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

[The Drunkard]

What's that wealth of evidence? As I've said too often lately, Stannis himself admitted that all he had was that Edric looked more like Robert unlike the royal kids.

Admitted whilst on Dragonstone with nothing at hand. Were he king he'd have access to a number of Robert's bastards, and therefore the ability to show them off to the world in contrast with Cersei's children. He'd also have the book that confirmed the suspicions of both Jon and Ned.

And while this isn't exactly evidence, he could point out how the kids often dressed in Lannister colours, used Lannister rallying cries, and held the Lannister sigil equal to the Baratheon stag.

[aceluby]

Renly wouldn't have been able to bring over his entire host to Stannis, they didn't want Stannis as their king otherwise they would have sided with him in the first place. Renly didn't consumate his marriage, so he would have lost the Martells anyway meaning that what happened on BW would have still happened the way it did, probably with Renly dying there instead of by a shadowbaby. One of Stannis' biggest blunders is that he never understands or acknowledges that you need lords to back your claim; instead he believes foolishly that your claim gets you lords. Even IF Renly sides w/ Stannis he only has support of 2 lords, himself w/ his small army and Renly w/ the Stormlands. They would then have to defeat a far larger army to take KL, then root them out of their keeps for justice as they flee, then move on to the North to destroy the Riverlands and Starks for their punishment. To think that a Renly + Stannis team could accomplish this is kind of ridiculous.

[The Drunkard]

One of Stannis' biggest blunders is that he never understands or acknowledges that you need lords to back your claim; instead he believes foolishly that your claim gets you lords.

He understands that perfectly, he just hates it.

It's why he forgave the lords that supported Renly over him, because he knew he needed their support, and he wouldn't get it by executing them and demanding their immediate familial successor to swear fealty. It's why he feasted with the mountain clans in the north to gain their allegiance, and why he promised them justice for Ned and his family. It's partly why he took the fight to the wildlings and Ironborn that threatened the North.

[Draco_Dracul]

-Offers to name him his heir until a son is born to him

-Offers to give him his old seat back on the council

-He'd be able to keep SE

How much more could Stannis have offered him? Offering does nothing, since Renly was seeking such a high position.

The problem is that his offer amounts to simply offering him the position of Master of Laws and nothing else as all those things are already his by law. He could offer either the throne, but lets take that off the table because Stannis would never agree to it. He could offer to make Renly heir no matter what. This is an offer that Renly might take because it would keep the Tyrell host as it would all but ensure that Mace's grandson would take the throne rather than betting that a man in his thirties won't have another kid (Ned was planning on having another kid before he went south and Walder Frey is still having kids and he's in his nineties).

[Som Tin Wong]

Why is OP banned?

[Antler's Fury]

There is also the killing of Courtnay Penrose;

...for treason. Storm's End belonged to Stannis. Penrose had no right to keep the place from him

the near-killing of Edric Storm;

...which never actually happens, and was only considered for the sake of the thousands of children in Westeros.

the blackmailing of the Night's Watch;

...for their own good, and that of the realm. Whether it is Stannis' forcing the election, taking the decrepit Nightfort, letting the wildings into the Gift, etc. he does so with the Watch's best interests in mind, as well as his own, and the realm. They need a LC, he needs a castle if he's going to help them, the wildings need to be integrated if they are going to help fight the Others, etc.

and his arrogant, suicidal behavior while attempting to attain glory in the North.

The blizzard only strikes once they've begun the march on Winterfell, not for Stannis' glory but to liberate the North from Bolton insanity. Are you seriously suggesting that the Boltons deserve to continue squatting there, unopposed?

You should also consider that by deciding to defy Renly in the first place instead of seeking a less self-important but saner alternative such as seeking an alliance and/or keeping King's Landing busy with his fleet Stannis commited a decisive act; he put his pride over the welfare of pretty much everyone else in Westeros. A very good case can be made that he is the single most responsible individual for the total war toll in Westeros, even.

Not Robert, whose gross negligence and incompetance begun the whole succession crisis? Not Joffrey who executed Ned? And why should he bend to Renly when Renly could just as easily bend the knee to him? The whole point of the rights and laws that Stannis constantly talks about is to prevent these disputes from becoming wars. And btw, he needed men to keep KL busy, which he took back from the traitor Renly, and then attacked KL.

Which were utterly self-serving. He might as well offer none.

Agreements are by definition self serving. Why would anyone agree to something that did not benefit them? It benefited them both; Stannis is King, Renly is heir and on the SC.

