Kal_1993
Sophomore
@kalyan1993
Posts: 475
Likes: 26
|
Post by Kal_1993 on Aug 8, 2017 9:54:07 GMT
I really hope he has got a better purpose in the books, considering the screentime/storytime given to him. I never liked the actor but there couldn't have been a worse ending. Even Red Wedding was much more "respectable". It looked as if the showrunners were desperately trying to downsize the number of characters.
Let us not forget the fact that his character arc introduced two amazing characters like Ser Davos (I see that you are staring at her .... Good heart 💓😉😉😉) and Melisandrae. Call me sick, but I still like Mel, in spite of her burning Shireen.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 8, 2017 10:39:11 GMT
Stannis is done. I wouldn't expect anything else in the show to progress his character.
He's still alive in the books tho as far as we know. Unless we are trusting a letter written by Ramsay Bolton.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 8, 2017 11:34:30 GMT
They gave Stannis plenty of screentime and his purpose was being one of the contenders for the throne.
His actions routinely changed the course of the story so he had a pretty big role to boot.
Glad he's dead though.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 8, 2017 13:27:42 GMT
As also-rans go he had a good run. I actually thought for a bit he might end up taking Westeros.
Never liked him though - miserable self-righteous git who burnt his daughter and murdered lovely Renly.
|
|
pk9
Sophomore
@pk9
Posts: 992
Likes: 152
|
Post by pk9 on Aug 8, 2017 18:00:34 GMT
He had to bring his army north to stop Mance Rayder, and also get Melisandre north to resurrect Jon Snow who had to die to get out of his Night's Watch vow.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 8, 2017 23:40:15 GMT
It's hard not to like Mel also.
Sure she's done horrible things, most characters have. And I still don't think Rhllor is a good God to follow even if he is the strongest. But the way she carries herself and her theme music just makes me love her scenes so much. Her lines tend to sound almost poetic.
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Aug 8, 2017 23:51:20 GMT
It's hard not to like Mel also. Sure she's done horrible things, most characters have. And I still don't think Rhllor is a good God to follow even if he is the strongest. But the way she carries herself and her theme music just makes me love her scenes so much. Her lines tend to sound almost poetic. Also she's pretty damn hot. Pun intended. Well when she's not that old hag at least. I do still resent her for killing that nice little girl. There are so few truly sweet people on the show it sucks when one is killed in such a pointless way.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 9, 2017 6:01:10 GMT
It's hard not to like Mel also. Sure she's done horrible things, most characters have. And I still don't think Rhllor is a good God to follow even if he is the strongest. But the way she carries herself and her theme music just makes me love her scenes so much. Her lines tend to sound almost poetic. Also she's pretty damn hot. Pun intended. Well when she's not that old hag at least. I do still resent her for killing that nice little girl. There are so few truly sweet people on the show it sucks when one is killed in such a pointless way. Shireen was sacrificed so the battle would be easier to shoot and more spectacular, you ingrates
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 9, 2017 6:05:37 GMT
As also-rans go he had a good run. I actually thought for a bit he might end up taking Westeros. Never liked him though - miserable self-righteous git who burnt his daughter and murdered lovely Renly. "Lovely Renly" was actually the worst of them all and Stannis killing him was a good thing. Renly thought he would be a better king. He thought what would make him a better king was that he would be loved more than his brothers or his nephew. He also thought this was worth starting a war. The primary justification of hereditary power is the preservation of peace. It goes before the perceived qualities of the ruler because it avoids a succession struggle, which is one of the first basis of civilisation. The Dothraki have a slightly different version of the same principle: when a Khal dies, the strongest candidates to his succession fight each other in single combat which limits the bloodshed to just a few, preserving peace amongst the tribe. By rejecting this principle, Renly brought back the prospect of recurring civil war to the realm where any man capable of summoning supporters would throw them against his opponents, very much the way Roman emperors did. Renly was one of the top villains of the story.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 9, 2017 6:29:20 GMT
I really hope he has got a better purpose in the books, considering the screentime/storytime given to him. I never liked the actor but there couldn't have been a worse ending. Even Red Wedding was much more "respectable". It looked as if the showrunners were desperately trying to downsize the number of characters. Let us not forget the fact that his character arc introduced two amazing characters like Ser Davos (I see that you are staring at her .... Good heart 💓😉😉😉) and Melisandrae. Call me sick, but I still like Mel, in spite of her burning Shireen. What is the purpose of a character in a story? I guess it depends on the writer. In the case of GRRM, it seems characters are their own purpose beyond what they achieve or introduce in the overall plot. Yet Stannis was first presented as the allegedly rightful but undesirable alternative to the new king. The conflict between the rightful and the desirable is at the heart of the story and so the purpose of Stannis was to present readers or viewers with a difficult choice. Stannis was meant to make you root for the Lannisters at the battle of the Blackwater. You were supposed to question the whole pro-Stark, "let's just kill Joffrey and go home" nonsense by realising this whole bloody war is a deadly mess no one should actually want. He was meant to make you question whether Joffrey really was that bad in the end. Yes, a boy murdering prostitutes for fun is an abomination but so is a king who burns unbelievers at the stake. The show botched the ending, but be certain the books will not have him achieve more even though his demise will make more sense.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 9, 2017 11:59:19 GMT
