What's the basis for Cersei's claim to the Iron Throne?

[Hippocras]

conquest is about being the victor when your opponent is dead. There is nothing ethical or legal about conquest. Stop being ridiculous.

[Kusanagi]

11 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

You apparently don't understand the most basic things about power and about what this series is about. Stannis had the right, and look how that went.

Sure, there are very likely many many people who will not be happy with Cersei grabbing the throne, for a large number of reasons.

It simply doesn't change anything about the reality of the situation. Cersei took the throne. She is daring anyone to defy her. No doubt some will, but others are terrified of her and in no shape to wage war. We will see if she is able to consolidate power or not, with fear being her only real tool for doing so, but at no point will paper heredity laws convince Cersei to step down, or people to stop fearing her.

Yes, Stannis has a legal claim, but nobody is saying that he will gain the throne just by that.

Yet, when someone asks what's the basis of Cersei's claim, the honest answer is just she has no claim. That's it. Why make something up?

Did anyone say Cersei cannot launch a coup? No, we just say if the writers refuse to spend a couple minutes to show the process to us, then the storytelling is pretty shitty.

[Kusanagi]

2 minutes ago, Mayura said:

@Kusanagi Hmmm I see your point but indeed, instead of basing your arguments on precedents in the ASOIAF-verse, you are making assumption regarding how the law of succession applies. That being said, I specifically wrote that this "could" be what Cersei would base her claim on off-screen (if she really needs to make people believe she had any "claim") if the question was ever raised. I'm not saying this is definitely the solution here but it is supported by precedents in Westeros. 

I don't care. All I care is why make it off-screen so to have people complain about the bad writing. And again Cersei has no claim. Conducting a coup is not the same as having a claim.

[Kusanagi]

8 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

conquest is about being the victor when your opponent is dead. There is nothing ethical or legal about conquest. Stop being ridiculous.

Did I say anything about ethics or legality about conquest? Did I in anyway give you the impression that Alexander was an ethical person and that he conquered Persia by law?

[Mayura]

11 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

I don't think you understand what you said.

Again and again:

1) Cersei has no royal blood.

2) Cersei has no legal claim to the throne.

3) Cersei can be regent even without legal claim.

4) Conquest means taking the sovereignty or making them submit by battle.

5) Cersei can conduct a coup, but this is different from a legal claim and conquest.

6) Cersei can conduct a coup, so show us the process and consequences, so we don't need to have this conversation.

Is that clear?

Well, whether or not Cersei has a claim, which we actually don't know (yes, maybe the fact she is queen dowager can come into play, nobody has told us it wasn't possible yet), it doesn't change the reality of it: Cersei Lannister took the throne in her own name. She is clearly not basing her "claim" on a Baratheon or Targaryen lineage and her crown, for example, bears absolutely no link to her late husband/sons sigil. 

She established her own dynasty and nobody has opposed her so far (but some people will). So whether she has a "claim" or not actually doesn't matter: the throne was vacant, she held the power in KL at the right time and she decided to take the throne just because she could. Whether she'll want to justify that maneuver by any "claim" remains to be seen.

[Kusanagi]

1 minute ago, Mayura said:

Well, whether or not Cersei has a claim, which we actually don't know (yes, maybe the fact she is queen dowager can come into play, nobody has told us it wasn't possible yet), it doesn't change the reality of it: Cersei Lannister took the throne in her own name. She is clearly not basing her "claim" on a Baratheon or Targaryen lineage and her crown, for example, bears absolutely no link to her late husband/sons sigil. 

She established her own dynasty and nobody has opposed her so far (but some people will). So whether she has a "claim" or not actually doesn't matter: the throne was vacant, she held the power in KL at the right time and she decided to take the throne just because she could. Whether she'll want to justify that maneuver by any "claim" remains to be seen.

1. We know she has no claim because she has no royal blood.

2. Someone taking the throne, esp. one without a claim is a freaking huge thing anywhere, fictional or otherwise.

3. Since this is so important, the writers needs to spend couple minutes to us the process and social reaction, so we don't need to complain about the bad writing.

4. We are not saying she cannot take the throne, we are saying please show us the process so we don't need to question the logic.

[Lord Varys]

5 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

I don't think you understand what you said.

Again and again:

1) Cersei has no royal blood.

Correct, but so what?

5 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

2) Cersei has no legal claim to the throne.

She may have a weak legal claim as a Queen Dowager. You cannot rule out this possibility on the basis of 'I say so' which is what you are doing.

