*Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

The place to talk about the books and the TV show. Beware of spoilers!

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Aegon VI Targaryen » Tue Nov 12, 2013 03:56

I used to like Stannis, mostly through the end of the first book and into the second. But after he started burning Godswoods and roasting people alive as his preferred method of execution, he went from my favorite of the claimants for the Iron Throne (way back when, mind you) to a zealot who needs to die.

Now, I support the true King, Aegon VI Targaryen. And if you're one of those poor misguided people who think he's a fake (hey, believe what you like) there's always his aunt who has a much better claim than Stannis does.

Spoilers from A Dance with Dragons below.

Now? I hope the Bolton's have him. Before he can screw around with another leech, anyway.
I am the only dragon that you need.
User avatar
Aegon VI Targaryen
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 09:46

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by VxXxV » Tue Nov 12, 2013 07:04

sinstar87 wrote:Ha those pics Dactylartha posted are funny.

Can you explain your statement VxXxV?



Melisandre burn people , Stannis kill people


Stannis will punish based on law , steal = lose hand/finger , rebellion = death
but Melissandre influence Stannis to burn people instead of usual beheading
User avatar
VxXxV
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 18:02

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by jbutton169 » Tue Nov 12, 2013 15:14

Aegon VI Targaryen wrote:I used to like Stannis, mostly through the end of the first book and into the second. But after he started burning Godswoods and roasting people alive as his preferred method of execution, he went from my favorite of the claimants for the Iron Throne (way back when, mind you) to a zealot who needs to die.



If you think that Stannis is a zealot then you need to reread the books...
jbutton169
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 13:11

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Aegon VI Targaryen » Wed Nov 13, 2013 13:17

He burned idols of his Gods and abandoned them to get a shiny sword. He's burnt down forests dedicated to the Old Gods, in the name of R'hllor.

Qualifies as zealotry in my book, to be perfectly honest. Smacks of Boniface (damn his name) cutting down Thor's Oak, or Charlemagne and the Irminsul.

Even if your excuse is that he's being controlled by a zealot, that's not much better.
I am the only dragon that you need.
User avatar
Aegon VI Targaryen
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 09:46

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Notalent » Wed Nov 13, 2013 23:00

Aegon VI Targaryen wrote:He burned idols of his Gods and abandoned them to get a shiny sword. He's burnt down forests dedicated to the Old Gods, in the name of R'hllor.

Qualifies as zealotry in my book, to be perfectly honest. Smacks of Boniface (damn his name) cutting down Thor's Oak, or Charlemagne and the Irminsul.

Even if your excuse is that he's being controlled by a zealot, that's not much better.

Stannis didn't believe in the Seven, so he didn't burn idols of his gods, he burned idols. Stannis is an atheist, or more precisely a "naytheist", hes been shown proof enough that there ARE gods, he just refuses to worship them because of how they ruined his life. He also doesn't believe in R'hllor, or at least doesn't truly worship him, and has told Davos the only reason he goes along with it is because he NEEDS Melisandre's power.


I stopped believing in gods the day I saw the Windproud break up across the bay. Any gods so monstrous as to drown my mother and father would never have my worship, I vowed. In King’s Landing, the High Septon would prattle at me of how all justice and goodness flowed from the Seven, but all I ever saw of either was made by men.[35]
- Stannis to Ser Davos

Seriously, people need to read those Davos chapters in a Storm of Swords when Stannis is nearly broken and truly opens up to the one man he considers his friend. Honestly those Davos chapters are probably the best writing G.R.R.M has ever done, he manages to make a cold and unlikeable man into a man you can easily sympathize with a man who while you may not like, you at least understand and probably root for. The hate for Stannis seems to come from people who either glossed over them while desperately trying to jump from Tyrion to Jon Snow chapters or people who have watched the show and Stannis' grossly ooc behavior in the third season.
Notalent
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 08:23

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by MBjarno » Thu Nov 14, 2013 00:04

I will join the people here who calls Stannis the one true king. By the current laws of succession he is the true king. On top of that, Stannis has proven himself as a commander, one of the best and he is just, though harsh. He might not be the kings Westeros wants, but he is the one they need. Scheming will be done much harder when a king like Stannis is on the throne, however, I am liking him suitably much that I expect him to die soon (and hopefully Melisandre too).

