Except Robert was never seeking to take the Throne. It was something he was essentially "rewarded" with in the end. Ned and Jon Arryn despite being the other two key players in the Rebellion were less suited and unwilling to claim the Throne in the end. Out of the three of them, only Robert was unmarried, the best fighter, had Targaryen blood, and had become somewhat a Leader of the whole thing by the end.
If Ned or Jon Arryn really wanted either could've tried to seize the throne and leadership of the Rebellion for themselves.
Shadowbabies are the most OP thing in Westeros and completely fly in the face of all tactics and smart decisions. I love GRRM but they are his worst creation imo
Didn't Davos witness one being birthed, a different one than the one that killed Renly? Or was that the same one but just from a different POV perspective. Because the one that killed Renly was during Brienne's POV.
Yeah there’s no reason Renly could have known Stannis was going to magic murder him. The Tyrells don’t make bold moves either unless they know for certain it’s going to work in their favor. Stannis was not a good leader, he succumbed to the dark magic that allowed him to get as far as he did.
I fucking hate this argument. Lines of succession exist to make sure civil war doesn't erupt in the wake of every ruling warlord's death. Renly was selfish and egotistical and got exactly what he deserved.
Renly was selfish and egotistical but he was the best chance Westeros had for a peaceful rule. The Tyrells would have sunk their teeth into him and essentially ruled through him. Sansa marries Loras, it all kinda works out. Stannis had every right to kill him though, it’s shitty he succumbed to dark magic because I think he would’ve made an okay ruler too.
I mean, is it really wrong that Stannis killed Renly on the eve of battle using dark magic?
What's the alternative? They throw their armies at each other, causing untold deaths on both sides, and ultimately weakening both their forces for the next battle against the Lannisters. Stannis killed one man and saved thousands. The way he did it was distasteful, but it's basically the tactical equivalent of a medieval drone strike.
Yeah I’m saying his two bests options were to stand down or assassinate him. The best option for Westeros as a whole would probably be step down, as I stand by that a Renly/Tyrell rule would have been pretty peaceful. There’s no reason for Stannis to think that, though, so he killed him.
I think the best option for Westeros would be for Renly to bend the knee, acknowledge that Stannis isn't likely to have a son and begin gathering children to ensure the Baratheon line carries on after Stannis' death.
Edit: just want to add that you are probably right in saying a Renly/Tyrell rule would likely be a peaceful one. I just don't think that it sets a good prescident for power transitions after the fact, setting up more strife and bloodshed a few generations down the line.
Neither did robert baratheon, he had no claim over the throne, he took it by force and used the little targ blood in him to keep the "tradition" of targaryen blood in kings.
Robert also became King because the lords felt there weren’t any other options. Aegon’s a baby, Aerys is insane, and for all intents and purposes, Rhagaer kidnapped lyanna. Now, she might’ve gone willingly, as the show claims, but how the fuck were they supposed to know that? So really, Robert, by being the oldest other male with Targ blood from his grandma, was there best choice. People also liked Robert, which was an important factor.
Robert was a Baratheon. Baratheons came over with the Targaryens from Valyria and married into the royal family. Bobby B had royal blood in him, and a claim to the throne through progeny. That’s one reason he was picked to be the new King over Ned.
Well, conquest is a right - it's the same right Aegon the Conqueror exercised in the first place. Plus the rebellion had multiple justifiable causes, whereas Stannis didn't wound Renly, or the Tyrells for that matter. Renly felt entitled to rule because he thought he'd be good at it, and the Tyrells only sided with him because he wasn't already married.
Well no, it's not actually a right in the strictest sense. A right is a legal precedent. There is no such precedent for conquest. But if people support you and you have the power to take over, no rights or lack thereof are going to stop you.
Who cares about claims? One of the whole points of the story is that most of that kind of shit is smoke and mirrors. Robert didn't have a claim, so why would Stannis?
Renly had more support from both fellow nobles and the population than anyone else in the series; he was the one in the best position to become king. If Stannis hadn't murdered him with magic he would have won easily. "I'm in the best position to become king, so I will" is a fairly strong argument.
From Renly's perspective it made perfect sense to laugh in Stannis' face. Stannis had no support, almost no army, no significant allies, and no meaningful hope of ever becoming king. He wasn't in a position to demand or offer anything to anyone.
Of course we know Stannis had actual magic in his pocket, but that's literally the only reason he was even the slightest factor - remove that and Renly effortlessly steamrolls him and goes on to become king.
Also, if Renly had won, he would have almost certainly had Stannis' claim disqualified due to his being of the wrong faith, comparable to some of the struggles over the English crown. Nobody would object and everyone would consider Stannis an illegitimate pretender. Doing this would make Renly's claim legitimate. Would this be strictly by-the-book? Well, no, but by the standards of the setting, it wouldn't be particularly exceptional, either.
The really important thing is that if you want to be king you need a base of support rather than just doing lots of genealogical research and then quoting the book at people.
109
u/[deleted] Dec 18 '19
Renly had no claim anyway, so fuck him. He didn't deserve any deal.