Game Of Thrones -- Book Spoiler Free Thread

chhhhhhk, whooooooo

chhhhhhhhk, whooooooo

Trying to say Darth Vader would whole-heartedly agree

edited 4th Jul '15 7:40:45 PM by blkwhtrbbt

@5158

That's not what I'm saying.
1. Robert's Rebellion was, well, a rebellion.
2. His killing of Rhaegar was the killing of an enemy in battle.
3. Jaime's killing of Aerys was tyrannicide.
4. The killing of Elia Martell and her children was murder.
5. Robert seizing the throne forcefully and illegally^note there was an heir who was before him in the line of succession, namely Viserys was a coup d'état – pretty much a textbook example thereof, even.
1 & 3 were debatably legal^note Rebellions tend to be viewed as legal by the rebels and illegal by the established government. I don't know if there are any Westerosi laws on tyrannicide, nor whether they would override the laws on oathbreaking.. 2 was perfectly legal. 4 & 5 were definitely illegal, but of course only 5 was on Robert's hands.

Stannis claiming the Iron Throne "by right of birth and blood" is a load of hypocritical rubbish. He could only make that claim if he also acknowledged Viserys as the rightful King and acted upon it before Viserys' death (which did indeed place Robert as the next in line by law).
Did Stannis rebel against his brother Robert in favour of Viserys, the lawful heir to the previous King? No. So why does he expect anyone to take his claim – based on the very law he himself evidently (by inaction) dismissed – seriously?

edited 4th Jul '15 7:27:17 PM by TompaDompa

I don't know what that means.

And Robert's Rebellion is techinically legal if we're working with medieval logic. The nobility-commoner agreement goes both ways. If a King starts murdering everybody for no reason, he loses his right to be King.

To be specific the nobility-commoner deal goes "commoners provide their workforce and physicall prowess to their Lord, and the Lord rules and protects them."

By burning people alive at random Aerys stopped obeying the second part of the agreement.

EDIT: Aaaah now I get it. I suppose he would.

edited 4th Jul '15 7:54:16 PM by Gaon

When King Aerys asked for Ned and Robert's heads just because he was scared they might retaliate when Rhaegar kidnapped Robert's fiance and Aerys murdered Ned's older brother and father, Aerys voided the feudal contract between the king and his vassals (at the very least his northern and stormland vassals).

This thereby tainted Aerys' line in the eyes of the most.

The Iron Throne would then follow to Aerys' closest of kin that being Robert and his brothers who were his cousins.

edited 4th Jul '15 7:37:00 PM by MadSkillz

That doesn't make sense. Rhaegar was beloved (well, according to Barristan Selmy, at least, and before the whole Lyanna incident). Also, it's blaming the son for the sins of the father. In other words, ridiculous and wrong.

And even if it were a valid line of reasoning, Stannis' claim could be dismissed on just as strong grounds. Heresy, for instance. Or (later in the story and probably not known to most) blood magic.

edited 4th Jul '15 7:57:11 PM by TompaDompa

Well, no. Rhaegar also kidnapped Stannis' liege lord's fiance so he shares some blame. Also I was talking about at the end of the war. And fearing that insanity runs in Aerys' children is completely valid considering it did in Viserys and might in Dany.

Furthermore, Robert is Stannis' liege lord and his older brother which is equally as binding as his duty to the king and prince if not moreso.

Well in the eyes of the fanatic followers of the Seven, maybe. But the succession of the Iron Throne isn't rooted in divine right but upon the laws of men.

edited 4th Jul '15 8:13:29 PM by MadSkillz

Leaving aside Robert's Rebellion. The fact is Stannis' claim over Renly's is based on the line of succession.

The line of succession is not some on-off switch. Its the basis for lineage in the entire show. Without line of succession, Tyrion's anger that Tywin is not making him heir of Casterly Rock (since Jaime is Kingsguard and out of the picture and Cersei is married to another house and would never have inherited anyway) doesn't work. If Renly can be King before Stannis than Tywin has every right to deny Tyrion his claim and the latter has no right to be resentful that his father is denying him his birthright. As Robb Stark said, "Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before me, Renly can't be King before Stannis."