That doesn't work at all, sorry. It would only make sense if and once we had established that Stannis had a better claim to the throne than Renly.

But he did. Robert's children were actually Jaime's and Stannis was elder to Renly.

Which quite simply wasn't true from the moment that Renly's challenge became succesfull by way of raising enough military and political support, which he clearly did at that time.

Either way, Stannis wins. If might makes right, as you say, then Stannis still has a superior claim; his "military support" in the form of Mel beat Renly's. To claim that this was somehow "dishonorable" or "treacherous" while not regarding Renly's usurpation of Stannis' rights in the same fashion is simply a Special Pleading Fallacy. If we go according to law however, Stannis still wins, because he is older than Renly.

And even that is assuming that Stannis had a prayer of a chance of attaining the kind of support that would truly make him a rightful ruler at any point in time, which sounds unlikely in the extreme even according to himself (by his own words in ACOK, right from the start) and Davos (as by his own thoughts while talking to Wyman Manderly).

But he does have that support. He had Mel, whose support beat all of the Reach and Storm lords Renly could muster.

It is clear to me that whatever leads so many people to think of Stannis as a somehow legitimate claimant amounts to very little beyond an utterly literal reading of the letter of the law (that however must by necessity also ignore the lack of proof and of adequate call for arbitration and is therefore moot) and a misguided admiration for his ruthlessness and inconsequence, which seem to appear to deserve to be called boldness by some.

What other interpretation of the law is there? Cersei's kids are bastards, Stannis is his eldest brother, the throne is his.

Ultimately, Stannis is just a self-serving thug with high birth and no scruples to speak of.

I think you are talking about Renly, considering he was essentially using is military muscle to bully Stannis into giving up his claim.

Surely you jest. There is not even a caricature of "justice" in Stannis' betrayal of Renly.

Renly betrayed Stannis by stealing his crown.

Don't take Stannis' claims at face value; the guy is a compulsive liar that hides under a (weak) veneer of respectability in order to protect his fragile and craving ego.

Do try to stay on topic. This thread is about Stannis and Renly, not you.

Nope, no, negative, no way, are you kidding, speak sense now.

I mean, really.

First of all, Stannis has no proof. None whatsoever.

He did until he had to flee KL: the bastard's appearances, the book of famiy lineages, even JA's murder fits in with the Lannisters' plot.

Second and most importantly, despite a common misunderstanding, royal successions simply do not work that way in the first place. Do you truly think that it is - or ever was or should have been - just a matter of following the letter of the law and the family tree to find out who should be crowned?

Of course they do. Every uncontested succession to any throne in human history has worked because people follow established laws and family trees. That is how successions always worked for the Targaryens and in Westerosi noble houses. It is why, for instance, Viserys II succeeded Baelor, or why Maekar succeded Aerys I, and why Maege Mormot succeeded Jorah. What you are proposing is civil war every time a king dies, as different people insist that it is okay to withold "decisive support" from the person who actually is next in line.

No society should ever be mistaken for such a naive group, really. In the real world, quite often there was not even an actual succession law, because it is so pointless to have any. Heck, not even minor feudal territories are inherited quite that automatically. If you truly expect the High Lords to just surrender for the letter of a succession law without opining on the wisdom of going by it, then you have just not dwelled on it very much. The truth of the matter is that in Westeros as in the real world some people will be accepted as political leaders and others will not... and being the next in line is a good reason to receive some sort of attention from those who truly grant political power, but not to expect to actually receive that decisive support.

Refusing to grant support in response to a legitimate claim is what leads to civil war. Aegon II and Daemon Blackfyre both refused to give that "decisive support" because, much like Renly, they expected to receive fealty, not give it, merely because they could bully the rightful heir into capitulation. It is precisely to avoid succession disputes that inheritence laws exist in the first place. And yet, you blame Stannis for the war, not all of the people who would deny him his rights for their own selfish gains?

As Davos and Stannis himself say in no unclear terms in the prologue of ACOK, Stannis is simply not capable of earning such support, despite lying a lot to himself about the matter.

...because thieves like Renly would steal his bannermen, yes, despite knowing of their obligations towards Stannis.

[Antler's Fury]

Stannis winning the throne would increase the chance of this happening, any ambitious uncle or younger brother would feel he has a chance, Claiming his nephews or brothers aren't legitimate is the oldest trick in the book in such cases. Stannis had no proof for his claims.

But he did have proof. The precedent he would set is that an uncle can depose a bastard nephew if he has proof.

