Jump to content

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


shmewdog

Recommended Posts

She seemed to take the throne because there was nobody to oppose her. If I remember correctly, in the absence of a royal heir, the Small Council has to elect the next regent. In my understanding show-Qyburn killed Pycelle so the Grand Maester couldn't interfere further with Cersei's desire to rule through Tommen (and ultimately, Pycelle's death means he's not there to oppose Cersei's crowning). So after Tommen's death, there is no Small Council left to choose the next ruler besides Qyburn who is Cersei's servant. 

If there wasn't that rule according to which the Small Council elects the regent in the absence of an heir, I think Cersei could still have a claim on the throne. We've seen in the books that in the absence of a heir, house Hornwood went to Lady Hornwood née Manderly. I'm not sure the Small Council would have chosen to apply this rule to the Baratheon lineage but in the absence of a "Small Council" and of a "better option" (as everyone who was known to be claiming that throne and who was physically in Westeros is definitely dead - it's because we know Daenerys wants that throne and is a massive threat to the ruler on the IT, but the westerosi seem generally pretty unaware of the Dany threat and of the fact she's coming for the IT), I guess Cersei was the obvious choice. And maybe her claim can be justified by that specific rule of inheritance (which is applied in the North in ASOIAF).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, Cersei simply took the throne. Right of conquest, nothing else.

What is interesting is that events in Dorne early in the season seem to have been an attempt to set this move up when seen in retrospect. There it was the same thing; Ellaria killed Doran and simply took control. It was WAY too cursory a treatment to really work when that storyline is considered on its own, but as a preliminary move to prepare the audience for Cersei's power grab it at least starts to make a bit more sense why the show did what it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Nope, you can have a weak claim - like that of a dowager - and still take the throne by conquest. Henry Tudor's claim was a joke compared to the remaining male and female members of House York yet he pushed it all the same and afterwards ruled by right of conquest as well as right of blood, making it clear that the legal claim of his wife (which was much better than his own) didn't matter at all as far as he was concerned (he even got himself crowned before he married Elizabeth of York).

Moreover, conquest and usurpation both do not need claims in any case. A usurper or conqueror can have a legal claim but he doesn't need one. All that matters is that he is successful.

The idea that there would have to be a Great Council to settle the succession after the death of King Tommen is ridiculous. Great Councils are called by the convenience of the people in power. Maegor the Cruel never called a Great Council, and neither did Otto Hightower, Rhaenyra Targaryen, or Robert Baratheon. Not to mention Ned Stark, Cersei Lannister, Stannis and Renly Baratheon after the death of King Robert. None of these people even thought about calling a Great Council. Ned intended disinherit Cersei's children and offer the throne to Stannis, Stannis and Renly just gathered their armies, and Cersei staged a coup - like show Cersei did again when she took the throne.

Cersei will be cast down by Dany in the show, and that is going to happen next season. They won't waste time with legal prattle or talk about rebellions. Perhaps it will get mentioned that some terrible accident led to the explosion of the Great Sept. I don't expect that to happen but there is no evidence/proof that Cersei had anything to do with what happened up there. If there is somebody to blame it is the Mad King.

Nope. Dead wrong.

The question is on what basis can Cersei claim the throne. The answer is none whatsoever. She doesn't have claim, not even a weak claim.

The reason is simple. Royal succession is about succession of the royal bloodline, and the only bloodline that has ever rule All Seven Kingdoms is the Targaryen, and Baratheon can seen as the extension of Targaryen because Robert uses his 1/4 Targaryen blood to booster his legitimacy; he did not take the throne by line of succession as he takes it by a rebellion. So to have a claim to the throne, weak or strong, you need to have Targaryen or Baratheon blood. Cersei has neither, and anyone has a drop of either Targaryen or Baratheon blood will have better claim than Cersei. Cersei can try to be a regent because she is the previous kings' wife and mother, but not Queen. Dowager is not a claim to the throne and she is not a queen, a dowager means the widow of a king.

I'm not an expert in English medieval history, however, in case you don't know, both House of York and House of Lancaster are cadet branches of Plantagenet, meaning they are of the royal bloodline. Great Council will be called because with all the direct successors died off, nobody can be sure of the succession order. When Robert and Ned die, their descendants are still alive! It is easy to tell who is next in line in their cases! If you can't understand this nobody can help you further.

