|
|
Post by Ad○rably Obn○xi○us🐢 on Jul 12, 2017 14:20:56 GMT
She backed Renley because of their past history. It was entirely emotional, which, ironically, is a very female thing to do. Had she looked at the situation logically she would have backed Stannis for the same reason Davos did-rightful heir according to succession. Within the context of this discussion it doesn't really matter who "could" ascend to the throne, it's simply a matter of when a king dies people take sides. Brienne chose the side of the only man who up to that point had shown her any decency and she stuck with him. Her decision was rooted in fallible emotion but her loyalty is still admirable. She's flawed, and that makes her believable.
|
|
|
|
Post by DSDSquared on Jul 12, 2017 17:12:49 GMT
She backed Renley because of their past history. It was entirely emotional, which, ironically, is a very female thing to do. Had she looked at the situation logically she would have backed Stannis for the same reason Davos did-rightful heir according to succession. Within the context of this discussion it doesn't really matter who "could" ascend to the throne, it's simply a matter of when a king dies people take sides. Brienne chose the side of the only man who up to that point had shown her any decency and she stuck with him. Her decision was rooted in fallible emotion but her loyalty is still admirable. She's flawed, and that makes her believable. Okay I agree with everything you said, but it still does not make Renley the rightful anything. She can have all the loyalty she wants, but when she goes around calling Renley the one true and rightful king, she just sounds like an idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by Ad○rably Obn○xi○us🐢 on Jul 12, 2017 17:41:43 GMT
She backed Renley because of their past history. It was entirely emotional, which, ironically, is a very female thing to do. Had she looked at the situation logically she would have backed Stannis for the same reason Davos did-rightful heir according to succession. Within the context of this discussion it doesn't really matter who "could" ascend to the throne, it's simply a matter of when a king dies people take sides. Brienne chose the side of the only man who up to that point had shown her any decency and she stuck with him. Her decision was rooted in fallible emotion but her loyalty is still admirable. She's flawed, and that makes her believable. Okay I agree with everything you said, but it still does not make Renley the rightful anything. She can have all the loyalty she wants, but when she goes around calling Renley the one true and rightful king, she just sounds like an idiot. I don't see her as harshly as that, I just see her as misguided based on her feelings. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 12, 2017 17:59:21 GMT
She backed Renley because of their past history. It was entirely emotional, which, ironically, is a very female thing to do. Had she looked at the situation logically she would have backed Stannis for the same reason Davos did-rightful heir according to succession. Within the context of this discussion it doesn't really matter who "could" ascend to the throne, it's simply a matter of when a king dies people take sides. Brienne chose the side of the only man who up to that point had shown her any decency and she stuck with him. Her decision was rooted in fallible emotion but her loyalty is still admirable. She's flawed, and that makes her believable. I disagree.
Renley had the largest army and 3 major House alliances while Stannis was busy being despised & burning his own people alive and making demon babies.
So it was certainly more going for Renley's claim than female emotions.
There was absolutely no reason to back Stannis at all except to re-follow a tradition that Robert broke.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 12, 2017 18:21:23 GMT
She backed Renley because of their past history. It was entirely emotional, which, ironically, is a very female thing to do. Had she looked at the situation logically she would have backed Stannis for the same reason Davos did-rightful heir according to succession. Within the context of this discussion it doesn't really matter who "could" ascend to the throne, it's simply a matter of when a king dies people take sides. Brienne chose the side of the only man who up to that point had shown her any decency and she stuck with him. Her decision was rooted in fallible emotion but her loyalty is still admirable. She's flawed, and that makes her believable. I disagree.
Renley had the largest army and 3 major House alliances while Stannis was busy being despised & burning his own people alive and making demon babies.
So it was certainly more going for Renley's claim than female emotions.
There was absolutely no reason to back Stannis at all except to re-follow a tradition that Robert broke.
You are confusing claim and ability to win. Get a grip on vocabulary, please. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 12, 2017 19:05:18 GMT
I disagree.
Renley had the largest army and 3 major House alliances while Stannis was busy being despised & burning his own people alive and making demon babies.
So it was certainly more going for Renley's claim than female emotions.
There was absolutely no reason to back Stannis at all except to re-follow a tradition that Robert broke.
You are confusing claim and ability to win. Get a grip on vocabulary, please. I've been saying claim doesn't matter at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 13, 2017 5:27:34 GMT
You are confusing claim and ability to win. Get a grip on vocabulary, please. I've been saying claim doesn't matter at all. Yet you are using the word. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 13, 2017 11:49:27 GMT
I've been saying claim doesn't matter at all. Yet you are using the word. Context Others are using the word and I'm replying in relation to that. During those times of replied, if you had bothered reading more than the word claim, you would have figured out the context. No worries, since not reading happens all the time. However, I'm more than willing to have a pointless argument in the notion that the ability to win totally means a legitimate claim anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Jul 13, 2017 14:45:10 GMT
Yet you are using the word. Context Others are using the word and I'm replying in relation to that. During those times of replied, if you had bothered reading more than the word claim, you would have figured out the context. No worries, since not reading happens all the time. However, I'm more than willing to have a pointless argument in the notion that the ability to win totally means a legitimate claim anyway. I read what you wrote before and disagreed. This, especially, was a load of semantic nonsense: Let me pluck it out. "Claiming the throne" and "having a claim on the throne" do not mean the same thing. The former means taking, with or without right. The latter means having a seemingly legal justification, something going beyond mere ambition which others can agree on based on accepted legislation or customs. Taking something by force does not legalise it and this is not what the show is about. I, for one, make the point that Joffrey was Robert's rightful successor because the powers in the realm were approving of it and willing to grant him the crown undisputed. This is how legal things happen. The one who disagreed and decided to oppose it by force was a traitor. Those who took arms as a consequence were rebels. They were traitors and rebels because they took a unilateral decision to use force. Deserving something happens before you get it and expresses the opinion of others that it should be granted to you, not after you somehow managed to take it by force. Someone working for an agreed salary deserves it after doing the job, meaning he ought to be paid without further activity. Stealing the salary instead is not equivalent to having deserved it. Of course people would support a warrior without recognising him a right. Thieves in a gang do not believe they have a right to do what they do, only that they can get away with it. Loras wanted to put his lover on the throne, not the man he thought had the best claim. |
|