That's disgusting. Murdering your own brother for a crown and because of blatantly unfair and arbitrary law...

What, you mean what Renly was going to do?

[Draco_Dracul]

But he did have proof. The precedent he would set is that an uncle can depose a bastard nephew if he has proof.

He doesn't have proof, all the proof was left in King's Landing. I wouldn't be surprised if the book that has a lot of the evidence was altered by Maester Pycell. Additionally, he doesn't even have any of Robert's bastards in his hands anymore. There are only three known to still be alive, Gendry (who is thought to be dead), Edric Storm (who is off in Essos somewhere), and Mya Stone (who we don't even if Stannis knows about). Finally, that proof can't be that convincing if he didn't think Robert or Renly (who has incentive to go along with that idea, even if he doesn't actually believe it) would be convinced before his flight to Dragon Stone.

[David Selig]

But he did have proof. The precedent he would set is that an uncle can depose a bastard nephew if he has proof.

Stannis himself told Davos he had no proof except that Edric looks more like Robert than his trueborn children, which is extremely weak.

What, you mean what Renly was going to do?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I don't see how Stannis killed Renly. I just don't see it.

[Antler's Fury]

He doesn't have proof, all the proof was left in King's Landing. I wouldn't be surprised if the book that has a lot of the evidence was altered by Maester Pycell. Additionally, he doesn't even have any of Robert's bastards in his hands anymore. There are only three known to still be alive, Gendry (who is thought to be dead), Edric Storm (who is off in Essos somewhere), and Mya Stone (who we don't even if Stannis knows about). Finally, that proof can't be that convincing if he didn't think Robert or Renly (who has incentive to go along with that idea, even if he doesn't actually believe it) would be convinced before his flight to Dragon Stone.

So, what? Should Stannis just let the Lannisters takeover because they (as far as he's aware) killed JA and forced him to flee, abandoning his evidence? I don't know why Stannis' lack of proof on hand is such a big deal, since we know he originally had it, and more importantly, that he was RIGHT. And he may not have convinced Robert or Renly (who hated him) but he definitely confinced JA, who was smarter than both combined.

[Antler's Fury]

Stannis himself told Davos he had no proof except that Edric looks more like Robert than his trueborn children, which is extremely weak.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

He had all the evidence that Ned compiled, and the fact that he, JA, and Stannis were all convinced means it definitely was not weak. As far as Renly is concerned, do you think he really should have just let Renly kill him and steal his crown, simply because he could bully his way into doing it?

[David Selig]

He had all the evidence that Ned compiled, and the fact that he, JA, and Stannis were all convinced means it definitely was not weak.

If the evidence was good, Stannis would've told Robert about it, not run away.

As far as Renly is concerned, do you think he really should have just let Renly kill him and steal his crown, simply because he could bully his way into doing it?

No.

What I think he should've done it accept that Renly has far more support and backed Renly's claim. Fastest way to end the war, he won't have to kill his brother, and he gets to be one of the most powerful and rich nobles in the realm.

[XAssGodX]

Stannis did exactly what he was supposed to do. Renly was a traitor and a threat to the realm. Stannis offered Renly a chance. Stannis is BY FAR the Baratheon that would make the best king. Robert was a bad king and Renly would have probably been worst. A just king is a good king. Renly would have been generous to people he liked and he would have been an asshole to people he didn't like while Stannis would have been generous to people who deserve it. Back on topic, STANNIS HAD TO KILL RENLY FOR THE SAME REASON NED HAD TO KILL GARED. Yes Renly was his brother but a traitor is a traitor and Stannis is a truly just man. Renly deserved to die as much as Joffrey or Roose Bolton.

Edit : People what the hell, why do you hate Stannis for having killed Renly but like Ned for having killed Jared ? Jared had an acceptable reason to quit the Night's watch, Renly had no reason besides his selfishness to become a traitor. Don't get me wrong, Ned did what he needed and he's one of my favorite characters. I just don't understand how it's possible to not understand that Stannis did what was best for the realm. Yeah, after that the Tyrells made what was worst for the realm and that is Renly's fault, not Stannis'. If Renly would have backed up Stannis the realm would have been saved and everyone would be happy. Renly had no reason to steal his brother's throne, it's as simple as that.

[Antler's Fury]

If the evidence was good, Stannis would've told Robert about it, not run away.