5 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

3) Cersei can be regent even without legal claim.

Nobody ever contested that and that's not the point here.

5 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

4) Conquest means taking the sovereignty or making them submit by battle.

What is the point of that?

5 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

5) Cersei can conduct a coup, but this is different from a legal claim and conquest.

No, it is not. You can stage a coup both if you have no claim and also if you have only a weak claim. An uncle with a claim could stage a coup against the children of his elder brother and take the throne in their place. This is how Maegor the Cruel became king.

5 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

6) Cersei can conduct a coup, so show us the process and consequences, so we don't need to have this conversation.

The show clearly doesn't give a damn about claims, legal procedures, and the like. Else Ramsay would never have gotten away with the murder of his own father.

But if it did Cersei could easily put forth her weak claim as a Queen Dowager. Or everybody could be fine with her inheriting because Houses Baratheon and Targaryen might very well be extinguished in both the male and female lines in the books. Or Cersei might even be a distant cousin of the Targaryens in the show. We don't know that this isn't the case. All we do know is that Cersei got properly and correctly crowned Queen Regnant in the Red Keep and that establishes that her people don't have a problem with that.

Somebody has to the sit the Iron Throne, so why not Cersei if she has the power anyway?

The show established that the Lannisters have the largest army in Westeros and that is very much intact in the show. They can easily pump her up to be a very powerful queen if they so choose.

@Mayura

During the majority of a monarch the Small Council is indeed appointing a new regent or a new Hand. The succession can also be discussed by a Small Council (which it was when Viserys I died and apparently also when Baelor the Blessed died without issue). There is no default process to call a Great Council, though. The first one was called by Jaehaerys I who gave the lords leave to discuss his own succession (and he was then later free to accept or ignore their decision), the second one apparently by Grand Maester Munkun (who at this point was both the Hand and the sole remaining regent of Aegon III) to choose new regents by lot, and the third Great Council by Brynden Rivers, acting at this point as the Hand of the late King Maekar I (we know that Hands remain in office until a new king is crowned, speaking with the King's Voice in the mean time).

Considering that Cersei killed Tommen's Hand there would have been nobody left to call a Great Council at this point even in peace time, not to mention that nobody at court or in the Realm would have wanted to call a Great Council anyway. Nobody wanted to do such a thing even when Robert died. And Stannis was smart enough to know that nobody would believe his ridiculous accusations against Cersei and Jaime because nobody wanted him as king.

[UnmaskedLurker]

@Kusanagi--

I appreciate your passion about this issue -- obviously the writing for this part of the show really bothers you. Just understand that many people disagree with your assessment. I agree that there are many plot holes and a certain amount of weak writing and illogical leaps that have happened in the show -- and generally I overlook them because I like the show. I simply disagree with you regarding this particular plot development. Given that they showed Cersei killing everyone in KL that could possibly challenge her right -- I think the writers did more than enough to set up her "coup" and make it plausible given the situation. I don't think there was anyone left who would have know the laws or the process well enough to challenge anything. I think most people who were left would not care about succession or would be too scared to challenge. But that is mere speculation on my part. 

The bottom line is that I (and apparently many others) disagree with you that the writers failed to spend enough time explaining how Cersei could have accomplished this remarkable fete. I think the writers did more than enough (and would state if I thought otherwise -- as I think is true for many other plot developments -- just not this one). We will just have to agree to disagree -- just please acknowledge that reasonable people can have a different view on this matter.

[Hippocras]

23 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

Yes, Stannis has a legal claim, but nobody is saying that he will gain the throne just by that.

Yet, when someone asks what's the basis of Cersei's claim, the honest answer is just she has no claim. That's it. Why make something up?

Did anyone say Cersei cannot launch a coup? No, we just say if the writers refuse to spend a couple minutes to show the process to us, then the storytelling is pretty shitty.

The basis is conquest. Her opponents are dead. She crowned herself before anyone could dispute the idea. Now anyone who doesn't like it will have to fight her, and most of her remaining opposition is in no position to do so. 

The claim that there is some kind of legal versus illegal conquest is simply ridiculous. Conquest is killing your enrmies and taking what is not yours. Legality questions are a means of preserving peace when rulers die, but if people do not follow those rules and instead choose war, there is not a thing in the world that pieces of paper can do to prevent someone from grabbing power.

[Kusanagi]

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

.............

How many times do I have to say in Royal succession one needs to have royal blood in order to have a claim?

