Stannis's Decision to have Renly killed (long post).

[joaozinm]

Renly is to blame for his own death.

[~DarkHorse~]

And why does the North deserve independence? Because they're Starks?

Robb was a usurper, he took half the kingdom, he deserved to die.

Stannis gets his claim from his usurper brother while Robb gets his from his people and bloodline that had generations of Kings ruling in the North before the Targaryens even set foot on Westeros.

The GreatJon had it right. The North bent the knee to the Targaryens and with them overthrown, fair game. They have no loyalty to the Baratheons (who didn't even create the dam Throne or unite the Kingdoms) other than Ned and Robert being buddies.

Every one has a different opinion but I personally believe Robb had just as much right to a crown as Stannis- if not more.

Also, yes Renly wasn't completely for Northern Independence because he still wanted the Norths loyalty to the Iron Throne. However, at least he negotiated in a way that was cooperative with both parties, even if he was still pushing for restrictions in the North, I think those were agreements Robb would have taken.

Unlike Stannis who only wants things his way because of his 'right' to the Throne and won't make an agreement that pushes him to a 'middle ground' choice like Renly made with his terms.

[E-Ro]

Stannis gets his claim from his usurper brother while Robb gets his from his people and bloodline that had generations of Kings ruling in the North before the Targaryens even set foot on Westeros.

The GreatJon had it right. The North bent the knee to the Targaryens and with them overthrown, fair game. They have no loyalty to the Baratheons (who didn't even create the dam Throne or unite the Kingdoms) other than Ned and Robert being buddies.

Every one has a different opinion but I personally believe Robb had just as much right to a crown than Stannis.

Also, yes Renly wasn't completely for Northern Independence because he still wanted the Norths loyalty to the Iron Throne. However, at least he negotiated in a way that was cooperative with both parties, even if he was still pushing for restrictions in the North, I think those were agreements Robb would have taken.

This is all wrong. The north was happy to bend the knee to the baratheons. Robert ruled them for 17 years. They also would have bent to stannis but renly had declared first. The greatjon is, to put things simply, a jackass.

Also funny, the north is currently bending the knee to the lannisters in the form of tommen. They might be looking to fight their way out of it, but for now they are being ruled by tommen.

[Minsc]

So yeah. He was fully within his rights to defend himself.

I don't consider defending yourself to attack someone else and then when they respond to your aggression to kill them.

[E-Ro]

I don't consider defending yourself to attack someone else and then when they respond to your aggression to kill them.

Huh? Renly started the altercation by declaring himself king and then starving Stan's Capitol.

[Minsc]

Huh? Renly started the altercation by declaring himself king and then starving Stan's Capitol.

It wasn't Stannis's capitol, instead it was Joffrey's.

Furthermore, Stannis started it by attacking Renly's Storm End. Moreover, he is fully to blame for everyone going off in their own direction by his decision to sit and mope in Dragonstone rather then tell Robert or act in any timely manner.

[E-Ro]

It wasn't Stannis's capitol, instead it was Joffrey's.

Either way it wasn't renlys. Stannis could have been defending his nephews life for all renly knew. The point is renly marched on kings landing and started starving the people that lived there.

Furthermore, Stannis started it by attacking Renly's Storm End. Moreover, he is fully to blame for everyone going off in their own direction by his decision to sit and mope in Dragonstone rather then tell Robert or act in any timely manner.

Dude this is nonsense, stannis started nothing. You need to reread the books or re check the timeline. Renly declared himself king before stannis, and had no right to do so. So stannis killed him. Simple.

[Darth Visenya]

Stannis is a dishonourable kinslayer who should be put to death for murdering his brother, it was a poor decision from a deluded man.

[Minsc]

Either way it wasn't renlys. Stannis could have been defending his nephews life for all renly knew. The point is renly marched on kings landing and started starving the people that lived there.

Dude this is nonsense, stannis started nothing. You need to reread the books or re check the timeline. Renly declared himself king before stannis, and had no right to do so. So stannis killed him. Simple.

That still doesn't make it so Renly was attacking Stannis.

Yes, Renly declares himself king before Stannis meaning he isn't attempting to usurp Stannis as the later has declared himself king.

[E-Ro]

That still doesn't make it so Renly was attacking Stannis.

Yes, Renly declares himself king before Stannis meaning he isn't attempting to usurp Stannis as the later has declared himself king.

Renly was attacking all law abiding lords in westeros by declaring himself king. Breaking the law, starving the Capitol etc.

[~DarkHorse~]

This is all wrong. The north was happy to bend the knee to the baratheons. Robert ruled them for 17 years. They also would have bent to stannis but renly had declared first. The greatjon is, to put things simply, a jackass.