The conflict in Robert's Rebellion is between one dynasty (Targaryens) who abused their vassal houses and outright provoked a Civil War by calling for Robert's heads when he did nothing, as opposed to a younger brother (Renly) blatantly making a power-grab and stroking Civil War when his main argument against Stannis is that he has "a personality of a Lobster". Renly didn't oppose Stannis for religious reasons (the Faith of the Seven would give Renly the side-eye anyway for putting a woman in the Kingsguard and for the rumors) at all. People in Westeros don't rebel unless they do it for good reasons. They put up with Mad Aerys for years and years hoping Rhaegar would come and the good times would role and only when Aerys II and Rhaegar broke the code that the other vassals decided to take matters in their own hands. Stannis having "a personality of a Lobster" doesn't deny him the right to be King not by the rules of Westerosi feudalism at any rate. So Renly can go Renly himself.

With the "blaming the son for the sins of the father" I was referring to Viserys, but I realize that wasn't at all obvious from how I phrased it. Dismissing his claim because Aerys was bonkers is... convenient. And I don't think calling Viserys insane is fair. He was spoiled, rude, petulant, ambitious, impatient, and treated his sister awfully, but I don't think we see anything that really demonstrates insanity.

The case with Tyrion could be argued to be one of property and not position, and his anger could be construed as coming from being consistently treated poorly by his father and denied Casterly Rock out of spite. But I see your point.

And no, you can't leave aside Robert's Rebellion. And neither can Stannis. He can't decide that the line of succession is important now that it benefits him if he didn't back when it benefited someone else. That's just basic consistency.

edited 5th Jul '15 2:27:00 AM by TompaDompa

"It was the hardest choice I ever made. My brother or my king. Blood or honor. Aerys ruled by rights of all the laws of Westeros. Everyone knew the price of defiance. But there are deeper older laws. The younger brother bows before the elder." Stannis Baratheon - Histories and Lore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eF1TG71looE

With the "blaming the son for the sins of the father" I was referring to Viserys, but I realize that wasn't at all obvious from how I phrased it. Dismissing his claim because Aerys was bonkers is... convenient

I was referring to Rhaegar. The line of succession was Aerys>Rhaegar>Aegon VI>Viserys>Robert. Now if the rebels are saying that Aerys and Rhaegar are both illegitimate for their violation of abuses, what reason would they have to rally to the side of Aegon VI and Viserys, both of them being children or infants at best. Viserys is Aerys' kid and Aegon VI is Rhaegar's boy. They would naturally argue that Robert would be a better claim.

As far as the rebels at the time was concerned, the Targaryens had gone to seed, Aerys was mad and Rhaegar was little better (based on his actions), so why take a chance and put another Targaryen on the throne?

Aegon VI was dead by the time Robert took the throne, wasn't he? Just want to make sure I've got my timeline right.

Anyway, by not placing a Targaryen on the throne, the rebellion became a coup d'état (and if they had changed the system of government, it would've been a revolution). The point is not that putting Viserys on the throne would've been a good idea, but that not doing so was illegal. Viserys was entirely right to refer to Robert as "the Usurper", because that's what he was.

And to tie this in to the War of the Five Kings: if Viserys' claim can be dismissed on the basis of not wanting him on the throne (because of fear it might be a bad idea or whatever), then so can Stannis'.