How many times do I have to say despite Cersei having no claim, she can still be a regent dowager as the king's widow and mother?

You know what, screw it, honeypot all you want.

[Hippocras]

1 minute ago, Kusanagi said:

How many times do I have to say in Royal succession one needs to have royal blood in order to have a claim?

How many times do I have to say despite Cersei having no claim, she can still be a regent dowager as the king's widow and mother?

You know what, screw it, honeypot all you want.

sometimes when noone is listening to you, it means you are the one who is wrong.

[Kusanagi]

2 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

@Kusanagi--

I appreciate your passion about this issue -- obviously the writing for this part of the show really bothers you. Just understand that many people disagree with your assessment. I agree that there are many plot holes and a certain amount of weak writing and illogical leaps that have happened in the show -- and generally I overlook them because I like the show. I simply disagree with you regarding this particular plot development. Given that they showed Cersei killing everyone in KL that could possibly challenge her right -- I think the writers did more than enough to set up her "coup" and make it plausible given the situation. I don't think there was anyone left who would have know the laws or the process well enough to challenge anything. I think most people who were left would not care about succession or would be too scared to challenge. But that is mere speculation on my part. 

The bottom line is that I (and apparently many others) disagree with you that the writers failed to spend enough time explaining how Cersei could have accomplished this remarkable fete. I think the writers did more than enough (and would state if I thought otherwise -- as I think is true for many other plot developments -- just not this one). We will just have to agree to disagree -- just please acknowledge that reasonable people can have a different view on this matter.

I am here to answer a question: what is the basis of Cersei's claim.

Like the show all you want, but the bottom line is Cersei has no claim, that's it.

[Kusanagi]

6 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

The basis is conquest. Her opponents are dead. She crowned herself before anyone could dispute the idea. Now anyone who doesn't like it will have to fight her, and most of her remaining opposition is in no position to do so. 

The claim that there is some kind of legal versus illegal conquest is simply ridiculous. Conquest is killing your enrmies and taking what is not yours. Legality questions are a means of preserving peace when rulers die, but if people do not follow those rules and instead choose war, there is not a thing in the world that pieces of paper can do to prevent someone from grabbing power.

The basis to her claim! Conquest is the process to take the throne by armed forces, not a basis to a claim. A claim is a legal concept.

Her opponents being dead does not mean conquest. Her opponents being dead means there is a power vacuum and she steps in. That is not conquest.

[Kusanagi]

3 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

sometimes when noone is listening to you, it means you are the one who is wrong.

Wow, have you heard of the fallacy of popularity?

[Hippocras]

6 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

I am here to answer a question: what is the basis of Cersei's claim.

Like the show all you want, but the bottom line is Cersei has no claim, that's it.

You need to reframe things in your head, starting with the question of who would have a better claim now that Tommen is dead without heirs.

Noone with a stake in the current order is going to be looking back to the overthrown Targ dynasty. And the Baratheons are all dead with the exception of a few lingering bastards.

Cersei is Tommen's closest living relative, and, more importantly, she moved fast to stake her claim, daring anyone to dispute her.

[Kusanagi]

Just now, Hippocras said:

You need to reframe things in your head, starting with the question of who would have a better claim now that Tommen is dead without heirs.

Noone with a stake in the current order is going to be looking back to the overthrown Targ dynasty. And the Baratheons are all dead with the exception of a few lingering bastards.

All Baratheons relatives have a better claim. Dany has a better claim. Cersei has none.

[Lotharloo]

More and more these forums are becoming grounds for people to hate on the show for no particular reason, or to nitpick and this thread is the proof of it.

Anyone else landing on the throne other than Cersei would have been bad writing, given the circumstances in the show.

Why?

Because:

1) Cersei indirectly controls the Lannisters (now that technically Jamie should be in charge).

2) For anyone else to land on the throne, they need to first challenge her. To challenge her, they need to find allies which takes time and it is not possible to do in the short time period after a mass assassination of a large number of noble family heads and so on.

For those who are too busy nitpicking and ranting, rather than thinking and paying attention, there were supposed to be a massive trial in the sept where King's mother, King's brother in-law were to tried. And King himself was supposed to be there as well. So you would bet there were a large number of nobles there as well. And they all blew up. If that does not create a power vacuum then nothing does.

3) So, we have a massive power vacuum created after a mass assassination of nobility and people with power. Cersei has ambitions. Cersei has opportunity. There is no organized opposition to challenge her (in the short term). She has power. She has a big last name. She has connections. Whatever that is left of the small council is supporting her. Why the hell she should not claim the throne? And who is going to oppose her?

