Quite a bit of lampshading in this chapter...Rob says (accurately) how Renly's claim makes no sense, and indeed, interfering with general primogeniture is probably not a good idea. In the Wars of the Roses, there was some of this, but they were careful to have a reason for it, albeit fraudulent ones. Example: the Lancasters alleged that their ancestor, Edmund (younger son of Henry III) was actually the elder son, but didn't become king because he was a hunchback, thus they should prevail over the descendants of Edward I (Henry III's actual elder son). Not true, but the credulous might believe it. One of Edward's brothers (there is a disagreement over whether it was George of Clarence--the second brother--or Richard III --the youngest--alleged that their mother had had an affair with a bowman or man of arms; the result was Edward IV. This supposed affair meant that George (or Richard) was really King of England. Also a canard. It was probably Clarence; it sounds like him.