquiescing to usurpation?

[Djinn]

Because murdering your brother and starting a war (Or at least, prolong one) is considerably worse than acquiescing to usurpation?

Publicly accepting the precedent of usurpation for greed would lead to a continuous state of war anyway. After all, why shouldn't Loras or Garlan feel that they are more fit to rule Highgarden? Why should Bran or Rickon be loyal to Robb? Or Oberyn to Doran? You end up having is the current Frey situation, where everyone is fighting everyone. You know, by that reasoning, Euron should rule the Ironborn, and since they see themselves as more fit that the greenlanders, they should take what is theirs.

[David Selig]

Publicly accepting the precedent of usurpation for greed would lead to a continuous state of war anyway. After all, why shouldn't Loras or Garlan feel that they are more fit to rule Highgarden? Why should Bran or Rickon be loyal to Robb? Or Oberyn to Doran?

Well, there are plenty of usurpation precedents already, the most successful and recent one of which had Stannis as a major participant in it, so it wouldn't change much if anything.

Besides, most people would see Stannis as an usurper out of greed too if he succeeds, his incest claim is without any proof as he admits himself.

[Sullen]

Well, there are plenty of usurpation precedents already, the most successful and recent one of which had Stannis as a major participant in it, so it wouldn't change much if anything.

Besides, most people would see Stannis as an usurper out of greed too if he succeeds, his incest claim is without any proof as he admits himself.

Yup, Djinn seems to forget that Stannis is publicly seen as an usurper as well.

Thousands suffered from Stannis's stubbornness and pride, Stannis himself being the first of them.

[Djinn]

But it's the motivation for usurpation that's in question. Renly is just usurping a throne, he's doing it to his own family, without a serious cause. He doesn't claim incest, treason or murder from Joffrey or Stannis. He just usurping because he wants the power. Anyone that supports this is supporting the collapse of the Westeroosi inheritance laws.

[Sullen]

But it's the motivation for usurpation that's in question. Renly is just usurping a throne, he's doing it to his own family, without a serious cause. He doesn't claim incest, treason or murder from Joffrey or Stannis. He just usurping because he wants the power. Anyone that supports this is supporting the collapse of the Westeroosi inheritance laws.

Renly claims to be usurping Joffrey, not Stannis.

And he's doing so because Joffrey king gives all the power to the Lannisters, I'd say preventing a power grab is a serious cause.

Also Renly didn't want power, he simply wanted the Lannisters out, as we can see in A Game of Thrones.

[Djinn]

Yup, Djinn seems to forget that Stannis is publicly seen as an usurper as well.

Thousands suffered from Stannis's stubbornness and pride, Stannis himself being the first of them.

And Ned was seem as a traitor, the Tyrell's as honorable and Doran as loyal. Public perception =/= reality. Interesting, you seem to imply that nobody suffered or would suffer from Renly's greed and disloyalty. Oh,if only Bran had warged Robb off a cliff, the North would be better. If Pono had cut Daenerys heart out, many wouldn't be suffering. If Tyrion had died, many wouldn't have burned alive.

[Sullen]

And Ned was seem as a traitor, the Tyrell's as honorable and Doran as loyal. Public perception =/= reality. Interesting, you seem to imply that nobody suffered or would suffer from Renly's greed and disloyalty. Oh,if only Bran had warged Robb off a cliff, the North would be better. If Pono had cut Daenerys heart out, many wouldn't be suffering. If Tyrion had died, many wouldn't have burned alive.

People aren't asking for Stannis to die, they're asking him to refuse the Crown... BIG difference.

And public perception is all that matter, power only resides where people believe it does. Stannis will be remembered for trying to usurp the Throne out of greed, he will set a precedent for future usurpers wanting to sit their asses on the Throne.

[danm_999]

People aren't asking for Stannis to die, they're asking him to refuse the Crown... BIG difference.

In practice though, any dynasty that is founded which "skips" Stannis, even if it's voluntary, is going to have him deal with overtly or covertly at some point, if only to prevent him becoming a rallying point of opposition to whoever sits the throne.

The only way to escape this would be to join the Night's Watch, which is rather a bit more than refusing the Crown, and the series has demonstrated even those who have joined the Night's Watch are not considered above political reproach.

[Rhymes with Weak]

Honestly, this whole situation of Stannis fleeing Kingslanding never really made sense to me as this action really didn't really fit his character. I think GRRM included to move the plot forward. Imagine if Stannis did what he was supposed to and told Robert, the story would've gotten a whole lot less complex. You have to remember that Stannis' character written in GoT was not fully fleshed out yet, as he was in the later novels.

[Antler's Fury]

Not so much want, as apathetic to and willing to exploit Robert's death. He wouldn't have tried to actively kill Robert, but he did nothing to save him and would have continued to do nothing to save him (he had a whole year to try and do so after all).

What could he have done? Robert wouldn't believe that his accusations were anything more than self serving slander, and he did not have the men to help Robert in the event of a confrontation in the capital. Whatever his next move was, he knew he'd need what strength he could muster, hence his retreating to his castle and summoning his forces.

Doing nothing would have little chance of having negative consequences for him, unless both the incest and the fact that he knew about the incest became known, then he would have still gone to the wall, but as just another prisoner.

Ned knew about the incest and that Stannis knew. Yet, he was willing to crown him, not send him to the Wall.

[JonathanTheBold]

Those quotes from Stannis do seem to reflect that he didn't want to be King. Interesting.....

