|
SPOILER WARNING If you only watch the show, this thread will spoil you of future events in HBO's Game of Thrones. Thread contains discussion of all books of the series A Song of Ice and FireClick Here for the spoiler-free thread. |
On April 18 2014 08:24 KwarK wrote:
On which note I don't know why the Iron Bank are funding Stannis' army when they could just fund the poisoning of Tommen/Myrcella and have Stannis inherit. The guy is 3rd in line, he doesn't need an army to take over.
The Iron bank still want to be paid and what better way to indebt the new king to pay you than to make him the new king in an honorable way. Stannis doesnt seem like the guy that would willingly poison people like that( I know renly contradicts this but after him and Davos talking I think he realises his mistakes. Also he needed renly's men). If the iron bank put Stannis on the throne he will have no choice but to pay the iron thrones debt to the Iron bank.
|
United States44231 Posts
Stannis is first in line if the legitimacy of Robert's children is doubted but 3rd if they are legitimate. The people opposing him have all been arguing for the legitimacy of the children and that they come first, not that whoever has the power gets to pick. While they could theoretically then declare that they were usurping the throne in the event of Stannis being the rightful king by their own logic that'd be a huge departure from the current loyalist vs usurper stance they're taking.
|
On April 18 2014 08:38 KwarK wrote:
Stannis is first in line if the legitimacy of Robert's children is doubted but 3rd if they are legitimate. The people opposing him have all been arguing for the legitimacy of the children and that they come first, not that whoever has the power gets to pick. While they could theoretically then declare that they were usurping the throne in the event of Stannis being the rightful king by their own logic that'd be a huge departure from the current loyalist vs usurper stance they're taking.
I never thought of this... if Joffrey's brother dies, wouldnt that make Stannis legitimately king and the lannisters have no other claim?
|
United States44231 Posts
Daughters before brothers but yeah.
|
Before it gets to stannis after all other barotheon die I think kingdoms will go independent like before since there is no one overwhelming force like before. Unless everyone wants to stick to the 700(?) Year old tradition.
|
My point was that stannis doesnt seem like he would poison two children to win his crown. Rather that he would prefer to win it by conquest or in the later stages of the books "protecting his kingdom"
|
On April 18 2014 09:09 Dunmer wrote:
My point was that stannis doesnt seem like he would poison two children to win his crown. Rather that he would prefer to win it by conquest or in the later stages of the books "protecting his kingdom"
He even wanted to burn a child he was related with and that was completely innocent to win his crown. In comparison poisoning 2 usurpers and abominations (because of their incestuous birth) would be a piece of cake to justify to himself.
And he already had Joffrey poisoned you can argue, so why not his siblings and successors?
|
On April 18 2014 08:38 KwarK wrote:
Stannis is first in line if the legitimacy of Robert's children is doubted but 3rd if they are legitimate. The people opposing him have all been arguing for the legitimacy of the children and that they come first, not that whoever has the power gets to pick. While they could theoretically then declare that they were usurping the throne in the event of Stannis being the rightful king by their own logic that'd be a huge departure from the current loyalist vs usurper stance they're taking.
Let's be real here. How many of the players do you think actually, honestly believe that Joffrey and Tommen were Robert Baratheon's children? People can argue about legitimacy all they want, I always got the impression everyone knew they were Baratheons in name only but maintaining the lie maintained the status quo, for the Lannisters and Tyrells at least.
The problem has never been that whoever has the power gets to pick, it's that whoever has the power can enforce what everyone knows to be a very weak claim. And when the Lannisters "seized" power, everyone thought it to be a strong claim. Stannis should have brought it to Robert's attention while he was still alive, but needed proof otherwise Robert would never have believed him.
|
On April 18 2014 09:33 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 09:09 Dunmer wrote:
My point was that stannis doesnt seem like he would poison two children to win his crown. Rather that he would prefer to win it by conquest or in the later stages of the books "protecting his kingdom"
He even wanted to burn a child he was related with and that was completely innocent to win his crown. In comparison poisoning 2 usurpers and abominations (because of their incestuous birth) would be a piece of cake to justify to himself. And he already had Joffrey poisoned you can argue, so why not his siblings and successors?
Stannis' character is complicated. Melisandre kept insisting for so long to burn Edric Storm, and he always refused. He even threatened her at one point when she brought it up again. The main reason why he was going to reluctantly do it was that the three usurpers thing with the leeches worked, because Robb Stark, Joffrey Baratheon and Balon Greyjoy all died. It seemed to have semi-convinced him. I think he would have done it though, only to bitch about it later, the same way he shows remorse for killing Renly.
I totally agree that he wouldn't hesitate for a second to sacrifice/poison/kill/burn Tommen and Myrcella though. To him, they are not Baratheons, and they are pure abominations. We see that with the way he speaks of Gilly and her child, after he learns of Craster's... habits.
edit: in other news, for those who like a little lore, GRRM just released this: http://www.georgerrmartin.com/world-of-ice-and-fire-sample/
It's a sample of the upcoming A World of Ice and Fire, about Aegon I the Conqueror. It's pretty cool.
|
That raises the question of how long/why Dragonstone had been around before the Targaryens moved there entirely. I had thought the date that they established it had been around 500 years ago (~100 before doom, ~200 BC), and that still works but it begs the question of why they bothered with it.
Also new is Targaryen faith in the seven pre-Conciliator, even if it sounds like it was relatively "passover and hanukkah/easter and christmas/first and last day of ramadan" only in nature.
