Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Harrad

Who Deserves to Rule Westeros?

Recommended Posts

That is a question that is much debated. Stannis because he was Robert's oldest remaining brother...Daenerys because she is daughter of last dynast...etc..etc...Is GRRM's point that none of them do? Maybe Mance Rayder (or his successor) has the best claim since the modern view of human society seems to favor a more democratically chosen leadership. Hereditary rulers are out of favor except in places like North Korea and Syria. For good reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stannis and Daenerys together.

..says StannisandDaeny

I don't have a problem with this, but the two of them will. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about "deserving". Besides, why would you want to condemn anyone to that?! I'm not sure I would wish ruling the Seven Kingdoms on my worst enemy! I doubt I could bring myself to hate them quite that much ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaime Lannister. turns out hes actually Azor Ahai............... who knew.............mock me now but youll eat your words i mean its not impossible he was born of castelery rock beside the sea (salt and smoke) . stone dragons could be metaphorical and well oathkepper. any way hes the kings uncle and father really it could happen. also i think Victarion Greyjoy will sit the iron throne but will be defeated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King Tommen, the First of His Name, of Houses Baratheon and Lannister.

Don't you think he's a bit young?

A Lannister would be great though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really think Stannis deserves to rule? The point of GRRM that he makes over and over (think about it)--is that none of these clowns deserve that. Stannis has one thing going for him...he was a decent warrior, but not nearly as good as his older brother or even Ned Stark...or probably Selmy or Jaime. He's more bloodthirsty than the Hound: he murdered his own brother before the Hound could murder his. His claim is that he is the oldest surviving brother of the leader of the rebellion against the last "legitimate King." Likewise Daenerys is the last survivor of the that same previously "legitimate King." The point of a hereditary monarchy is that its a bad system of government. Why? Because bad people like Good King Jeoff and the Mad King Targayeon inevitably come to power. It in the genes. The Wildlings chose their Kings, and they have to remain worthy to stay Kings. Not sure if they have formal term limits but it amounts to that. I get the feeling that most of the humans on Earth--nevermind Westeros--would vote to have a King--and thus lose their votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people really think Stannis deserves to rule? The point of GRRM that he makes over and over (think about it)--is that none of these clowns deserve that. Stannis has one thing going for him...he was a decent warrior, but not nearly as good as his older brother or even Ned Stark...or probably Selmy or Jaime. He's more bloodthirsty than the Hound: he murdered his own brother before the Hound could murder his. His claim is that he is the oldest surviving brother of the leader of the rebellion against the last "legitimate King." Likewise Daenerys is the last survivor of the that same previously "legitimate King." The point of a hereditary monarchy is that its a bad system of government. Why? Because bad people like Good King Jeoff and the Mad King Targayeon inevitably come to power. It in the genes. The Wildlings chose their Kings, and they have to remain worthy to stay Kings. Not sure if they have formal term limits but it amounts to that. I get the feeling that most of the humans on Earth--nevermind Westeros--would vote to have a King--and thus lose their votes.

1) Stannis main point isn't that he's a warrior. Also, we haven't seen Robert being very good at tactics. He was a powerful fighter, but as a king, and as a military tactician, I feel like Robert isn't very good at it.

2) How's he bloodthirsty? He killed Renly because he had to, or at least how he saw it. He's doing everything he can for the throne. Stannis was perfectly fine with giving Renly Storm's End if Renly bent the knee, but Renly chose to defy him. Stannis knew he couldn't win against Renly's massive army of 100 thousand men, so he assassinated Renly instead. It was cruel, and brutal, but necessary for war. Stannis wasn't happy with it. One of GRRM's main messages in these books is that in order to obtain and hold power, you need to do anything necessary, even if it's not entirely honorable. Ned, Rhaegar, Jon Arryn, etc. all died from honor. Tyrion, Tywin, and Stannis all have had more successes with doing what's necessary. They're basic Machiavellian principles. Also, the Hound mention makes no sense. The Hound didn't kill Gregor because he was unable to. Gregor is a lot more skilled, commands more power, was far away from him, and trying to kill him would've lead to Sandor's death. He knew this. That's why he didn't try to kill Gregor. I'm sure if he could, he would.

3) His claim is that with no trueborn children, Robert's power had to pass to him, the next oldest brother. Robert's claim to the throne was from rights of conquest. So he does count as a legitimate king.

4) Don't bring up the morals of monarchy please. Not the place for it. It'd get too complicated.

5) Joff shouldn't have gotten into power anyway. He wasn't actually the son of Robert, so by all systems of hereditary succession, he shouldn't have been king. Not the system's fault.

6) Actually, in both ways, especially in warring times, you have to prove yourself worthy in order to become king and keep it. Aerys and Joff both got killed off because of incompetent rule. Stannis wouldn't have had power if he wasn't charismatic and just.

7) Stannis is a just man. That's the truth. He's not honorable, nor very liked by his men, but he's just. He can be flexible and generous to those who bend the knee, but will punish those who don't or those who break laws. His treatment to Davos is proof of that. Davos lost his fingers for his life of smuggling and thievery but was allowed to rise to greatness, lordship, and even the title of Hand. He commands respect and loyalty from his vassals, even if they don't love him. He's willing to do what's necessary, but still aims to make justice.

Not a huge fanboy of Stannis, but out of the Five Kings, I feel like he's the most deserving, and would be the best king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stannis deserves it but I have a feeling GRRM is gonna kill him off in the next book. I also feel he will put someone nobody expected on the throne maybe Gendry or Edric Storm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Stannis main point isn't that he's a warrior. Also, we haven't seen Robert being very good at tactics. He was a powerful fighter, but as a king, and as a military tactician, I feel like Robert isn't very good at it.