I must have forgotten about those.

Why do you think that he didn't send a Raven to Winterfell so Eddard could inform Robert?

I know that Robert was always surrounded by Lannisters in Kings Landing so it probably would have been hard to do there, but I can't think of a reason not to inform your brother's best friend Eddard. There weren't any Lannisters in Winterfell as of yet to see the contents of the letter, they all traveled North with Robert. Stannis had no problem sending out the Ravens when he made his own claim to the throne. Why not sending out a Raven to possibly protect your brother?

If Stannis was afraid of the Lannisters to the point where he would flee to Dragonstone, doesn't it reason that in addition to fearing for your own safety, you would also fear for your Brother's safety?

Because to level and accusation at someone an make it credible you need evidence and he had none

[Sullen]

In practice though, any dynasty that is founded which "skips" Stannis, even if it's voluntary, is going to have him deal with overtly or covertly at some point, if only to prevent him becoming a rallying point of opposition to whoever sits the throne.

The only way to escape this would be to join the Night's Watch, which is rather a bit more than refusing the Crown, and the series has demonstrated even those who have joined the Night's Watch are not considered above political reproach.

Thing is, Renly claims to be usurping Joffrey, not Stannis. If Stannis never crowns himself, there is no succession issue.

And even if Stannis has to be put aside, what's so bad with joining the Watch then? It's a dutiful fate, and would bring great service to the Realm, and Stannis claims to be all about duty.

[Antler's Fury]

Well, there are plenty of usurpation precedents already, the most successful and recent one of which had Stannis as a major participant in it, so it wouldn't change much if anything.

Besides, most people would see Stannis as an usurper out of greed too if he succeeds, his incest claim is without any proof as he admits himself.

The difference is that previous rebellions claimed to be upholding the laws of succession. Aegon II claimed to be Viserys' rightful heir during the Dance of the Dragons, and Daemon Blackfyre claimed to be the true heir of Aegon IV, claiming that Daeron II was in fact Aemon Dragonknight's bastard son. Robert did not claim to be the rightful heir to anything, but was rebelling against an insane, murderous king.

In contrast, Renly is doing neither. He's claiming the crown simply because he can. He doesn't claim to be Robert's rightful heir, and doesn't even use Joff's insanity is justification for rebelling. Even if he did, that would only justify rebellion, in the same way that Ned or Jon Arryn fought against Aerys. It would not justify his crowning himself. Using this same logic, Loras could rebel against Wilas for Highgarden, Oberyn against Doran for Sunspear, etc and the Ironborn can steal other people's stuff simply because they can, leading to perpetual civil war and inter-family fighting, which the Freys exemplify.

[Antler's Fury]

Renly claims to be usurping Joffrey, not Stannis.

He was usurping both, since as far as he was concerned, his claim was inferior to both of theirs.

And he's doing so because Joffrey king gives all the power to the Lannisters, I'd say preventing a power grab is a serious cause.

That justifies rebellion in Stannis' name. Not his own.

Also Renly didn't want power, he simply wanted the Lannisters out, as we can see in A Game of Thrones.

He wanted power once Robert was dead. That's why he crowned himself, after all. If he just wanted the Lannisters out, he would not have crowned himself, but just fought against Joff in Stannis' name.

And public perception is all that matter, power only resides where people believe it does. Stannis will be remembered for trying to usurp the Throne out of greed, he will set a precedent for future usurpers wanting to sit their asses on the Throne.

So he should have just let Joffrey and his treasonous family rule? As Robert's true heir, Stannis had an obligation to Robert, to Shireen, and to the realm, to fight the Lannisters and take his rightful crown. Renly had a similar obligation to support Stannis, not crown himself. If Stannis won, he'd be remembered as saving the kingdom from the Mad Queen Cersei and her abominable spawn born of incest.

And even if Stannis has to be put aside, what's so bad with joining the Watch then? It's a dutiful fate, and would bring great service to the Realm, and Stannis claims to be all about duty.

Why should he set aside the crown to support Renly's greed and delusions of grandeur? All of this could have been avoided if Renly had just done his duty to Stannis the same way he did his duty to Robert. Instead, he got greedy, and paid the price.

[Djinn]

Renly claims to be usurping Joffrey, not Stannis.

And he's doing so because Joffrey king gives all the power to the Lannisters, I'd say preventing a power grab is a serious cause.

Also Renly didn't want power, he simply wanted the Lannisters out, as we can see in A Game of Thrones.

Renly is usurping everyone in front of him in the line.

A king can nominate is own council. Was Joffrey threatening to strip Renly of SE? Nope. Renly wanted the throne and so did the Tyrell's. When Robert's took power, the Baratheons took over, and that benefited Renly. But know, there's a new King and he wants someone else, how dares he to remove some of Renly's power! Rebellion!

Renly wanted power, so much that he offers to help Ned in taking over. But when Ned refuses to share power with Renly and deliver the Crown to Stannis, Renly bolted. Just like LF.

People aren't asking for Stannis to die, they're asking him to refuse the Crown... BIG difference.

And public perception is all that matter, power only resides where people believe it does. Stannis will be remembered for trying to usurp the Throne out of greed, he will set a precedent for future usurpers wanting to sit their asses on the Throne.

Public perception toughed that Rhaegar would crush Robert. Most don't think LF and Varys are that powerful, and yet...

Renly was trying to usurp out of greed and he would set the precedent for continuous usurpations and civil war.