While re-watching Season 5 again, a question hit me in how Shireen Baratheon’s sacrifice seems to have been made in vain. Some people charge that Melisandre’s visions of the fire are false or that she’s incapable of reading the prophecies. Yet with regards to the use of leeches and the supposed success that they had in cursing Robb Stark, Joffrey Baratheon and Balon Greyjoy (at least in the book), one must question if Stannis himself had king’s blood since Shireen’s death did not generate the effect they desired.
One thing we need to take into consideration is that Stannis Baratheon is a self-proclaimed king. There’s a great line by Tyrion in Season 5 Episode 8 where he reveals to Daenerys, “Stannis Baratheon won’t back you, either. His entire claim to the throne rests on the illegitimacy of yours.” What that implies is that Stannis Baratheon’s position as a king is completely in his mind based on entitlement and strict laws. Beyond being the next in line after Robert Baratheon, Stannis does nothing outside of wage war and bully others into attempting to claim the title.
But the idea of Stannis being a false king (which is ironic because he constantly describes himself as The One True King of Westeros) is critical in that it illustrates how being a king takes more than entitlement and strict laws. Perhaps, being a true king goes deeper and that someone like Gendry may have qualities that make him a true king.
Another important realization of Stannis’ disposition is that it’s a social commentary by the writers on ruling. I see Stannis as a combination of a Byronic Hero and the Ayn Rand uncompromising character similar to Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. While Stannis occasionally concedes to some decisions (such as sparring Ser Davos’ life), he ultimately remains true to his beliefs, which leads to his downfall. Even at the brink of defeat, Stannis marches forward knowing that he would perish when he confronts the Bolton forces and he allows Brienne of Tarth “do her duty” since his reign as a self-proclaimed king is at an end.
There is an interesting parallel between Stannis and Ned Stark when it comes to lacking compromise and being a leader. Both remain true to their beliefs in the end; Stannis interprets the law on a stringent word-for-word basis while Ned utilizes honor for interpreting the law. Yet this inability to allow leniency are what brings upon their demise. Stannis refuses to heed the advice of his best counselor, Davos to avoid marching in the harsh conditions while Ned misses multiple opportunities to make peace with the Lannisters. And the situation is ironic considering that Stannis recognizes Ned’s flaws early on in attempting to avoid making a noise about Joffrey’s position. What Stannis misses is that Ned, like himself, simply had zero ability for knowing when to back down.
Along those lines, Tywin Lannister has excellent commentary on the matter, which Stannis and Ned seem to avoid for the most part. In Season 4, Tywin Lannister advises the newly crowned Tommen on matters of leadership and ruling, saying that a good ruler has wisdom. He begs the question what is wisdom, which he pins down to essentially surrounding oneself with others who know of matters that you do not. Then by listening to those people, the ruler can form a better opinion on the matter.
When you see Stannis, he rarely surrounds himself with others to provide sage advice. The only people he truly heeds are Melisandre and Davos. And even with Davos he ignores him, despite Davos having more street smarts and common sense. Even simple things such as marching against a strong winter storm is something a blind tactician could see. Instead, Stannis continued to believe that BS of Melisandre’s to the bitter end, which in reality was his ego speaking because a person wants to hear what they want to hear.
From a larger perspective and applied to our own world, we can see where leadership succeeds and fails. Two prime examples I want to cite are Steve Jobs and Vince McMahon. From numerous business articles I’ve read, Jobs and McMahon surrounded themselves early on (or maybe even later on) with people who knew about subject matter better than they. That allowed them to utilize their strengths (which is resources, marketing and the ability to sell a product) in order for their brands to become so dominant.
I think Stannis’ problem is that he truly believed he was an island. But the saying goes that no man is an island. He needed others, he needed to make concessions to gain the support of other lords, he needed to understand compassion and recognize blind faith. And most of all, he needed to learn humility and not believe the sycophantic bullshit Melisandre kept feeding him.
At any rate, to answer the question, I think Stannis was not a true king. Being a king isn’t about the title nor the law. Being a true king (in the series at least) might mean something greater, like having true power while possessing “noble blood”. And I want to say that noble blood isn’t about just having money, but having qualities that are inherent of being a truly good leader, maybe even something that the gods of that world bestow upon certain people in the realm.