Jump to content

Mayura

Members
  • Content count

    651
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mayura

  • Rank
    Noble
  • Birthday 10/13/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

795 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. @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
  4. 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).
×