Feast for Crows: what should be in it?

[snow forever]

Robert would never had allowed Stannis to be his heir, brother or no brother. He didnt trust him with Storm's End, let alone the kingdom.

I suppose Frey Slayer is right about Robert not trusting Stannis with the kingdom (not that Robert did that great job ).

What do you suppose the reason was? were they simply to diffrent or there is some deeper reason?



edited to fix the quote thing

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

Now all you well-educated English types, what do you say about the laws of succession in such a case? Robert clearly would not have chosen his brother, he believed Joffrey to be his legitimate heir, there is still a younger son, Daenarys is still running around calling herself the queen.

Well, basically the laws of succession say that Joffrey was the heir as the offspring of the king.
However, Stannis clearly believed (correctly, as we all know!) that Joffrey wasn't Robert's child, in which case he actually would be the heir as the next in line after Robert.
Which is why we have the mess we do.
In this situation, right goes "right" out of the window and might rules the day.

As for why Robert didn't like Stannis - I think he just found him to be a stuck up, unbearable pain in the arse!
He gave him Dragonstone because, after his revolution, any threat should have started from there as that's where all the die-hard Targaryen loyalists were based.
Why he didn't move him back into the council after Pyke etc is more clouded. Possibly Stannis had, by then, had a few choice words to say to his brother and ruined any chance of reconciliation.

 

[Frey Slayer]

I could be wrong about this, but cant a king choose his heir?

If Robert never uttered a misgiving about the natural laws of succession as he was dying then he de facto named Joffrey as heir. The other side of the argument is that he didnt allow Stannis to control Storms End. This tacitly states that Robert would never have named Stannis as heir to the kingdom.

yes, the "real" king is going to be the one left standing after this is over!

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

I could be wrong about this, but cant a king choose his heir?

Yes, but usually this only happens when he has no male children to name as heir.
When 'legimate' heirs were disinherited, they were also normally killed, imprisoned or exiled to stop any possibility of civil war.

An example in English politics is when Edward I (the Confessor) died, he named Harold as his heir. William of Normandy (apparently) had been assured by Harold that he would receive the crown if it was offered to Harold.
And, famously, bad things happened from there...

 

[Jeroam]

Frey Slayer said:
The other side of the argument is that he didnt allow Stannis to control Storms End. This tacitly states that Robert would never have named Stannis as heir to the kingdom.

I saw it the other way around. Storms End was a great castle, but Dragonstone was the seat of the Targaryens and where the successor of the throne had come from for the last 300 years. Stannis was the older so he got Dragonstone. It may have been smaller and held less incomes than Storms End, but it was more prestigous. In my mind, I sort of equated Prince of Dragonstone with Prince of Wales, its the title given to the next guy in line for the throne.

Winters_Sorrow, Harold and William knew each other? I thought that invasion was just the last hurrah of the Viking-Northman-Norseman-Norman boys. Then again, we don't get a lot of English history in school over here. We got the Revolution, Revolution Jr. (War of 1812), something about Napoleon and Trafalgar in there, then the World Wars happen. I vaguely recall the English forcing the Chinese to buy opium to finance the tea trade for a while. Yeah, that's about it. Was there more? Am I missing something?

(Obviously, that was all a joke, meant to be funny and not an insult. I hope you enjoyed it, or at least weren't too offended. Its always hard to tell, Europeans are so touchy about the strangest things.)

 

[Young Wolf]

(Obviously, that was all a joke, meant to be funny and not an insult. I hope you enjoyed it, or at least weren't too offended. Its always hard to tell, Europeans are so touchy about the strangest things.)

Very true, I'm always very careful about what I say in this forum.

 

[Winters_Sorrow]

I saw it the other way around. Storms End was a great castle, but Dragonstone was the seat of the Targaryens and where the successor of the throne had come from for the last 300 years. Stannis was the older so he got Dragonstone. It may have been smaller and held less incomes than Storms End, but it was more prestigous. In my mind, I sort of equated Prince of Dragonstone with Prince of Wales, its the title given to the next guy in line for the throne.

I hadn't thought of it that way!
Possibly during the reign of the Targaryens it was precisely that, prestigious.
However, as everything and everyone who was connected with the Targaryens were treated incredibly badly by Robert, this probably ceased to be a 'job' people wanted. The ones who helped Robert got all the power and the Targaryen loyalists were frozen out because of that - hence my assertion that Storm's End was the new "Prince of Wales" site. Robert didn't want to connect his rule in anyway to the Targaryens....quite the reverse, really!

Oh and yes, Harold & William were bestest buddies until Edward died - they had what you might call a falling out afterwards though...

It's interesting the different slants that countries put on history though isn't it? The 'Opium wars' are not given much prominence here but 1066 certainly is (although effectively 'we' lost! )

 

[Jay]

I saw it the other way around. Storms End was a great castle, but Dragonstone was the seat of the Targaryens and where the successor of the throne had come from for the last 300 years. Stannis was the older so he got Dragonstone. It may have been smaller and held less incomes than Storms End, but it was more prestigous. In my mind, I sort of equated Prince of Dragonstone with Prince of Wales, its the title given to the next guy in line for the throne.