As also-rans go he had a good run. I actually thought for a bit he might end up taking Westeros. Never liked him though - miserable self-righteous git who burnt his daughter and murdered lovely Renly. "Lovely Renly" was actually the worst of them all and Stannis killing him was a good thing. Renly thought he would be a better king. He thought what would make him a better king was that he would be loved more than his brothers or his nephew. He also thought this was worth starting a war. The primary justification of hereditary power is the preservation of peace. It goes before the perceived qualities of the ruler because it avoids a succession struggle, which is one of the first basis of civilisation. The Dothraki have a slightly different version of the same principle: when a Khal dies, the strongest candidates to his succession fight each other in single combat which limits the bloodshed to just a few, preserving peace amongst the tribe. By rejecting this principle, Renly brought back the prospect of recurring civil war to the realm where any man capable of summoning supporters would throw them against his opponents, very much the way Roman emperors did. Renly was one of the top villains of the story. Ordinarily I might agree but the succession was already in dispute between Joffrey and Stannis anyway. Plus there was a candidate with arguably an even better claim trying to raise an army about in Essos, the North going into rebellion and the Greyjoys about to strike. So Renly was just another hat being thrown into the ring rather than a bringer of civil war. You couldn't really say he set a dangerous precedent either as that precedent was already set by Robert's rebellion a generation before. And not sure how Stannis killing him was the right move if the goal is avoiding turmoil. It made the Tyrells join the Lannisters and took away the one potential king who might have been able to make peace with Robb Stark. Stannis would have been better supporting Renly's claim. Their combined forces could have crushed the Lannisters, made peace with the Starks then destroyed the Greyjoys and the realm all united again before Daenerys or the White Walkers arrived on the scene.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 9, 2017 12:12:05 GMT
"Lovely Renly" was actually the worst of them all and Stannis killing him was a good thing. Renly thought he would be a better king. He thought what would make him a better king was that he would be loved more than his brothers or his nephew. He also thought this was worth starting a war. The primary justification of hereditary power is the preservation of peace. It goes before the perceived qualities of the ruler because it avoids a succession struggle, which is one of the first basis of civilisation. The Dothraki have a slightly different version of the same principle: when a Khal dies, the strongest candidates to his succession fight each other in single combat which limits the bloodshed to just a few, preserving peace amongst the tribe. By rejecting this principle, Renly brought back the prospect of recurring civil war to the realm where any man capable of summoning supporters would throw them against his opponents, very much the way Roman emperors did. Renly was one of the top villains of the story. Ordinarily I might agree but the succession was already in dispute between Joffrey and Stannis anyway. Plus there was a candidate with arguably an even better claim trying to raise an army about in Essos, the North going into rebellion and the Greyjoys about to strike. So Renly was just another hat being thrown into the ring rather than a bringer of civil war. You couldn't really say he set a dangerous precedent either as that precedent was already set by Robert's rebellion a generation before. And not sure how Stannis killing him was the right move if the goal is avoiding turmoil. It made the Tyrells join the Lannisters and took away the one potential king who might have been able to make peace with Robb Stark. Stannis would have been better supporting Renly's claim. Their combined forces could have crushed the Lannisters, made peace with the Starks then destroyed the Greyjoys and the realm all united again before Daenerys or the White Walker arrived on the scene. Renly left with Loras and further knights the day Robert died, before any war was started. Ned Stark's intention was to stage a swift coup to establish what he considered the unique, rightful order. Renly openly intended to do away with these notions and offer himself has "a better pretender" as opposed to the rightful one. Since anyone can decide he makes a "better pretender", he was opening competition and changing the game, moving from following rules to "let the stronger win". Ned, Robb and Stannis would all have agreed to see Stannis on the throne but Renly would dispute it. "The men carrying these bolts of cloth will make me king", he said, not any notion of right or wrong other could agree to. Robert had set no precedent. The Mad King had proven unworthy of the allegiance he demanded by murdering his vassals. Robert's rebellion was not a war for the throne, it was the justified taking down of a threat.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 9, 2017 13:07:06 GMT
Renly left with Loras and further knights the day Robert died, before any war was started. Ned Stark's intention was to stage a swift coup to establish what he considered the unique, rightful order. And as Renly expected, Ned's coup failed. Had Renly and his retainers stayed and helped Ned it still likely would have failed as they would not have had enough men to topple Cersei. So they would have had to rely on Littlefinger and we all know how dangerous that is. Renly's plan was better, he and Ned kidnap Joffrey and flee. They would then have everyone but Stannis on their side with no civil war at all. Does right or wrong really come into it with these guys? The Targaryens used force to conquer and hold Westeros. Robert then used force to supplant them. "Might is right" was always the order of the day. Then why were the Targaryen heirs murdered? Surely once the mad king was dead, the rebels should have stepped aside for the "rightful" heirs?