Stannis is the one true king, though I doubt he will get it. So I am also hoping a little that Aegon might get to the throne.
MBjarno
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 22:24

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by EDAP » Thu Nov 14, 2013 07:59

No (and note that I am being a pedant here, I kind of support Stannis's claim), Stannis is currently not the true king by the standing succession laws, unless I missed them adopting Seniority succession. Until all of Cersei's children are officially recognized as bastards ( as opposed to the unofficial state they are in, and that fact as omnipresent readers we can mind read to find out the answer) Stannis is instead a usurping uncle. As soon as the truth comes out, he is legally king but until that point he only really has a moral high-ground.
Here is a link to my personal list of FAQs. Please check there to see if it answers you question. The specific details aren't up to date, and I probably won't update it for a while, but the general ideas are unchanged.
EDAP
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 15:15

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Ivir Baggins » Thu Nov 14, 2013 21:57

Stannis' claim is that Cersei's brats ARE bastards, and therefore he is the legitimate heir of Robert Baratheon.

But if ignore Robert, then Aegon (being Aerys' grandson through Rhaegar) is the legitimate heir, then Daenerys (Aerys' daughter), and only if both die is it Stannis (Aerys' second cousin through Stannis' paternal grandmother Rhaelle (IIRC)).
Ivir Baggins
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 21:52

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Syn » Fri Nov 15, 2013 01:02

Ivir Baggins wrote:Stannis' claim is that Cersei's brats ARE bastards, and therefore he is the legitimate heir of Robert Baratheon.

But if ignore Robert, then Aegon (being Aerys' grandson through Rhaegar) is the legitimate heir, then Daenerys (Aerys' daughter), and only if both die is it Stannis (Aerys' second cousin through Stannis' paternal grandmother Rhaelle (IIRC)).

You can always throw Jon in the mix, if you believe he is Rhaegar's only remaining legitimate son.
User avatar
Syn
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:49

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Notalent » Fri Nov 15, 2013 01:53

Syn wrote:
Ivir Baggins wrote:Stannis' claim is that Cersei's brats ARE bastards, and therefore he is the legitimate heir of Robert Baratheon.

But if ignore Robert, then Aegon (being Aerys' grandson through Rhaegar) is the legitimate heir, then Daenerys (Aerys' daughter), and only if both die is it Stannis (Aerys' second cousin through Stannis' paternal grandmother Rhaelle (IIRC)).

You can always throw Jon in the mix, if you believe he is Rhaegar's only remaining legitimate son.

Define legitimate, pretty sure Rhaegar didn't marry Lyanna even in that conspiracy theory (which I do actually believe).
Notalent
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 08:23

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by EDAP » Fri Nov 15, 2013 08:25

Ivir Baggins wrote:Stannis' claim is that Cersei's brats ARE bastards, and therefore he is the legitimate heir of Robert Baratheon.

But if ignore Robert, then Aegon (being Aerys' grandson through Rhaegar) is the legitimate heir, then Daenerys (Aerys' daughter), and only if both die is it Stannis (Aerys' second cousin through Stannis' paternal grandmother Rhaelle (IIRC)).