Also funny, the north is currently bending the knee to the lannisters in the form of tommen. They might be looking to fight their way out of it, but for now they are being ruled by tommen.

I didn’t say the North wasn’t happy going along with Robert as their King. I’m saying they lost their Independence by bending the knee to the Targaryens, not the Baratheons so why shouldn’t they declare for Independence again when the Targaryens are out of the picture?

With Robert as King, this was hardly an option because Ned was warden of the North and best buds with Robert so when the Targaryens were gone he had no reason to declare for an Independent North. However, with a Lannister on the Throne and the Baratheons needing to win back the Throne why should they support the Baratheons? They usurped the throne in the first place and can’t even hang onto it. Fair game, just rule themselves like they used to and screw all this crap going on with the Iron Throne.

Also, I think it's pretty clear that the North aren't happy with 'bending the Knee' to Tommen (and Bolton) and are just buying their time. They can't do anything about it with no Stark and not enough military influence. If anything the Red Wedding has just angered them, making them want Independence even more.

"Bear Island knows no King but the King in the North, who's name is Stark!"

[E-Ro]

I didnt say the North wasnt happy going along with Robert as their King. Im saying they lost their Independence by bending the knee to the Targaryens, not the Baratheons so why shouldnt they declare for Independence again when the Targaryens are out of the picture?

With Robert as King, this was hardly an option because Ned was warden of the North and best buds with Robert so when the Targaryens were gone he had no reason to declare for an Independent North. However, with a Lannister on the Throne and the Baratheons needing to win back the Throne why should they support the Baratheons? They usurped the throne in the first place and cant even hang onto it. Fair game, just rule themselves like they used to and screw all this crap going on with the Iron Throne.

Also, I think it's pretty clear that the North aren't happy with 'bending the Knee' to Tommen (and Bolton) and are just buying their time. They can't do anything about it with no Stark and not enough military influence. If anything the Red Wedding has just angered them, making them want Independence even more.

My point isn't about what they are happy with or what they want, my point is that they have bent the knee to people other then targs. That's a fact. They swore fealty to Robert he was their king. Then they swore to tommen after Robb died.

These are facts.

Who they lost their independence to means absolutely nothing. They bent the knee to Robert and accepted the baratheons as the ruling dynasty. The words of a five year old with no power mean nothing.

[~DarkHorse~]

My point isn't about what they are happy with or what they want, my point is that they have bent the knee to people other then targs. That's a fact. They swore fealty to Robert he was their king. Then they swore to tommen after Robb died.

These are facts.

Who they lost their independence to means absolutely nothing. They bent the knee to Robert and accepted the baratheons as the ruling dynasty. The words of a five year old with no power mean nothing.

Yes, they are facts. So what?

I was arguing that Robb has just as much right to being a King as Stannis (or any Baratheon does) not who the North have sworn fealty to.

Also, bending the Knee to someone doesn't mean they accept it. The Northerners had no other choice but to bend the knee to Tommen (and Bolton) but it's pretty clear they haven't accepted it. There's resistance going on and a plot (if the GNC is true) to get a new King in the North= They don't accept Tommen or Stannis (Robert's heir) as their King, they put up with it for their own benefit in the long run.

[Baelor Swyft]

Either way it wasn't renlys. Stannis could have been defending his nephews life for all renly knew. The point is renly marched on kings landing and started starving the people that lived there.

Dude this is nonsense, stannis started nothing. You need to reread the books or re check the timeline. Renly declared himself king before stannis, and had no right to do so. So stannis killed him. Simple.

Except, Stannis didn't kill Renly for declaring himself King. Stannis would eventually have done that, as he also would have with Robb Stark -- in the long run, if need be. But Stannis's first objective was to take King's Landing. Stannis killed Renly because Renly was vastly more popular and Stannis required Renly's army in order to take King's Landing from Joffrey.

Not to mention, as you said, Renly declared himself King before Stannis. How is that supposed to be a crime worthy of a punishment from Stannis? Stannis had been twiddling his thumbs and Renly had no way of knowing that Stannis intended to do anything. That Stannis fancies himself the king doesn't really do any good if he's hiding in Dragonstone. Renly acts to remove the usurpers who killed their brother and you think Stannis has a moral right to kill him for it? I strongly disagree.

Even Littlefinger, clearly one of the greatest minds of his day, wholly discounts Stannis as a viable king. Had Stannis not been such a cruel, stubborn and foolish man, he'd have seen that helping Renly to conquer the realm is a better fate than allowing the Lannisters to rule. Even with the evil magic of his sorceress, he killed his brother, stole most of his army, and still couldn't defeat the Lannisters. And why not? Because even black magic couldn't steal him Renly's whole army. Pity they couldn't have joined forces and taken King's Landing. And before you suggest Renly bend the knee, Stannis, already being married, had nothing adequate to offer the Tyrells. Again his pride and ego prevents Stannis from making the intelligent choice.