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 9, 2017 13:58:18 GMT
Renly left with Loras and further knights the day Robert died, before any war was started. Ned Stark's intention was to stage a swift coup to establish what he considered the unique, rightful order. And as Renly expected, Ned's coup failed. Had Renly and his retainers stayed and helped Ned it still likely would have failed as they would not have had enough men to topple Cersei. So they would have had to rely on Littlefinger and we all know how dangerous that is. Renly's plan was better, he and Ned kidnap Joffrey and flee. They would then have everyone but Stannis on their side with no civil war at all. Does right or wrong really come into it with these guys? The Targaryens used force to conquer and hold Westeros. Robert then used force to supplant them. "Might is right" was always the order of the day. Then why were the Targaryen heirs murdered? Surely once the mad king was dead, the rebels should have stepped aside for the "rightful" heirs? Stannis could and most likely would have gone to war if Ned had put Renly on the throne. His "claim" was a time bomb. Might only makes right after the fight is settled. Right, however, gives one better chances of rallying the winning side because the first who declare themselves take a bet on what will follow. They are more likely to declare for those they think have the right on their side, then it can snowball. In that way, right makes might to start with. Renly could overcome that phenomenon because the Reach and Stormlands together commanded such a power but elsewhere, the common opinion was that he wasn't the candidate to support. We saw Robb discuss this with his bannermen just before they made him king. He was not willing to support Renly's claim. A rebellion is not a succession. While the latter can rely on rules and agreements to avoid violence, a rebellion is resolved with the damage already done or at least ongoing and mechanisms are different. The Targaryen heirs were murdered to stabilise the new power. The rebellion had established a new balance of forces in which the "legal" successors of the overthrown king had no rights. They would not inherit from a violently deposed king because their natural allies would have been those who stood against the winning side. There could have been a better settlement. Robert could have married a Targaryen daughter to merge allegiances (this is what Henry VII did to end the Wars of the Roses) but I'm afraid there wasn't any and Tywin Lannister had other plans anyway.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Aug 9, 2017 15:22:59 GMT
Stannis could and most likely would have gone to war if Ned had put Renly on the throne. He may well have. But with the Starks and Tyrells on Renly's side and the Lannisters cowed, he would have been wiped out in short order. Robb's bannermen proclaimed him king and he didn't dare go against them. Ned probably had the gravitas to convince them to support Renly, had he wished to. True, but what it comes down to is Robert created a new dynasty. Renly could have done the same with enough support. And his may have even lasted longer.
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Aug 9, 2017 15:52:08 GMT
True, but what it comes down to is Robert created a new dynasty. Renly could have done the same with enough support. And his may have even lasted longer. Renly would have been part of the Baratheon dynasty, but he would have had to eliminate Stannis in a definitive manner. Looking back at England, I cannot help seeing some sort of parallel with William the Conqueror whose dynasty was all but stable in its first century of existence. It remained on the throne but brothers and cousins fought each other until Henry II found the sheer strength to hit hard on every head that popped up unasked and had the political sense to delegate power to trustworthy vassals (something maybe akin to the Wardens Aegon named). I might be going out on a limb there but it feels like the rupture of the Anglo-Saxon "right" William brought with him was a significant part of the causes for unrest. The old order which had kept the Anglo-Saxon dynasty going smoothly (unless when overthrown by Danes) was no longer present within the new Franco-Norman situation. The change of paradigm (and perception of right) might well have been the cause for what was to be quite a rough ride for nearly a century. William's successor William II and his Tyrell (boy)friend were eliminated roughly, by the way. Is it a coincidence? William II also had to face rebellion from his elder brother Robert, Duke of Normandy, who might have resented not being given England by his father…Did that bloody GRRM steal everything?