That also kills the idea that Aegon's status as head of the household was a "floppy ears" thing. If they had converted to the seven it stands to reason that he'd always been slated for lordship over Visenya. This in turn calls into question Viserys I's reasoning for favoring his daughter over his son.
Overall this feels like more of those minor retcons that have been trickling into asoiaf of late.
|
I don't think Viserys I's reasoning was ever explained. He was lacking a son, so he groomed his daughter to be his heir. This was before he remarried and had other sons and daughters from a Hightower.
I mean, I don't know that it's a retcon, is it? Going against religious customs isn't unheard of, just look at Stannis (albeit the situation was very different).
|
It was never explained but the reasoning that it was a simple matter of sticking to Valyrian customs over Andal ones made a decent bit of sense. If Targaryen participation in the faith of the seven was a less recent change, and not so much only a matter of smoothing things over politically by ostensibly converting to the seven, then that is a less likely answer. It is still possible, though the odds are tipped in favor of <other reasons he happened to have> now.
He had a son for about two decades before he died without switching the heir apparent situation, and Rhaenyra would have only reached womanhood and became princess of dragonstone after the birth of Aegon. Lack of availability of a son was never so strong a reason.
It is not a provable retcon, no. The pre-conquest Targaryen faith in the seven is though.
I think it (the recent-ish pattern of retcons/minor changes in apparent direction of some background setting topics) is probably part of a reasonable clean-up while he gets things in order with Fire and Blood in mind. We all know how horrible he used to be about some of the little details and things like dates and timing.
I'm not letting him off the hook for non-fireproof fire-breathing dragons that are "fire made flesh", complete with previous reference to dragon tissue being "completely impervious to fire", though. That is just dumb.
|
On April 18 2014 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:
... I see the undead army gaining a lot of strength by then, maybe by consuming the north (Bolton/Stannis armies and the Nights Watch). Would be ironic if the final battle of the story happened on the frozen Trident.
There's a nicely prophetic dream in Daenerys III of Storm of Swords, on the night before her conquest of Astapoor.
That night she dreamt that she was Rhaegar, riding to the Trident. But she was mounted on a dragon, not a horse. When she saw the Usurper's rebel host across the river they were all armored in ice, but she bathed them in dragonfire and they melted away like a dew and turned the Trident into a torrent.
|
On April 18 2014 08:38 KwarK wrote:
Stannis is first in line if the legitimacy of Robert's children is doubted but 3rd if they are legitimate. The people opposing him have all been arguing for the legitimacy of the children and that they come first, not that whoever has the power gets to pick. While they could theoretically then declare that they were usurping the throne in the event of Stannis being the rightful king by their own logic that'd be a huge departure from the current loyalist vs usurper stance they're taking.
well, Stannis was declared a traitor and enemy of the crown. At that point i guess he "lost" his claim as far as the royal family is concerned (which would be reduced to Cersei)
|
On April 18 2014 23:31 Gladness wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 08:31 ZasZ. wrote:
... I see the undead army gaining a lot of strength by then, maybe by consuming the north (Bolton/Stannis armies and the Nights Watch). Would be ironic if the final battle of the story happened on the frozen Trident. There's a nicely prophetic dream in Daenerys III of Storm of Swords, on the night before her conquest of Astapoor. Show nested quote +That night she dreamt that she was Rhaegar, riding to the Trident. But she was mounted on a dragon, not a horse. When she saw the Usurper's rebel host across the river they were all armored in ice, but she bathed them in dragonfire and they melted away like a dew and turned the Trident into a torrent.
I still firmly believe that the dragons are going to melt the Wall. I just know it.
|
On April 20 2014 02:39 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2014 08:38 KwarK wrote:
Stannis is first in line if the legitimacy of Robert's children is doubted but 3rd if they are legitimate. The people opposing him have all been arguing for the legitimacy of the children and that they come first, not that whoever has the power gets to pick. While they could theoretically then declare that they were usurping the throne in the event of Stannis being the rightful king by their own logic that'd be a huge departure from the current loyalist vs usurper stance they're taking. well, Stannis was declared a traitor and enemy of the crown. At that point i guess he "lost" his claim as far as the royal family is concerned (which would be reduced to Cersei)
Only according to people who buy into the Lannister-Baratheon claim of Cersei's children.
At this point a stability has been reached around that claim though, so the Stannis' claim is pretty well over either way. Either Tommen is king, or Dany is queen. It depends on views of what makes a conquest "count" towards resetting the legal claim.
|
Well put it this way the crown was made by conquest via Aegon the conqueror and that crown was taken from that bloodline through conquest via Robert's rebellion. Stannis could be all right claim that throne through conquest or even the fact that he is Roberts brother and if tommen and company are out of the crown picture the rights fall to him.
|
You don't just "lose" a claim. Stannis doesn't just cease to be the next heir after Tommen/Myrcella. He's still the rightful heir to them even for those who uphold that they are of the Baratheon line.
You could kneel and swear fealty to a new king/queen, or die. And we all know Stannis would break before he bends.
So unless Stannis dies, he's probably never going to stop fighting for his claim - although it WOULD be interesting to see how he would react in light of a Targaryen retaking the Iron Throne.
|
Imo Stannis lost any chance to be king when he teamed up with Melisandre. As much as I try, I cant even imagine any scenario where Stannis could be king while still promoting R'hllor. There is no way these sparrows and all those other pious people would ever accept him. If he tried to ascend the throne, the streets of KL would run with blood.
|
I don't see Stannis surviving the series. He'll probably die against the Others. It seems to be his destiny, sort of. He's the only major "player" who is concerned about the Others, and he seems to think the main concern of the people of Westeros should be to fight and defeat the Others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