Right, his claim, which I sort of support, is based as you say on the assumption that they are bastards. They have not yet been legally declared bastards, thus they are not officially bastards, even if we as the mind reading reader know better.
Robert, to all intents in purposes, took the crown not through a tiny bit of Targ blood, but through conquest. At that point the Targs get filtered out of quite a bit of succession; they probably are now somewhere in line, but quite far out.
Legally, from Robert succession looks something like this;
    1. Joffrey
    2. Tommen
    3. (Depending on how you treat females under these laws) Mrycella
    4. Stannis
    5. (Again, assuming daughters inherit before uncles) Sheeren
    6. Renly
After that it gets complicated. If it had reached this point, someone would probably have selected from the Lord Paramounts a new heir to the Throne, realistically one of Robert's Allies, probably Ned, or the Lannisters would have launched a bid.
Here is a link to my personal list of FAQs. Please check there to see if it answers you question. The specific details aren't up to date, and I probably won't update it for a while, but the general ideas are unchanged.
EDAP
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 15:15

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by MBjarno » Fri Nov 15, 2013 14:53

Well if the lords of Westeros in common believes and accepts Stannis' claim that the Baratheon heirs really are Lannisters he gets up there. If not then the line of succession is:

1. Joffrey
2. Tommen.
3. Myrcella (Though I am not sure if a woman would be allowed to the throne before Stannis or Renly)
4. Stannis
5. Renly

The current line of succession (A guestimation)
Spoiler: show
1. Tommen
2. Any other Baratheons who had stayed loyal to the crown at the break out of the war.
3. I think Cersei would probably inherite here, leaving it in Lannister custody.
MBjarno
 
Posts: 229
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 22:24

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Syn » Fri Nov 15, 2013 17:42

Notalent wrote:
Syn wrote:
Ivir Baggins wrote:Stannis' claim is that Cersei's brats ARE bastards, and therefore he is the legitimate heir of Robert Baratheon.

But if ignore Robert, then Aegon (being Aerys' grandson through Rhaegar) is the legitimate heir, then Daenerys (Aerys' daughter), and only if both die is it Stannis (Aerys' second cousin through Stannis' paternal grandmother Rhaelle (IIRC)).

You can always throw Jon in the mix, if you believe he is Rhaegar's only remaining legitimate son.

Define legitimate, pretty sure Rhaegar didn't marry Lyanna even in that conspiracy theory (which I do actually believe).

One of the leading theories is that he did marry her in secret, since Elia could give him no more children. Which would explain the presence of three notable members of the Kingsguard, protecting the heir to the throne should King's Landing, Rhaegar, and Aegon fall.

Rhaegar was heavily influenced by prophecy, "The Prince that was Promised", and the dragon having "Three heads". There is precedent for Targaryen polygamous marriage, and I doubt Rhaegar would simply beget a bastard upon someone he seemed to have loved. Aegon, Rhaenys, and Jon were supposed to be those three heads, once Rhaegar abandoned his original thought that he himself was the prince of prophecy.

(As a side note, I wonder what Rhaegar would have named Jon? It implies Ned named him, since it's after Jon Arryn. I'm thinking some masculine form of Visenya...since he already had Aegon and Rhaenys. Maybe another Viserys?)
User avatar
Syn
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:49

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Notalent » Fri Nov 15, 2013 22:40

MBjarno wrote:Well if the lords of Westeros in common believes and accepts Stannis' claim that the Baratheon heirs really are Lannisters he gets up there. If not then the line of succession is:

1. Joffrey
2. Tommen.
3. Myrcella (Though I am not sure if a woman would be allowed to the throne before Stannis or Renly)
4. Stannis
5. Renly

The current line of succession (A guestimation)
Spoiler: show
1. Tommen
2. Any other Baratheons who had stayed loyal to the crown at the break out of the war.
3. I think Cersei would probably inherite here, leaving it in Lannister custody.

As proved by the Dance of Dragon's, in cases of a succession dispute it doesn't disqualify the the disputer if the seated king dies.

Even in the Joffrey is legitimate line of thinking, Stannis comes before Myrcella and would inherit if
Spoiler: show
Tommen were killed.
Notalent
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 08:23

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Aegon VI Targaryen » Fri Nov 15, 2013 22:52

The entire Baratheon line is not legitimate anyway. They don't have a true claim to the throne by blood, in the first place. The only Targaryen in their line was Orys, but he was a bastard and didn't have any claim to the Iron Throne.