I think, however, Cersei told us Stannis not getting Storms End was intended as a slight in the text

 

[Direwolf]

Frey Slayer: "I could be wrong about this, but can't a king choose his heir?"

Robert chose Ned to serve as Regent, for all the good it did.

Robert assumed Joffrey would succeed him as King, but had told Ned the thought of Joff on the throne was the only reason he never rode off and became the "Sellsword King".

I think Robert respected but disliked Stannis, and everyone on the small council seemed to think that a King Stannis would be a disaster. I remember someone (Littlefinger?) humorously recalling how Stannis wanted to outlaw prostitution. Stannis got Dragonstone because he was feared and could capably crush a rebellion, Renly got Storms End because he was loved by the people.

 

[Frey Slayer]

I think I may have been unclear in what I was asking and/or trying to convey.

What I wanted to know when asking about Robert choosing his heir is: do his wishes supercede normal laws of succession or do the laws of the realm over-ride the desires of the king? I was curious as to what English law states and speculation as to what readers think might be the laws within the novel.

I think Winters Sorrow hit the nail on the head though with the "might makes right" statement. The state the kingdom is in now is so tenuous and confused Im not sure that anything "lawful" or "hereditary" in nature will dictate who is left in power at the end of the series.

 

[Direwolf]

I agree. Anyone who considers himself fit to be king probably considers himself above the law. In other words, might makes right. As we've seen, anyone who feels the need to declare himself King is free to do so, but it seldom turns out well. As Viserys found out, people follow strength, not birth or title.

 

[Jay]

I think one of the most interesting segments of dialogue in teh novels really applies here, Vary question to Tyrion about the 3 men (The King, The Priest, The Rich man something close to that I think) who give the swordsman a order, whose order does he follow?

 

[Culhwch]

Well, in response to the whole king-choosing-his-heir debate, remember Robb legitimised and name Jon his heir on his way to the Twins - as much as that means now... Though that was a special case - Robb appearing to have no other suitable heirs thanks to reported death and enforced Imp-marrying. So that can be done in the Seven Kingdoms, it would seem.

What I am interested to see is what Stannis does once Daenerys comes back. He's always banging on about how he doesn't want to be king, but it's his right and the just thing to do. But he also mentioned to Davos how hard a choice it was between his brother and his liege when Robert called his banners in rebellion. So does he give up his claim and bend the knee to his rightful queen, or does he keep fighting for the crown? I reckon he really wants to be king, myself, no matter how much he denies it. Gaunt, power-hungry *******.

 

[Raven]

Culhwch: the interesting thing about Robb's heir is that it is not explicitly stated that he has named Jon.

We see him first having a conversation with Cat where they argue because he is determined to make Jon his heir, then later in the same chapter he commands his bannermen to affix their seal to a written declaration of his heir, but we do not, crucially, have any direct evidence that it is Jon he actually named in that document. That was certainly his intention at the time he spoke to Cat, and it's the reasonable assumption, and it's even 95% certain that this is what actually happened: but it's not 100% certain.

Whether it matters is another issue, of course.

As for Stannis, I rather think that Stannis' decision to back Robert invalidates Dany's claim in his own eyes. He has turned his back on the Targaryens: at the moment he backed Robert over Aerys, Stannis repudiated forever the Targaryen dynasty and any claims based upon it. So far as Stannis is concerned, he is the rightful King and Dany, I think, will be just another usurper in his eyes.

 

[Direwolf]

There's no question Kings can legitimize bastards; Robb and Stannis both considered it for Jon Snow, and the Lannisters did it for Bolton's kid. However this makes them heir because they become the eldest male in the line of succession. Whether a King can choose his heir outside of the "oldest male" rule is still questionable. In general, I think a King can do whatever he wants, but can't really enforce it if he's dead.

What Stannis does I think depends as much on Melisandre as on his past actions. How Melisandre will react when she sees the dragons is hard to predict, but it's difficult to imagine that fire-loving crazy woman not at least attempting to ally with Dany and her dragons. Stannis would probably follow. And if the Others are pushing against (or even past) the Wall at that point, I think everyone north of the Neck will want the dragons on their side.

 

[Culhwch]

As for Stannis, I rather think that Stannis' decision to back Robert invalidates Dany's claim in his own eyes. He has turned his back on the Targaryens: at the moment he backed Robert over Aerys, Stannis repudiated forever the Targaryen dynasty and any claims based upon it. So far as Stannis is concerned, he is the rightful King and Dany, I think, will be just another usurper in his eyes.

So Stannis is a dirty liar, and he really really really really wants to be king. I think he may have middle child syndrome. Robert was the go-getter, everybody loved Renly, and no one cared about poor Stannis, so dammit, he wants to be king to make up for it.