32 minutes ago, Mayura said:

If there wasn't that rule according to which the Small Council elects the regent in the absence of an heir, I think Cersei could still have a claim on the throne. We've seen in the books that in the absence of a heir, house Hornwood went to Lady Hornwood née Manderly. I'm not sure the Small Council would have chosen to apply this rule to the Baratheon lineage but in the absence of a "Small Council" and of a "better option" (as everyone who was known to be claiming that throne and who was physically in Westeros is definitely dead - it's because we know Daenerys wants that throne and is a massive threat to the ruler on the IT, but the westerosi seem generally pretty unaware of the Dany threat and of the fact she's coming for the IT), I guess Cersei was the obvious choice. And maybe her claim can be justified by that specific rule of inheritance (which is applied in the North in ASOIAF).

As someone has already said, Hornwood and the Iron Throne are completely different matters. The former is a low level, say county level title, and you don't need royal blood to inherit that. Furthermore, a low level title has a liege lord, if there is no successor, the title revert back to the liege lord. Hornwood's leige lord is the Starks, if the Starks, Robb Stark in this case, gives her the leave to inherit the land, then there is no legal issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

Yep, Cersei simply took the throne. Right of conquest, nothing else.

What is interesting is that events in Dorne early in the season seem to have been an attempt to set this move up when seen in retrospect. There it was the same thing; Ellaria killed Doran and simply took control. It was WAY too cursory a treatment to really work when that storyline is considered on its own, but as a preliminary move to prepare the audience for Cersei's power grab it at least starts to make a bit more sense why the show did what it did.

Since when a coup d'état equals conquest?

William the Bastard gained England through conquest. Alexander gained Persia through conquest. The Turks gained Constantinople through conquest. You need to lead an army in the field, defeat the current sovereign in order to proclaim yourself a conqueror. 

One can take the throne through coup d'état, but people tend not to accept coup leader as the legitimate sovereign, because: 1) the leader violates the laws; 2) they didn't suffer a military defeat, so this isn't even might makes right. Coup d'état implies conspiracy and subversion, and people tend not the take those likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

^ummm.....so....what claim did Aegon the conqueror have then?

You don't have to like it, but right of conquest is a thing.

Can you tell the difference between coup d'état and conquest? I mean it is pretty obvious to me and anyone who knows their history and politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely her legitimacy comes from kinslaying? The people of KL probably suspect she killed Kevan and Tommen, and is thus a kinslayer. It has been established multiple times throughout the show that kinslaying is seen as a very positive thing in Show!Westeros. It is probably as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the original script for the ASoIaF series, George wrote that Jaime becomes king simply by killing everyone ahead of him in the line of succession, when we know he's not in the line of succession at all. I think that's more or less what happened in the show, with Cersei being at least a little bit closer to the Iron Throne by being married to a previous king and giving birth to another two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

Can you tell the difference between coup d'état and conquest? I mean it is pretty obvious to me and anyone who knows their history and politics.

You are hanging on things that are completely irrelevant, as if conquests or coups were some kind of academic exercise.

In both cases, the previous order is overthrown. Noone f*ing cares if there was a battle or not! The King died without an heir. There was a power vacuum, and someone stepped in to fill it. In either case, there are people around who will dispute it, and it really is ridiculous to assume people would stand around waiting calmly while paper records of ancestry decided their fates for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hippocras said:

You are hanging on things that are completely irrelevant, as if conquests or coups were some kind of academic exercise.

In both cases, the previous order is overthrown. Noone f*ing cares if there was a battle or not! The King died without an heir. There was a power vacuum, and someone stepped in to fill it. In either case, there are people around who will dispute it, and it really is ridiculous to assume people would stand around waiting calmly while paper records of ancestry decided their fates for them.

Apparently people through out history and in the universe of ASOIAF do care, a lot.

If you want to honeypot to justify anything the show throw at you, then obviously you don't care, but that's you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Thia Stark said:

In the original script for the ASoIaF series, George wrote that Jaime becomes king simply by killing everyone ahead of him in the line of succession, when we know he's not in the line of succession at all. I think that's more or less what happened in the show, with Cersei being at least a little bit closer to the Iron Throne by being married to a previous king and giving birth to another two.

It can happen, but like I argued before, it entirely depends on how it is executed.