|
|
pk9
Sophomore
@pk9
Posts: 992
Likes: 152
|
Post by pk9 on Aug 10, 2017 18:00:37 GMT
I've always found the debate about who was the "legal successor" of Robert a bit silly. Robert was the Usurper. He took the crown not by inheritance right but by force. He established himself as king, but had not yet established a dynasty. For someone to say "X should be king because he's Robert's rightful heir" is hypocritical. And that was Renly's line of thinking: "Robert's not the 'rightful' king, he's just the king. I could be 'just the king' because most people like me."
Going back to the original question, I think Stannis functions in the story as a precursor to Daenerys, much like Robb functioned as a precursor to Jon. Stannis started from Dragonstone and ultimately went north because he believed that saving the North from the Wildlings and deposing the Boltons would earn him the support of the Northerners, which would help him defeat the Lannisters. I think this knee-bending standoff between Dany and Jon will ultimately go the same way; Dany will realize that the only way she can win the North is by proving herself to them as their savior in the war against the White Walkers. Dany needs to convince the Northerners that they aren't being asked to pledge blind allegiance to "a Southern ruler", but rather to "Daenerys Targaryen" the person, after convincing them of her "good heart".
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 10, 2017 19:06:24 GMT
"Lovely Renly" was actually the worst of them all and Stannis killing him was a good thing. Renly thought he would be a better king. He thought what would make him a better king was that he would be loved more than his brothers or his nephew. He also thought this was worth starting a war. The primary justification of hereditary power is the preservation of peace. It goes before the perceived qualities of the ruler because it avoids a succession struggle, which is one of the first basis of civilisation. The Dothraki have a slightly different version of the same principle: when a Khal dies, the strongest candidates to his succession fight each other in single combat which limits the bloodshed to just a few, preserving peace amongst the tribe. By rejecting this principle, Renly brought back the prospect of recurring civil war to the realm where any man capable of summoning supporters would throw them against his opponents, very much the way Roman emperors did. Renly was one of the top villains of the story. And not sure how Stannis killing him was the right move if the goal is avoiding turmoil. It made the Tyrells join the Lannisters and took away the one potential king who might have been able to make peace with Robb Stark. Stannis would have been better supporting Renly's claim. Their combined forces could have crushed the Lannisters, made peace with the Starks then destroyed the Greyjoys and the realm all united again before Daenerys or the White Walkers arrived on the scene. GRRM describes King Stannis as seasoned battle commander. He is the only person described as giving chills to Lord Tywin Lannister. Renly was no king. He was a sweet faced boy who got some support because of his lover Ser Loras. Real traditionalists/conservatives such as Lord Stark knew that he was the claimant of iron throne based on inheritance rights. Of course the option to steal the iron throne was always open to everyone including to Renly.
|
|
|
Post by CynicalDreamer2 on Aug 11, 2017 3:17:10 GMT
As also-rans go he had a good run. I actually thought for a bit he might end up taking Westeros. Never liked him though - miserable self-righteous git who burnt his daughter and murdered lovely Renly. I don't care that he killed Renly, but I sure hate HOW he did it. It wasn't in any way honorable especially considering he was his brother. Stannis was funny in the books but still an ass.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 11, 2017 3:24:17 GMT
And not sure how Stannis killing him was the right move if the goal is avoiding turmoil. It made the Tyrells join the Lannisters and took away the one potential king who might have been able to make peace with Robb Stark. Stannis would have been better supporting Renly's claim. Their combined forces could have crushed the Lannisters, made peace with the Starks then destroyed the Greyjoys and the realm all united again before Daenerys or the White Walkers arrived on the scene. GRRM describes King Stannis as seasoned battle commander. He is the only person described as giving chills to Lord Tywin Lannister. Renly was no king. He was a sweet faced boy who got some support because of his lover Ser Loras. Real traditionalists/conservatives such as Lord Stark knew that he was the claimant of iron throne based on inheritance rights. Of course the option to steal the iron throne was always open to everyone including to Renly. Stannis was not a king just because he was a commander. Really, he clearly sucked as a leader.
|
|