Not at all. Viserys was a young child at the time, and as the show says, Kings generally place Regents for boy-kings (Robert wanted to make Ned Regent over Joffrey, Cersei declared herself Regent over Tommen). So on account of youth and his young age, Viserys would not be considered a realistic option, especially since Aerys and Rhaegar had both discredited the Targaryen dynasty thoroughly. Aerys II himself made peace impossible since he declared Robert and Ned dead to rights, so its either them or the Targaryens, on terms created by the Targaryens. As far as the Rebellion was concerned, they merely wanted to do Aerys and Rhaegar's job for them, in other words making sure Status Quo Is God that Lords and Nobles aren't given summary execution and you don't have a psychopath who burns people on the throne and a Pretty Boy rapist. So that meant a proper line of succession with Baratheon instead of Targaryen.

Stannis would not be a boy-king at all. He's a proven military commander and exceptional administrator. That is an exceptional CV and portfolio by any measure. Renly's CV is being on the small council and doing nothing about the debt of the Crown and then supporting Robert in ordering the death of Daenerys Targaryen (which to me makes Renly's death Laser-Guided Karma, in fact I should add it to the character page) which Ned Stark quit the Handship for. The only people on the show who say they don't want Stannis are Littlefinger, Lannisters, Tyrells, Renly and Varys. All of them corrupt to a fault.

Yes, having someone act as Regent for Viserys would've been legal. But that's not what they did, and what they did wasn't legal.

Whilst the situation with Stannis isn't identical to the one with Viserys, the legal basis is the same: if the line of succession can be ignored, then it can. If it cannot, it cannot. In the former case, Stannis isn't necessarily the rightful King. In the latter, Robert wasn't the rightful King until the very last few days of his reign, after Viserys died. In either case, Stannis is in the wrong.

And saying that everyone who didn't want Stannis was corrupt isn't saying much; everyone is corrupt, or they wouldn't be in that line of business to begin with. And really, it doesn't affect the legality one bit.

You act as if they had much of a choice. Aerys II Targaryen, the Mad King said that Robert Baratheon and Ned Stark are to be turned to royal custody to be killed at once. That's what he told Jon Arryn. This after brutally murdering Rickard and Brandon Stark which came after Rhaegar kidnapped Lyanna Stark. Within that context, Robert and Ned (and all their supporters) weren't rebelling so much as fighting for their lives. Even if Robert and Ned wanted peace, or wanted Viserys or someone else, they were not in a position to do so because their rights were taken away and they could only defend themselves and their family by force of arms. To stand for Robert meant to stand against the King. So it was literally life and death between Targaryens and Baratheons. If Robert and Ned had lost one battle, they would be executed and declared traitors, as would their brothers, allies and friends. Whereas Aerys remained King even after losing virtually every battle. It was only when Rhaegar died that Tywin came and spoiled the Rebellion like the slimy war profiteer that he is.

How about we look at this in the context of characters in Westeros rather than apply our viewer prejudices and context there. In Westeros, Robert's Rebellion is legitimate. Its only Viserys, Dany and other well-wishers who think otherwise. Without Robert, Renly would not be on the Small Council shacking up with Loras (during the Rebellion, the Tyrells laid siege on Storm's End because they were Targaryen loyalists remember). If the Rebellion is legitimate then Robert and his family are the Royal Family of Westeros. If the Rebellion is legitimate and Robert is King, and his children are Incest-Bastards (which they are), then his brothers are next-in-line. Since Robert is King and the eldest brother, it follows that primogeniture matters. The eldest comes before the youngest. So Stannis is ahead of Renly.

Now Renly says that he should be King because...reasons. No citing of abuses of authority or anything. Just "I want to be King". Renly depends on Robert's battlefield prowess for his position and wealth, if not for Robert, he'd never have a relationship with Loras or be on the Small Council. He likely would not even be alive if not for Robert. So legally and morally, Renly is a traitor with no justification, no defenses and no motivations to do what he did. Mance Rayder, being a Wildling nobody from far away has far greater justification to the title of King-Beyond-The-Wall than Renly Baratheon does to his title. Renly being a beneficiary of inherited wealth and conquests cannot claim King-By-Merit by any stretch of the imagination.

edited 5th Jul '15 6:45:36 AM by JulianLapostat

This bears repeating: I'm not saying the Rebellion wasn't legitimate. I'm saying Robert taking the throne for himself at its end wasn't.