Jamie has no claim at all. If he is to be king, then whatever is left of the Greater Houses/nobles has to agree. If the process in shown to us is a clear and logical manner, then I'd be fine with it. It still doesn't mean Jamie has a claim to the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kusanagi

So now you are an expert on Westerosi succession law and know the answer to cases that haven't even be raised in the series?

The fact is, we do know that dowagers have claims to lordships in Westeros. Lady Dustin doesn't have a drop of Dustin blood as far as we know yet she still rules Barrowton with an iron fist since the day her husband died. The lordship did not pass to some (distant) Dustin cousin of her late husband.

Lady Hornwood also has some claim to the Hornwood title and lands as the dowager lady of Hornwood. And so on.

This certainly could also extend to Queen Dowagers. It wouldn't be a good claim but certainly a claim. And that is more than you need, really.

Historically, Joffrey Lydden Lannister become King of the Rock by right of his wife. If that works then a wife certainly could also become Queen Regnant by right of her (late) husband. That would certainly be a very extraordinary event but the situation in the show (Cersei blowing up all her enemies) certainly is a scenario in which something like that might happen.

Both a coup and a conquest could make you the legitimate ruler. Stuff like that happened in real world monarchies all the time. And it also did so in Westeros. Just take a look at the many different royal dynasties of the Riverlands. Somebody has to sit the Iron Throne and if the royal line of House Targaryen died out in both in the male and female line then somebody else will seize it eventually.

Do I think something like that is going to happen in the books? Of course not. Cersei is never going to become Queen Regnant in the books. But something like that certainly could happen in the books. Mace is right now in an ideal position to seize the Iron Throne for himself should something happen to Tommen. He would have no legal claim but possibly the power to do it anyway.

If Euron ever sits the Iron Throne in the books it will be by right of conquest (or rather by 'right of usurpation' considering that he was nothing but a rebel against his legitimate monarch to begin with rather than a foreign invader).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Kusanagi

So now you are an expert on Westerosi succession law and know the answer to cases that haven't even be raised in the series?

The fact is, we do know that dowagers have claims to lordships in Westeros. Lady Dustin doesn't have a drop of Dustin blood as far as we know yet she still rules Barrowton with an iron fist since the day her husband died. The lordship did not pass to some (distant) Dustin cousin of her late husband.

Lady Hornwood also has some claim to the Hornwood title and lands as the dowager lady of Hornwood. And so on.

This certainly could also extend to Queen Dowagers. It wouldn't be a good claim but certainly a claim. And that is more than you need, really.

Historically, Joffrey Lydden Lannister become King of the Rock by right of his wife. If that works then a wife certainly could also become Queen Regnant by right of her (late) husband. That would certainly be a very extraordinary event but the situation in the show (Cersei blowing up all her enemies) certainly is a scenario in which something like that might happen.

Both a coup and a conquest could make you the legitimate ruler. Stuff like that happened in real world monarchies all the time. And it also did so in Westeros. Just take a look at the many different royal dynasties of the Riverlands. Somebody has to sit the Iron Throne and if the royal line of House Targaryen died out in both in the male and female line then somebody else will seize it eventually.

Do I think something like that is going to happen in the books? Of course not. Cersei is never going to become Queen Regnant in the books. But something like that certainly could happen in the books. Mace is right now in an ideal position to seize the Iron Throne for himself should something happen to Tommen. He would have no legal claim but possibly the power to do it anyway.

If Euron ever sits the Iron Throne in the books it will be by right of conquest (or rather by 'right of usurpation' considering that he was nothing but a rebel against his legitimate monarch to begin with rather than a foreign invader).

Which part of dowager doesn't equal queen you don't understand? Which part of Royal succession doesn't equal lower title inheritance you don't understand? And didn't I say Cersei can be regent, but cannot claim to be a legitimate queen?

Westerosi succession law is based on European feudal system, and it is explained throughout the books. If you don't care about it then you don't care about it. Hell, in this case Godzilla coming out of the Narrow Sea to defeat Dany's dragons and crown himself King of Dragons would make perfect sense as well, since the internal logic and consistency isn't an important thing to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kusanagi

I guess you sit down and read the relevant sources on Westerosi (royal) succession. The bottom line is: They aren't clear.

1. Everybody can be a regent. That is an office to rule in the king's name. Historically lords like Stackspear, Caron, and Grandison served Targaryen kings as regents in their minority. You don't have to be related to the king or be particularly noble to do this.