The Baratheons won the throne by right of conquest, sure, I'll give them that - but now they have to keep it. And they'll have their hands full, doing that with the Targaryens coming back in force. Between Aegon VI (Yes I believe he's real, wah wah) and Daenerys, the Baratheons (and the Lannisters, as it stands now) have their work cut out for them. Big time.
I am the only dragon that you need.
User avatar
Aegon VI Targaryen
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 09:46

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Syn » Fri Nov 15, 2013 23:57

Aegon VI Targaryen wrote:The entire Baratheon line is not legitimate anyway. They don't have a true claim to the throne by blood, in the first place. The only Targaryen in their line was Orys, but he was a bastard and didn't have any claim to the Iron Throne.

The Baratheons won the throne by right of conquest, sure, I'll give them that - but now they have to keep it. And they'll have their hands full, doing that with the Targaryens coming back in force. Between Aegon VI (Yes I believe he's real, wah wah) and Daenerys, the Baratheons (and the Lannisters, as it stands now) have their work cut out for them. Big time.

Robert, Stannis, and Renly's grandmother was Rhaelle Targaryen, which is why Robert claimed the Iron Throne instead of Ned or Jon.

He still won it via conquest, so it doesn't matter much, but that's the reason they gave for Robert claiming the throne. In hindsight, Ned and Jon should have picked someone else. The whole Lyanna fiasco prevented them from supporting Rhaegar in deposing his father, like he planned to do...that would have made things so much easier...

But, you know, secrecy is the cool thing to do in Westeros.
User avatar
Syn
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:49

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by EDAP » Sat Nov 16, 2013 00:43

Also remember that the Baratheons are legally a divested branch of the Targ line, although the linking ancestor may be a bastard, that gives a claim as good as the Blackfyres.
Here is a link to my personal list of FAQs. Please check there to see if it answers you question. The specific details aren't up to date, and I probably won't update it for a while, but the general ideas are unchanged.
EDAP
 
Posts: 2977
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2013 15:15

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Notalent » Sat Nov 16, 2013 04:08

Aegon VI Targaryen wrote:The entire Baratheon line is not legitimate anyway. They don't have a true claim to the throne by blood, in the first place. The only Targaryen in their line was Orys, but he was a bastard and didn't have any claim to the Iron Throne.

The Baratheons won the throne by right of conquest, sure, I'll give them that - but now they have to keep it. And they'll have their hands full, doing that with the Targaryens coming back in force. Between Aegon VI (Yes I believe he's real, wah wah) and Daenerys, the Baratheons (and the Lannisters, as it stands now) have their work cut out for them. Big time.

The Targs won the throne through conquest. Robert won the throne through conquest of them. Joffrey was given the throne because his "father" was the king. Which makes questions of his legitimacy important, while claims of Roberts own legitimacy stupid. Conquerors don't need to be "legitimate" successors to the king.

If the Baratheon line isn't legitimate than no ruling line that ever gained control by conquest is legitimate, including the Targaryens.

And yes, Orys Baratheon was Aegon the 1st's half brother, and Rhaelle Targaryen was Robert/Stannis/Renly's Paternal grandmother, which would give them a weak claim to the throne, and arguably a superior claim than that of the Blackfyre's (its more recent).
Notalent
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 08:23

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Ivir Baggins » Sun Nov 17, 2013 14:22

Notalent wrote:
Aegon VI Targaryen wrote:The entire Baratheon line is not legitimate anyway. They don't have a true claim to the throne by blood, in the first place. The only Targaryen in their line was Orys, but he was a bastard and didn't have any claim to the Iron Throne.

The Baratheons won the throne by right of conquest, sure, I'll give them that - but now they have to keep it. And they'll have their hands full, doing that with the Targaryens coming back in force. Between Aegon VI (Yes I believe he's real, wah wah) and Daenerys, the Baratheons (and the Lannisters, as it stands now) have their work cut out for them. Big time.