 

[Mayura]

10 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

All Baratheons relatives have a better claim. Dany has a better claim. Cersei has none.

Well, how can you be so sure she absolutely can't have a weak claim, like the one Lady Hornwood/Dustin had in the absence of an heir? That's what I find disturbing in your thought process: you're assuming things work absolutely differently regarding the IT and therefore you're discarding opinions based on books precedents. I think the correct answer to the question that was asked is "we don't know whether Cersei has a claim or not, she could potentially have a weak claim or no claim at all". We don't know the definite answer. 

And I don't want to start a conversation about Dany but regarding the current dynasty on the IT (which is Baratheon - arguably Lannister now - and not Targaryen - overthrowned rulers), Daenerys has no claim at all. Her "claim" is only valid for those who believe the Targaryens are still the relevant dynasty. 

All this to say that the law of succession and "claims" in Westeros are less easy to understand and less straightforward than we might think. At the end of the day, the person who sits the Iron Throne and who manages to hold it holds the power, they might as well have no claim at all or pretend they have a weak claim if they really want to. What I mean is : if Cersei really wants to find a base to a "claim", her supporters will be able to come up with something. Like Big Bob who, after conquering the IT, decided to say he had a claim on the IT based on his Targ ancestor. But that was a weak ass claim, the truth is that nobody wanted to bother throwing him out of that chair and he could just have taken it and said nothing. That's probably what Cersei will do. But if anyone asks her which "claim" she has and she decides to play along and to justify her position, she might try to use the "queen dowager x lady Hornwood" card

[Kusanagi]

7 minutes ago, Lotharloo said:

More and more these forums are becoming grounds for people to hate on the show for no particular reason, or to nitpick and this thread is the proof of it.

Anyone else landing on the throne other than Cersei would have been bad writing, given the circumstances in the show.

Why?

Because:

1) Cersei indirectly controls the Lannisters (now that technically Jamie should be in charge).

2) For anyone else to land on the throne, they need to first challenge her. To challenge her, they need to find allies which takes time and it is not possible to do in the short time period after a mass assassination of a large number of noble family heads and so on.

For those who are too busy nitpicking and ranting, rather than thinking and paying attention, there were supposed to be a massive trial in the sept where King's mother, King's brother in-law were to tried. And King himself was supposed to be there as well. So you would bet there were a large number of nobles there as well. And they all blew up. If that does not create a power vacuum then nothing does.

3) So, we have a massive power vacuum created after a mass assassination of nobility and people with power. Cersei has ambitions. Cersei has opportunity. There is no organized opposition to challenge her (in the short term). She has power. She has a big last name. She has connections. Whatever that is left of the small council is supporting her. Why the hell she should not claim the throne? And who is going to oppose her?

 

I am sorry, did you go anywhere near answering the question about claim?

[Kusanagi]

Just now, Mayura said:

Well, how can you be so sure she absolutely can't have a weak claim, like the one Lady Hornwood/Dustin had in the absence of an heir? That's what I find disturbing in your thought process: you're assuming things work absolutely differently regarding the IT and therefore discarding opinions based on books precedents. I think the correct answer to the question that was ask is "we don't know whether Cersei has a claim or not, she could potentially have a weak claim or no claim at all". We don't not the definite answer. 

And I don't want to start a conversation about Dany but regarding the current dynasty on the IT (which is Baratheon - arguably Lannister now - and not Targaryen - overthrowned rulers), Daenerys has no claim at all. Her "claim" is only valid for those who believe the Targaryens are still the relevant dynasty. 

All this to say that the law of succession and "claims" in Westeros are less easy to understand and less straightforward than we might think. At the end of the day, the person who sits the Iron Throne and who manages to hold it holds the power, they might as well have no claim at all or pretend they have a weak claim if they really want to. What I mean is : if Cersei really wants to find a base to a "claim", her supporters will be able to come up with something. Like Big Bob who, after conquering the IT, decided to say he had a claim on the IT based on his Targ ancestor. But that was a weak ass claim, the truth is that nobody wanted to bother throwing him out of that chair and he could just have taken it and said nothing. That's probably what Cersei will do. But if anyone asks her which "claim" she has and she decides to play along and to justify her position, she might try to use the "queen dowager x lady Hornwood" card

What is a weak claim?

And didn't I explain Hornwood to you? Something to do with having the liege lord's leave?