2. Dowagers may have also claims to a throne. We don't know that yet. But this isn't the point. The point is that a person (a Queen Dowager or not) who is in a position to kill all her opponents and seize the throne for herself can do so in Westeros.

Granted, in the books this might cause some uproar. But so what? The kings of Westeros also tried to resist the Targaryen Conquest and Rhaegar tried to defeat Robert Baratheon. They failed. If Cersei prevails she could remain a queen and found a new dynasty.

3. There is no default way to discuss the succession once a king dies. When the heir is clear he just inherits the throne, if there is uncertainty then the Small Council can debate the succession (as it did at the beginning of the Dance of the Dragons). A Great Council has to be called by an authority (either the Hand or the King) and it would only assemble if the lords and the various claimants were interested and willing to discuss this question rather than decide it by violence.

Cersei killed all her enemies including all the Small Council members. There simply is nobody left to oppose her ascension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@Kusanagi

I guess you sit down and read the relevant sources on Westerosi (royal) succession. The bottom line is: They aren't clear.

1. Everybody can be a regent. That is an office to rule in the king's name. Historically lords like Stackspear, Caron, and Grandison served Targaryen kings as regents in their minority. You don't have to be related to the king or be particularly noble to do this.

2. Dowagers may have also claims to a throne. We don't know that yet. But this isn't the point. The point is that a person (a Queen Dowager or not) who is in a position to kill all her opponents and seize the throne for herself can do so in Westeros.

Granted, in the books this might cause some uproar. But so what? The kings of Westeros also tried to resist the Targaryen Conquest and Rhaegar tried to defeat Robert Baratheon. They failed. If Cersei prevails she could remain a queen and found a new dynasty.

3. There is no default way to discuss the succession once a king dies. When the heir is clear he just inherits the throne, if there is uncertainty then the Small Council can debate the succession (as it did at the beginning of the Dance of the Dragons). A Great Council has to be called by an authority (either the Hand or the King) and it would only assemble if the lords and the various claimants were interested and willing to discuss this question rather than decide it by violence.

Cersei killed all her enemies including all the Small Council members. There simply is nobody left to oppose her ascension.

I guess you should really sit down and read what I have already said about Cersei being a regent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

Which part of dowager doesn't equal queen you don't understand? Which part of Royal succession doesn't equal lower title inheritance you don't understand? And didn't I say Cersei can be regent, but cannot claim to be a legitimate queen?

Westerosi succession law is based on European feudal system, and it is explained throughout the books. If you don't care about it then you don't care about it. Hell, in the case Godzilla coming out of the Narrow Sea to defeat Dany's dragons and crown himself King of Dragons would make perfect sense as well, since the internal logic and consistency isn't an important thing to you.

I think you don't understand what Lord Varys have said.

Cersei is an usurper. She took the crown outside of usual succession rights because all normal claimants have died. Some ask on what legal basis. Lord Varys (amongst many else) suggests that off screen she might have used the pretense of being closest person to the former dynasty. That is a weak claim obviously and some people in Westeros might consider it no claim at all. Nobody argues that. But since there is no one left standing in KL to contest this she just went on with coronation.

As for the conquest part: should Cersei win somehow and have a heir of her own then she will have no problem with establishing her own dynasty just like the Aegon I did. This is why it was compared to conquest. I happen to know that in late medieval/renaissance it was called "merit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

Apparently people through out history and in the universe of ASOIAF do care, a lot.

If you want to honeypot to justify anything the show throw at you, then obviously you don't care, but that's you.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TwiceBorn said:

I think you don't understand what Lord Varys have said.

Cersei is an usurper. She took the crown outside of usual succession rights because all normal claimants have died. Some ask on what legal basis. Lord Varys (amongst many else) suggests that off screen she might have used the pretense of being closest person to the former dynasty. That is a weak claim obviously and some people in Westeros might consider it no claim at all. Nobody argues that. But since there is no one left standing in KL to contest this she just went on with coronation.

As for the conquest part: should Cersei win somehow and have a heir of her own then she will have no problem with establishing her own dynasty just like the Aegon I did. This is why it was compared to conquest. I happen to know that in late medieval/renaissance it was called "merit".

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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. 

@Lord Varys Very enlightening posts that I enjoyed reading very much. I agree with your vision of things although I'd be unable to express my thoughts with the same fluidity and clarity ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...