It was good, but not coming from him, since Robert didn't like him. Hence, he approach the trusted Jon Arryn, who was then murdered. So Stannis fled, not only for his sake, but for the sake of his family who he had reason to believe were also in danger once he saw Lysa flee. He didn't have Robert's trust, or the powers of the Handship, to do any more digging. But that doesn't mean he lacked for proof, only power and the King's ear.

No.

What I think he should've done it accept that Renly has far more support and backed Renly's claim. Fastest way to end the war, he won't have to kill his brother, and he gets to be one of the most powerful and rich nobles in the realm.

Why don't you fault Reny for not doing exactly that? The whole reason there is a line of succession, that Stannis adheres to while Renly does not, is to prevent these kinds of civil wars. Why should Stannis have capitulated to Reny's bullying? The law exists to protect the rights of the weak from the tyranny of the strong, who think that they can take what they want merely because they have the power to do so. Renly was a usurping bully who had no qualms about kinslaying, while Stannis was tormented by the idea.

[XAssGodX]

It was good, but not coming from him, since Robert didn't like him. Hence, he approach the trusted Jon Arryn, who was then murdered. So Stannis fled, not only for his sake, but for the sake of his family who he had reason to believe were also in danger once he saw Lysa flee. He didn't have Robert's trust, or the powers of the Handship, to do any more digging. But that doesn't mean he lacked for proof, only power and the King's ear.

Why don't you fault Reny for not doing exactly that? The whole reason there is a line of succession, that Stannis adheres to while Renly does not, is to prevent these kinds of civil wars. Why should Stannis have capitulated to Reny's bullying? The law exists to protect the rights of the weak from the tyranny of the strong, who think that they can take what they want merely because they have the power to do so. Renly was a usurping bully who had no qualms about kinslaying, while Stannis was tormented by the idea.

Don't try to understand, Renly fangirls are like every other fangirl/fanboy, they just defend something even when they are completely wrong.

[Bolivar]

I'm with Nyrhex and Mladen that at the very least, Stannis was unaware he had any fault in Renly's death. I think that George may have actually retconned it in A Storm of Swords that Stannis had no hand in it at all. He doesn't deny having Penrose killed but does deny Renly, telling Davos he can even ask Devan about it since he was with them at the time. I think it's about like people imagining Ned with a baby at the Tower of Joy - George is so descriptive he can trick writers into seeing things that didn't explicitly happen in the text, hence readers taking for granted that Stannis obviously killed Renly.

[aceluby]

Don't try to understand, Renly fangirls are like every other fangirl/fanboy, they just defend something even when they are completely wrong.

The difference is that Stannis crowned himself and then demanded that others respect it because it's his by rights. Renly was crowned by his lords. That does not make what Renly did 'right', but he didn't have the option of bending the knee either. It is not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.

And let's be honest here, both Renly and Stannis have no right to the throne because neither can provide proof that Cersei's children aren't Bobs. They are all usurpers.

[David Selig]

It was good, but not coming from him, since Robert didn't like him. Hence, he approach the trusted Jon Arryn, who was then murdered. So Stannis fled, not only for his sake, but for the sake of his family who he had reason to believe were also in danger once he saw Lysa flee. He didn't have Robert's trust, or the powers of the Handship, to do any more digging. But that doesn't mean he lacked for proof, only power and the King's ear.

Why don't you fault Reny for not doing exactly that? The whole reason there is a line of succession, that Stannis adheres to while Renly does not, is to prevent these kinds of civil wars. Why should Stannis have capitulated to Reny's bullying? The law exists to protect the rights of the weak from the tyranny of the strong, who think that they can take what they want merely because they have the power to do so. Renly was a usurping bully who had no qualms about kinslaying, while Stannis was tormented by the idea.

Where have I said I don't fault Renly for doing this? I do, actually. But this is a thread about Stannis' decision to murder his brother, not about Renly's decisions.

As for the proof - for the 17th time Stannis himself told Davos he had no proof. Do you think he was lying?

[Antler's Fury]

The difference is that Stannis crowned himself and then demanded that others respect it because it's his by rights. Renly was crowned by his lords. That does not make what Renly did 'right', but he didn't have the option of bending the knee either. It is not as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.

Robb was crowned by his lords. Renly crowned himself, just like Stannis did. Catelyn's POV tells us that "Renly Baratheon has claimed his brother's crown."

And let's be honest here, both Renly and Stannis have no right to the throne because neither can provide proof that Cersei's children aren't Bobs. They are all usurpers.

Stannis had proof that convinced JA and Ned. He just didn't have it on hand.