Good point about the dragons and Mellisandre, though, Direwolf. Though I don't think Stannis would go over to her camp, too much pride. And too much desire to be king. And the pride thing might be true of Mellisandre, too - she has said Stannis is Azor Ahai (sp?) reborn, I don't think she'd be too keen to say, 'No, sorry, I was wrong. The little chick with the dragons is where it's at...' Until she sees Beric light up his sword with his blood, and wants to jump ship again.

 

[Raven]

Direwolf: actually, it's not entirely clear whether a legitimised ******* comes before full-blood siblings in succession, absent any explicit naming as heir. Read the Sworn Sword to see how messy things can get when bastards are legitimised.

In any case, if Robb named Jon as his heir, it is not a simple matter. Robb's legitimisation is only valid in the Kingdom or the North and the Riverlands, to say nothing of the fact that none of the other kings even recognise that there is any crown for Jon to inherit. And Jon is a member of the NW. For all Robb's confidence, there are few precedents for releasing a sworn brother from his vows. (It doesn't help that Jon is now Lord Commander. He's pretty much irreplaceable.)

I don't actually think that Jon will accept his brother's wishes anyway. The NW serves the Seven Kingdoms, not just the North, and Jon swore to protect all those kingdoms. He has already turned Stannis down, and that was before he was made LC.

Culhwch: I don't think it follows from the fact that Stannis rejected the Targaryen claim that he is only after the crown out of selfishness. Rather, I think it's a case of not compounding the issue. He chose Robert not only over Aerys, but also over Viserys and Dany. When Aerys and Rhaegar were dead, Stannis did not insist that the crown go to Viserys, did he?

Dany has as much of claim now, in terms of right rather than might, as Viserys ever did. And in terms of right, well, Stannis knows by now that Viserys is dead and yet he has not declared for Dany. Why should he do so purely because she turns up with an army, and with dragons? Renly's army didn't make any difference to Stannis, did it?

Stannis chose Robert, and that was more to him than a matter of political convenience. It was a fundamental shift in his beliefs of what was right. In choosing Robert, he recognised Robert's line as the legitimate rulers. He stuck to that even when he was (or thought he was) behind Joff and Tommen in the line of succession, and unlikely ever to be King. So to claim that he now sticks to it only out of self-interest seems to me unfair and unlikely. Switching back to supporting Dany would seem to me to be the unprincipled choice.

 

[Direwolf]

I agree, Raven. I think Jon will remain Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. Even if legitimized by both Robb and Stannis, his claim to Winterfell would remain tenuous at best. And he's got too much of Ned in him to forsake his vows.

As for Stannis, I feel the need to stick up for the guy. He's too rigid by far, but I think he does what he does because he thinks its good for the realm. Pride and ambition certainly factor into it, but I don't think they consume him as they do with Cersei or Littlefinger. If anything, his abandoning of Aerys (to whome his service was promised) to serve his brother demonstrates that there is some flexibility with that man. He figured Aerys for a goner, and a terrible king besides. Duty gave way to reason. As for Renly, Melisandre prophecized that his army would switch sides over to Stannis, which it partially did. I doubt Melisandre will say the same thing about Dany's army and dragons. The whole fire theme is too pervasive.

And Stannis is neither stupid (especially if he has the ever-reasonable Davos at his side), nor suicidal. As I recall, he has around a thousand men at his command, perhaps a bit more. Maybe some wildlings will join his cause if they settle the Gift, maybe some northmen will; who knows. Perhaps they'll all be killed by the Others. But should Dany cross the sea with three dragons and a much larger army, with the undead advancing from the north, Stannis will know what to do.

And if he's still alive when the dust clears, who in the land would choose him as their king above Dany or whoever else is claiming the crown? Very few, I would think. I think his cause, by might or by right, would be a lost one.

 

[WinterIsComing]

"Dany has as much of claim now, in terms of right rather than might, as Viserys ever did. And in terms of right, well, Stannis knows by now that Viserys is dead and yet he has not declared for Dany. Why should he do so purely because she turns up with an army, and with dragons? Renly's army didn't make any difference to Stannis, did it?"

That depends on whose laws of succession you are following. The laws of King's Landing and the Targaryan's was that only men inherited the right to rule. Passed form male heir to male heir. Dany is of course a woman. The rules in Dorne however include woman in succession. Dany may go through Dorne and gain them as allies.

or...

Jon Snow ends up King when it is revealed that his Papa is Rhaegar. He would be the next male heir, even if illigitimate. Dany is the other head of the dragon leaving an unknown thrid.

 

[Clay-Chillum]

Re: Feast of Crows: what should be in it?

What I would like to see is a summary! It's been too long and I haven't got the time (or energy) to read the series from the beginning again.

Come on take an intrest re reading the books opens new paths to the eye of a storyteller