From the perspective of the characters, if the Rebellion is legitimate, then Robert is legitimate. Simple as that. Robert claiming the Targaryen crown was the only option when Aerys stripped him off his rights. Everyone who supported Robert were dead in the eyes of Targaryens and their supporters. The only way for Robert to unite supporters to their cause is the promise of rewards and protection, that can only come if Robert seizes the crown for himself.

Comparing Renly's lack of claim to the throne to Robert's is utter false equivalence. Robert established a new royal line. His will specifically said that the throne goes "to his rightful heir" who, in this case, is Stannis. Robert broke the old line because, well, the old line was sorta setting people on fire. Renly was breaking Robert's line because... gosh darnit, it sure would be nice to be king!

But on top of not having a leg to stand on, Renly's decision was absolutely great news for the Lannisters and no one else. All it wound up doing was dividing their enemies at no cost to them.

And incidentally, I never got the feeling the smallfolk really cared for Renly. The Tyrells, sure, so I suppose you can claim that they liked Renly by extension but aside from being more charismatic than the drunkard Robert and the stone-faced Stannis, I never really saw anything but Loras' praise indicating people particularly cared about him one way or the other.

edited 7th Jul '15 12:57:16 PM by Larkmarn

We don't know for sure about the smallfolk, but the fact that Renly had any Bannermen proved that his words had some sway.

His claim was still wholly illegitimate, and I'm surprised you guys are still talking about it.

I'm a bit flabbergasted by it myself. I don't get how it's an issue. He's just a guy who decided being king would be nice. And in doing so made things SO much better for the Lannisters.

Renly's "claim" did make things better in the end thanks to Mel but they were worried a lot about it. Most of season 2, the Lannisters in King's Landing were thinking they were boned. Tywin was trying to figure out to stop 3 potential claimants and Jaime was captured end of season 1. So it's not like it was great being a Lannister until the Tyrells got on board and doubled their forces.

edited 7th Jul '15 4:04:58 PM by byakugan0889

Alternate ending for Shireen

(Crossposting)

Interesting that you post that (regarding the sacrifice of Isaac). It's definitely an idea that ancient people struggled with. Because the Bible also has Jephthah and things go horribly wrong just as they do for Stannis in the show.

And similarly, Iphegenia is sacrificed in Greek Mythology and things go really badly for Agamemnon. And there's versions of the myth (from what must be the original Shireen truthers) in which she actually escaped and lived happily ever after.

I can't help but wonder if the scene was meant as an allusion to this.

Undoubtedly. Although Iphegenia is mentioned more often (due to the method of sacrifice), it seems evocative of Jephthah and his daughter, both in terms of the narrative sympathy for the daughter, and in how Jephtah/Stannis is sort of Wrong Genre Savvy (for lack of a better term)- expecting a reward for making the ultimate sacrifice but actually ending up being punished for committing a terrible crime.

Although from the way Melisandre speaks of Rh'llor, you'd think He'd be pleased.

edited 7th Jul '15 4:59:28 PM by Hodor2

Considering how gods operate it's possible R'hllor was pleased with Stannis's loyalty, but realized that Stannis had gone too far, and deliberately had him fail but also had him survive so he could rise back up again as a better man and a better champion of light.

The problem is that in the original story for Agamemnon, it worked in the short-term. Agamemnon and his crew got clear winds, they sailed to Troy and they sacked the city and they returned home. Its only on coming home that Agamemnon gets whacked by his wife. The point is the sacrifice does work and produce the results that it is supposed to.

Here, the show makes it the downfall of a religious nut and shmuck, in a way that its technically impossible to play out in any like way in the books.

And things didn't go badly for Jephtah, after he sacrifices the daughter he continues to be the great general and protect the Israelites after that.

edited 7th Jul '15 8:43:05 PM by JulianLapostat