2) How's he bloodthirsty? He killed Renly because he had to, or at least how he saw it. He's doing everything he can for the throne. Stannis was perfectly fine with giving Renly Storm's End if Renly bent the knee, but Renly chose to defy him. Stannis knew he couldn't win against Renly's massive army of 100 thousand men, so he assassinated Renly instead. It was cruel, and brutal, but necessary for war. Stannis wasn't happy with it. One of GRRM's main messages in these books is that in order to obtain and hold power, you need to do anything necessary, even if it's not entirely honorable. Ned, Rhaegar, Jon Arryn, etc. all died from honor. Tyrion, Tywin, and Stannis all have had more successes with doing what's necessary. They're basic Machiavellian principles. Also, the Hound mention makes no sense. The Hound didn't kill Gregor because he was unable to. Gregor is a lot more skilled, commands more power, was far away from him, and trying to kill him would've lead to Sandor's death. He knew this. That's why he didn't try to kill Gregor. I'm sure if he could, he would.

3) His claim is that with no trueborn children, Robert's power had to pass to him, the next oldest brother. Robert's claim to the throne was from rights of conquest. So he does count as a legitimate king.

4) Don't bring up the morals of monarchy please. Not the place for it. It'd get too complicated.

5) Joff shouldn't have gotten into power anyway. He wasn't actually the son of Robert, so by all systems of hereditary succession, he shouldn't have been king. Not the system's fault.

6) Actually, in both ways, especially in warring times, you have to prove yourself worthy in order to become king and keep it. Aerys and Joff both got killed off because of incompetent rule. Stannis wouldn't have had power if he wasn't charismatic and just.

7) Stannis is a just man. That's the truth. He's not honorable, nor very liked by his men, but he's just. He can be flexible and generous to those who bend the knee, but will punish those who don't or those who break laws. His treatment to Davos is proof of that. Davos lost his fingers for his life of smuggling and thievery but was allowed to rise to greatness, lordship, and even the title of Hand. He commands respect and loyalty from his vassals, even if they don't love him. He's willing to do what's necessary, but still aims to make justice.

Not a huge fanboy of Stannis, but out of the Five Kings, I feel like he's the most deserving, and would be the best king.

Great points.

Plus, as he says many times, Stannis doesn't *want* this, it's his duty though and he will do it. For the good of the realm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Stannis main point isn't that he's a warrior. Also, we haven't seen Robert being very good at tactics. He was a powerful fighter, but as a king, and as a military tactician, I feel like Robert isn't very good at it.

2) How's he bloodthirsty? He killed Renly because he had to, or at least how he saw it. He's doing everything he can for the throne. Stannis was perfectly fine with giving Renly Storm's End if Renly bent the knee, but Renly chose to defy him. Stannis knew he couldn't win against Renly's massive army of 100 thousand men, so he assassinated Renly instead. It was cruel, and brutal, but necessary for war. Stannis wasn't happy with it. One of GRRM's main messages in these books is that in order to obtain and hold power, you need to do anything necessary, even if it's not entirely honorable. Ned, Rhaegar, Jon Arryn, etc. all died from honor. Tyrion, Tywin, and Stannis all have had more successes with doing what's necessary. They're basic Machiavellian principles. Also, the Hound mention makes no sense. The Hound didn't kill Gregor because he was unable to. Gregor is a lot more skilled, commands more power, was far away from him, and trying to kill him would've lead to Sandor's death. He knew this. That's why he didn't try to kill Gregor. I'm sure if he could, he would.

3) His claim is that with no trueborn children, Robert's power had to pass to him, the next oldest brother. Robert's claim to the throne was from rights of conquest. So he does count as a legitimate king.

4) Don't bring up the morals of monarchy please. Not the place for it. It'd get too complicated.

5) Joff shouldn't have gotten into power anyway. He wasn't actually the son of Robert, so by all systems of hereditary succession, he shouldn't have been king. Not the system's fault.

6) Actually, in both ways, especially in warring times, you have to prove yourself worthy in order to become king and keep it. Aerys and Joff both got killed off because of incompetent rule. Stannis wouldn't have had power if he wasn't charismatic and just.

7) Stannis is a just man. That's the truth. He's not honorable, nor very liked by his men, but he's just. He can be flexible and generous to those who bend the knee, but will punish those who don't or those who break laws. His treatment to Davos is proof of that. Davos lost his fingers for his life of smuggling and thievery but was allowed to rise to greatness, lordship, and even the title of Hand. He commands respect and loyalty from his vassals, even if they don't love him. He's willing to do what's necessary, but still aims to make justice.

Not a huge fanboy of Stannis, but out of the Five Kings, I feel like he's the most deserving, and would be the best king.

I bend the knee to you good ser. Very good points especially as you say you are not a huge fanboy of Stannis. I don't think anybody is, but most people can see he is a man who holds to the duty and tradition of the realm instead of just wanting power. In my opinion he is the only one who doesn't want the throne to hold power over everyone in the kingdom, he wants the throne because it is the rightful way for the throne to be passed on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bend the knee to you good ser. Very good points especially as you say you are not a huge fanboy of Stannis. I don't think anybody is, but most people can see he is a man who holds to the duty and tradition of the realm instead of just wanting power. In my opinion he is the only one who doesn't want the throne to hold power over everyone in the kingdom, he wants the throne because it is the rightful way for the throne to be passed on.

I'd consider myself a Stannis fangirl. And there is one ultimate Stannis fanboy.. That is DAVOS.

http://25.media.tumb...ou6cwo1_250.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×