[Bronn Urgandy]

Except, Stannis didn't kill Renly for declaring himself King. Stannis would eventually have done that, as he also would have with Robb Stark -- in the long run, if need be. But Stannis's first objective was to take King's Landing. Stannis killed Renly because Renly was vastly more popular and Stannis required Renly's army in order to take King's Landing from Joffrey.

Not to mention, as you said, Renly declared himself King before Stannis. How is that supposed to be a crime worthy of a punishment from Stannis? Stannis had been twiddling his thumbs and Renly had no way of knowing that Stannis intended to do anything. That Stannis fancies himself the king doesn't really do any good if he's hiding in Dragonstone. Renly acts to remove the usurpers who killed their brother and you think Stannis has a moral right to kill him for it? I strongly disagree.

Even Littlefinger, clearly one of the greatest minds of his day, wholly discounts Stannis as a viable king. Had Stannis not been such a cruel, stubborn and foolish man, he'd have seen that helping Renly to conquer the realm is a better fate than allowing the Lannisters to rule. Even with the evil magic of his sorceress, he killed his brother, stole most of his army, and still couldn't defeat the Lannisters. And why not? Because even black magic couldn't steal him Renly's whole army. Pity they couldn't have joined forces and taken King's Landing. And before you suggest Renly bend the knee, Stannis, already being married, had nothing adequate to offer the Tyrells. Again his pride and ego prevents Stannis from making the intelligent choice.

Sounds like victim blaming to me, Renly declaring himself King takes a big steaming dump all over the laws of succession, not only did he believe the kids were his nephews, but that he also had an elder brother.

And seriously, when Robb was declared King he had the North and Riverlands as support, when Renly did it, he had Highgarden, before all this happened Stannis was trying to rouse the Stormlords, you expect him to declare first, with only Dragonstone guaranteed to back him up? Thats suicide, that would've been like Robb Stark declaring himself in Winterfell, with only Hodor and Old Nan to support his claim.

Littlefinger doesn't want Stannis as King because Stannis knows what a corrupt little weasel he is.

As Davos would say, Stannis offered the Tyrells and Renly the the opportunity to do their duty and help him win the Throne as he once helped Robert. When Stannis realised everything was going to pot he sent that letter out, he gave everyone that didn't want Joffrey on the Throne a viable and legal alternative and they spat in his face.

[David Selig]

I find it hilarious that so many modern readers from (presumably) democratic countries are so caught up in the "Stannis was right to kill his brother because he was older and thus the rightful king and Renly deserved the die because he wasn't the rightful king". Who gives a damn about the rightful king nonsense? it's all arbitrary BS and completely unfair.

[Bronn Urgandy]

I find it hilarious that so many modern readers from (presumably) democratic countries are so caught up in the "Stannis was right to kill his brother because he was older and thus the rightful king and Renly deserved the die because he wasn't the rightful king". Who gives a damn about the rightful king nonsense? it's all arbitrary BS and completely unfair.

We're not judging a fuedal society by 2014 rules, where this arbitrary and unfair BS tends to be the best solution for long term peace.

[Roose The Weddingcrasher]

Who gives a damn about the rightful king nonsense? it's all arbitrary BS and completely unfair.

But grabbing power just because one can is completely fair. The "rightful king nonsense" is actually not so much about having the best possible ruler, but rather about legally restricting ambitions of ruthless people like Renly.

In the end, the difference between a good and a mediocre ruler isn't that great, compared with the mess that a constant struggle for power causes.

[David Selig]

We're not judging a fuedal society by 2014 rules, where this arbitrary and unfair BS tends to be the best solution for long term peace.

But of course, when Stannis rebels against the rightful king Aerys and when he claims his nephew, the crowned king, is a bastard without any proof by his own admission, and rebels against him, and thus threatened the stability of "best solution" twice, that was completely justified, right?

But grabbing power just because one can is completely fair.

Where did I say or even imply that?

[Bronn Urgandy]

But of course, when Stannis rebels against the rightful king Aerys and when he claims his nephew, the crowned king, is a bastard without any proof by his own admission, and rebels against him, and thus threatened the stability of "best solution" twice, that was completely justified, right?

We could debate the former until the cows come home, I always say that when a monarch becomes a tyrant he's fair game. stannis raised for big bro, Renly should've done the same, or fought for Joffrey. Stannis has moral justification, legal is debateable.

The latter is absolutely justified, a crown usurpation and everyone that finds out dies. Moral and legal justification.