The Targs won the throne through conquest. Robert won the throne through conquest of them. Joffrey was given the throne because his "father" was the king. Which makes questions of his legitimacy important, while claims of Roberts own legitimacy stupid. Conquerors don't need to be "legitimate" successors to the king.

If the Baratheon line isn't legitimate than no ruling line that ever gained control by conquest is legitimate, including the Targaryens.

And yes, Orys Baratheon was Aegon the 1st's half brother, and Rhaelle Targaryen was Robert/Stannis/Renly's Paternal grandmother, which would give them a weak claim to the throne, and arguably a superior claim than that of the Blackfyre's (its more recent).


The Blackfyre claim is that Daeron the Good was illegitimate (son of Naerys by Aemon the Dragonknight) and that Daemon Blackfyre was legitimised by Aegon IV, therefore all of Daeron's descendents have no right to the throne and that the legitimate descent derives through Daemon's descendents.

But ignoring the Blackfyre claim, the next definite claim if the Baratheons die is through the Martells, as Maron Martell married Daenerys, legitimate sister of Daeron the Good. Past the Martells it gets even more complicated, as it isn't clear who married who eg who Elaena (sister of Daeron I) married, as it is stated she had seven legitimate children from three marriages, plus Alyn Velaryon's bastards by her.
Ivir Baggins
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 21:52

Re: *Spoilers * Is Stannis too overrated?

PostPosted by Notalent » Sun Nov 17, 2013 21:34

Ivir Baggins wrote:
Notalent wrote:
Aegon VI Targaryen wrote:The entire Baratheon line is not legitimate anyway. They don't have a true claim to the throne by blood, in the first place. The only Targaryen in their line was Orys, but he was a bastard and didn't have any claim to the Iron Throne.

The Baratheons won the throne by right of conquest, sure, I'll give them that - but now they have to keep it. And they'll have their hands full, doing that with the Targaryens coming back in force. Between Aegon VI (Yes I believe he's real, wah wah) and Daenerys, the Baratheons (and the Lannisters, as it stands now) have their work cut out for them. Big time.

The Targs won the throne through conquest. Robert won the throne through conquest of them. Joffrey was given the throne because his "father" was the king. Which makes questions of his legitimacy important, while claims of Roberts own legitimacy stupid. Conquerors don't need to be "legitimate" successors to the king.

If the Baratheon line isn't legitimate than no ruling line that ever gained control by conquest is legitimate, including the Targaryens.

And yes, Orys Baratheon was Aegon the 1st's half brother, and Rhaelle Targaryen was Robert/Stannis/Renly's Paternal grandmother, which would give them a weak claim to the throne, and arguably a superior claim than that of the Blackfyre's (its more recent).


The Blackfyre claim is that Daeron the Good was illegitimate (son of Naerys by Aemon the Dragonknight) and that Daemon Blackfyre was legitimised by Aegon IV, therefore all of Daeron's descendents have no right to the throne and that the legitimate descent derives through Daemon's descendents.

But ignoring the Blackfyre claim, the next definite claim if the Baratheons die is through the Martells, as Maron Martell married Daenerys, legitimate sister of Daeron the Good. Past the Martells it gets even more complicated, as it isn't clear who married who eg who Elaena (sister of Daeron I) married, as it is stated she had seven legitimate children from three marriages, plus Alyn Velaryon's bastards by her.

We have no idea how many times a Targ daughter has married outside the family, what we do know is that Rhaelle was probably the LAST daughter besides Daenarys to marry outside the house. As for the Blackfyre claim, while yes it was a strong claim at the time its been 100 years and the male line of the house is extinct and as such any surviving blackfyre would have a much weaker claim at this time than Robert had.
Notalent
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 08:23

PreviousNext

Return to Story and Lore

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests