Let's defend Cersei in this topic

[Hajk]

You guys want to see a really determined defense of Cersei? How about the fact that we have almost zero evidencde that she had any of Robert's children killed, apart from an insinuation from Varys?

• Janos Slynt refuses to name Cersei to Tyrion when asked who gave him the order. But the soldiers chasing Gendry freely demand him in the name of the Queen. So the order was so secret that Tyrion did not hear of it at all but the common men-at-arms chasing Gendry know.

Cersei doesn't like killing children-she freaks out when Jaime pushes Bran and does not attempt to silence him later.

Venturing into murky territory here. Varys suspected that Gendry would be at risk but not Barra-why? If Cersei wanted the children dead in order to prevent others from concluding as Ned did, she'd want them all dead-high born or low, no matter how young and Varys would surely know that. He is supposed to be an expert player and all.

Now, look at how the death of Barra and her mother are meant to appeal specifically to Tyrion-it's not just the child but the mother as well. The mother is a young whore and Tyrion's reaction is interesting: Tyrion had never seen the dead girl’s face, but in his mind she was Shae and Tysha both.

Varys has a vested interest in keeping Cersei and Tyrion separated -doesn't trust him and has already warned Tyrion against him. Tywin had specifically instructed Tyrion to prune the Council.

No effort is made by Cersei to locate the other fourteen-and remember, she knows that there are sixteen in total, thanks to Maggi the contrived plot point Frog.

She doesn't mention ordering the killings in her PoVs.

Actually this is fairly interesting (good catch). From later parts of the series and the epilogue of ADwD we know that Varys is capable of playing a far deeper and more cunning game, putting blame on the wrong parties. He may well be involved in ways that have yet to be revealed.

[Jasta11]

Littlefinger doesn't need a motive.

But he's not reckless either. he doesn't gain anything from ordering the killings; indeed, it gets one of top agents sent to the Wall. When the commander of the City Watch is in your pocket, you don't put him in the Hand's crosshair for shit and giggles.

@Asha Greyjoy: I don,t think the point is that Cercei was the spawn of Satan at age 5. But that she had a bad nature (no other way to interpret a murder at age 10 over so petty a reason) and that the circumstances didn't favor her growing out of it, just like her son didn't. In particular, it's a argument made against the affirmation that her marriage to Robert and/or Tywin's parenting made her what she is. As I explained previously (page 4, I believe), that's no excuse since other characters went through the exact same experiences or worse, and didn't become like her. Hell, for a woman in Westeros, she actually had a very privileged life, it's hard to think of someone her gender that was given more, and she still turned into a bitter, resentfull, petty, murderous bitch. Not to mention she actually wanted to marry Robert, the strong and powerful and handsome, until he said ''Lyanna'' to her in bed, while she slept with her brother the very same day. How is that not the height of detestable hypocrisy?

As for defending Qyburn's experiments, are there really people that argue this? I have a hard time believing it. What next, Jeyne Pool deserved what she got from Littlefinger and Ramsay because it gave them new insights on female nature?

[Knight Of Winter]

I think the last bolded line there is crucial. She gets more crap for her actions than Tywin who is the consummate Westerosi politician according to many. She certainly thinks so herself and has learn't most of what she has learnt by noticing his workings (Castamere, having Gregor and Amory kill the Targaryen babies etc., all without a shred of remorse). But the question was how much murder has she committed between Melara (which remains unproven) and GOT (all your examples are from after the start of GOT)?

So, while judging Cersei's character we should establish Tywin as a norm? Tywin, who's probably responsible for greatest number of deaths during the series? Tywin, who's among the most vile characters in ASOIAF? It's like evaluating a piece of literature by comparing it to Twilight. I think we should put standard a little higher, even for Cersei.

Bolded part: then Cersei suddenly started exhibiting homicidal tendencies just at the start of AGOT, yes?

It was because I think Cersei primarily uses murder as a political tool. She is not some serial killer Ramsay type. But using murder as a political tool is done by many (most conspicuously her own role model father). Killing Lady is not a murder by the way. Not by the standards of even our world and certainly not by the standards of theirs. She orders the murder of Robert's bastards to cover up evidence of incest, again something that is similar to Tywin murdering the Targaryen babies to please Robert (except Tywin was not in danger from the existence of the babies, Cersei was threatened with the loss of power and danger to her children etc.). The murder of dwarfs is also primarily objective focused rather than evil for the sake of it. Cersei has effectively been taught that human life can not be allowed to stand in the way of success, and that those who would allow it to (e.g. Eddard) will not fare well, while those who don't win. If one is to blame people for the murders they have ordered then would we blame other lords who order wars knowing full well that much carnage would follow for the carnage? If not, why not? And if so, then will Cersei really look that bad anymore

Forgive me for assumption, but you seem to think that Cersei's actions are less reprehensible because she had reason for doing them. Well, Ramsay also does, his reason being satisfying his own sick desires. Tywin gave Tysha to guards, but it was all to teach Tyrion a lesson. Theon murders two miller's boys, but he was doing it to cover up his incompetence. In no examples mentioned above does "reason for doing so" diminish the magnitude of the crime, and Cersei is no example here. If she allows for dozens of dwarfs to die just for a slight chance of catching Tyrion, that's flat out evil - and no amount of relativisation will help there.

Underlined part: and do you see normal, non-evil people having that mindset? Can you imagine average human citizen (in our world or Westeros) thinking and behaving that way?

As for upbringing, as I mentioned above I see this argument working only if someone were to concede that the causality associated with upbringing is deterministic (i.e. you will be certainly be evil if brought up like this) rather than probabilistic (you will probably be evil if brought up like this). If it is the first then the upbringing can not be to blame if others survived it better. But if it is the second then the fact the others came out better does not absolve the upbringing.

Of course it's not deterministic. But upbringing can't be used as be-all end-all answer to all of Cersei's problems and issues.

This looks like a very black and white test on the face of it. The problem is that it is difficult to provide this because for any action provided alternative explanation in terms of some vice exist. There is a catalog of vices and if I present something as a virtue, it can immediately be reinterpreted as due to some vice instead.

I didn't ask for Cersei's virtues (like ambition or cunning - which she undoubtedly has) - but for much less subjective category of altruistic and selfless deed she did. Things like Brienne risking her life for children at the inn, Jaime saving Brienne from Vargo Hoat, Tyrion making a saddle for Bran, Dany trying to end slavery, Catelyn saving Brienne from possible execution, Sansa helping Dontos...

Has Cersei ever done anything which would even remotely qualify?

If you want the serious argument, it is this: Cersei is no saint, no paragon of virtue, no Davos Seaworth. However, she is often presented as the very epitome of evil, and numerous excuses that are frequently provided to explain away the excesses of more beloved characters (e.g. Dany, by some including myself, Stannis by others, and so on) can also be used to excuse some of her behavior as well. Similarly excuses based on young age, bad circumstance, terrible parenting, abusive husband, bad fathering, etc. should also be available to her as well. Just like every accused deserves a vigorous defence in a court of law so does she. So if something excuses a more beloved character it also excuses her. If something can be done by a less hated character (e.g. Tyrion, Tywin, etc.) without making them the epitome of evil then it can also be done by her without making her the same. In addition attacks along lines of incompetence and immorality are not the same thing. She can be guilty of one and not the other. That, in summary has been the serious side of the argument.

Both Tywin and Tyrion receive plenty of criticism for their atrocities. What stops e.g. Tyrion from being "epitome of evil" are his good/redeeming qualities and actions - making a saddle for Bran, giving Jon advice, punishing Janos Slynt... Meanwhile, AFAIK, Cersei has none of that.

[butterbumps!]

I'm not sure how much of this is really serving as a defense of Cersei. I think the main "defense" of Cersei (if one can call it that), would be an objective look at her "treason."

The "hate" odds are so stacked against her from the beginning for having those 3 little treasons because of:

1. Jof's heinousness

2. How noble Ned and Jon Arryn are, and must be correct in wanting to "rectify" the situation

3. it's incest

that we completely gloss over the fact that:

1. hey, the good guys are totally supporting this awful, misogynistic patrilineal succession system, and, guess what? we're being led to endorse it too.

2. they're opposing Jof not because he's an unfit shithead, but because he has the wrong father to the extent they're willing to start a war over this

3. and by implication, that means if Jof were the same unfit shithead, Ned, Jon and Stannis would have no issue with his being on the throne, because he'd be Robert's

4. Cersei (and Jaime) were exercising their reproductive rights in the (nearly only) consensual relationship we see, something I think most of us would regard positively, generally speaking.

So, there's something absolutely brilliant in Cersei's character that compels us to wholeheartedly endorse patrilineal succession by virtue of condemnation of Cersei by the "good guys" willing to start a war so the guy made with the right semen sits the throne, condemn reproductive rights, and completely fail to see many of our own personal values reflected in what Cersei did, while loving Ned + Co for holding ideals we'd probably find pretty atrocious.

SerBarristantheOld

I've heard it whispered that there exists within these forums a small group of members who might be able to lend aid to your cause. They may appear in certain threads when certain conditions occur...conditions very similar to this one, I believe. I've heard they believe in a central tenant: No Character is Meaningless. That they aim to seek out the reasons and messages of certain story lines, never accepting character villainy as villainy for it's own sake. I've heard they are but a small band. And that they speak sometimes infrequently, sometimes too forcefully - as their cause is one often subject to intense pressures and misunderstanding. But they are there. (They may even totally wish they could call themselves The League of MetaCerseistans. But this last part is almost certainly just a tale told to scare wee babes in winter.)

who's in this brigade?

[Cas Stark]

I'm not sure how much of this is really serving as a defense of Cersei. I think the main "defense" of Cersei (if one can call it that), would be an objective look at her "treason."

The "hate" odds are so stacked against her from the beginning for having those 3 little treasons because of:

1. Jof's heinousness

2. How noble Ned and Jon Arryn are, and must be correct in wanting to "rectify" the situation

3. it's incest

that we completely gloss over the fact that:

1. hey, the good guys are totally supporting this awful, misogynistic patrilineal succession system, and, guess what? we're being led to endorse it too.

2. they're opposing Jof not because he's an unfit shithead, but because he has the wrong father to the extent they're willing to start a war over this

3. and by implication, that means if Jof were the same unfit shithead, Ned, Jon and Stannis would have no issue with his being on the throne, because he'd be Robert's

4. Cersei (and Jaime) were exercising their reproductive rights in the (nearly only) consensual relationship we see, something I think most of us would regard positively, generally speaking.

So, there's something absolutely brilliant in Cersei's character that compels us to wholeheartedly endorse patrilineal succession by virtue of condemnation of Cersei by the "good guys" willing to start a war so the guy made with the right semen sits the throne, condemn reproductive rights, and completely fail to see many of our own personal values reflected in what Cersei did, while loving Ned + Co for holding ideals we'd probably find pretty atrocious.

who's in this brigade?

She pushed Melara down a well when she was, what, 10? That doesn't have anything to do with the patriarchy. Neither does abusing her brother. Neither does ordering Lady killed.

As for Joff, Cersei's problem is that she is the one who created him, who enabled him, who turned a blind eye to cat killing and brother abusing all these years.

She's not striking a blow for reproductive rights except in the most twisted pretzel logic imaginable. It's fairly normal to condemn adultery, to condemn someone who fucks another person on the day of their wedding and then continues their affair. None of my values in there sorry. Incest is also not one of my values.

[butterbumps!]

She pushed Melara down a well when she was, what, 10? That doesn't have anything to do with the patriarchy. Neither does abusing her brother. Neither does ordering Lady killed.

As for Joff, Cersei's problem is that she is the one who created him, who enabled him, who turned a blind eye to cat killing and brother abusing all these years.

yea, and what does this have to do with my post?

[Cas Stark]

yea, and what does this have to do with my post?

It shows that Cersei being a bad person has nothing to do with the patriarchy, and thus, the bulk of your post is irrelevant to the central issue..that she is bad person and was a bad person from a young age.

[Knight Of Winter]

that we completely gloss over the fact that:

1. hey, the good guys are totally supporting this awful, misogynistic patrilineal succession system, and, guess what? we're being led to endorse it too.

And so does Cersei, the only difference being she rejects male-intehits-male system and endorses Cersei-intehits-everyone system. She's not the hero who fights flawed system, she wants to become system herself.

2. they're opposing Jof not because he's an unfit shithead, but because he has the wrong father to the extent they're willing to start a war over this

3. and by implication, that means if Jof were the same unfit shithead, Ned, Jon and Stannis would have no issue with his being on the throne, because he'd be Robert's

Nitpicking here (and probably tangential to the discussion), but we're talking about guys who rebelled against Aerys for that same reason.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how much of your points stands, since Cersei is relatively rarely reviled for incest & having kids with Jaime (since most posters don't have any problems with consensual relationships of any kind ). Her anti-fandom commonly relies on her murders and such for reviling her.

[SeanF]

I'm not sure how much of this is really serving as a defense of Cersei. I think the main "defense" of Cersei (if one can call it that), would be an objective look at her "treason."

The "hate" odds are so stacked against her from the beginning for having those 3 little treasons because of:

1. Jof's heinousness

2. How noble Ned and Jon Arryn are, and must be correct in wanting to "rectify" the situation

3. it's incest

that we completely gloss over the fact that:

1. hey, the good guys are totally supporting this awful, misogynistic patrilineal succession system, and,

guess what? we're being led to endorse it too.

2. they're opposing Jof not because he's an unfit shithead, but because he has the wrong father to the extent they're willing to start a war over this

3. and by implication, that means if Jof were the same unfit shithead, Ned, Jon and Stannis would have no issue with his being on the throne, because he'd be Robert's

4. Cersei (and Jaime) were exercising their reproductive rights in the (nearly only) consensual relationship we see, something I think most of us would regard positively, generally speaking.

So, there's something absolutely brilliant in Cersei's character that compels us to wholeheartedly endorse patrilineal succession by virtue of condemnation of Cersei by the "good guys" willing to start a war so the guy made with the right semen sits the throne, condemn reproductive rights, and completely fail to see many of our own personal values reflected in what Cersei did, while loving Ned + Co for holding ideals we'd probably find pretty atrocious.

who's in this brigade?

I don't know to what extent your post is tongue-in-cheek, but I live in a country whose Head of State is an hereditary monarch. There'd be an absolute firestorm if it were to be revealed that the heir to the Throne was in fact the product of incest between a queen-consort and her brother. You can multiply that tenfold in a country where the monarch is actually Head of the Government.

[Hajk]

So, while judging Cersei's character we should establish Tywin as a norm? Tywin, who's probably responsible for greatest number of deaths during the series? Tywin, who's among the most vile characters in ASOIAF? It's like evaluating a piece of literature by comparing it to Twilight. I think we should put standard a little higher, even for Cersei.

Bolded part: then Cersei suddenly started exhibiting homicidal tendencies just at the start of AGOT, yes?

Tywin who is considered by many as the consummate and ideal Westerosi politician. Who managed to effectively win the Wo5K. That was her role model (and not only her's). I do not get the impression that Tywin is normally seen as anywhere near as vile as cersei is. Normally there is a sort of grudging admiration for him even from critics.

As I have mentioned before, 'homicidal tendencies' reductively ignores what I think is actually happenening. Cersei, like many others uses murder as a political tool. She is not the sort of psychopathic killer that some would have her be.

Forgive me for assumption, but you seem to think that Cersei's actions are less reprehensible because she had reason for doing them. Well, Ramsay also does, his reason being satisfying his own sick desires. Tywin gave Tysha to guards, but it was all to teach Tyrion a lesson. Theon murders two miller's boys, but he was doing it to cover up his incompetence. In no examples mentioned above does "reason for doing so" diminish the magnitude of the crime, and Cersei is no example here. If she allows for dozens of dwarfs to die just for a slight chance of catching Tyrion, that's flat out evil - and no amount of relativisation will help there.

Underlined part: and do you see normal, non-evil people having that mindset? Can you imagine average human citizen (in our world or Westeros) thinking and behaving that way?

Well there are reasons and then there are reasons, and not all reasons are equal. Cersei's reasons often fall well within (or only slightly at the periphery) of the norms of Westerosi politics as has been seen in the series as well as in earlier iterations (e.g. TPATQ). This is a 'you win or you die' sort of world, and politics have often been quite ugly (as has war). Either condemn everyone as such or don't consider her exceptionally vile.

Of course it's not deterministic. But upbringing can't be used as be-all end-all answer to all of Cersei's problems and issues.

true enough. And it hasn't been used as the be-all end-all of all her problems. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to mention many of the other points that I have been mentioning.

I didn't ask for Cersei's virtues (like ambition or cunning - which she undoubtedly has) - but for much less subjective category of altruistic and selfless deed she did. Things like Brienne risking her life for children at the inn, Jaime saving Brienne from Vargo Hoat, Tyrion making a saddle for Bran, Dany trying to end slavery, Catelyn saving Brienne from possible execution, Sansa helping Dontos...

Has Cersei ever done anything which would even remotely qualify?

The thing with those characters is that we are already pre-disposed to interpreting their actions favorably. I could say that Cersei didn't want Bran thrown, didn't try to kill him afterwards, didn't even want Ned killed, would have made Sansa a decent match (Ceteris paribus) but there is a way to dispute these as aspects of something else at the same time. I did mention the germ of morality thing that was discussed more extensively a few pages ago.

Both Tywin and Tyrion receive plenty of criticism for their atrocities. What stops e.g. Tyrion from being "epitome of evil" are his good/redeeming qualities and actions - making a saddle for Bran, giving Jon advice, punishing Janos Slynt... Meanwhile, AFAIK, Cersei has none of that.

My own impression is that Cersei is considered far far worse than even Tywin, Varys or Littlefinger. It seems like her bitchiness condemns her more than equally vile thoughts in the head of Tyrion or Jaime, her sexual exploits condemn her more than Tyrion, Robert, or Jaime, her murderous actions condemn her more than lords who start murderous wars that leave thousands dead, orphaned or without their livlihoods.

[Cas Stark]

I don't know to what extent your post is tongue-in-cheek, but I live in a country whose Head of State is an hereditary monarch. There'd be an absolute firestorm if it were to be revealed that the heir to the Throne was in fact the product of incest between a queen-consort and her brother. You can multiply that tenfold in a country where the monarch is actually Head of the Government.

I must be old fashioned, I still consider it a dirty trick to foist off someone else's children on your partner and claim they are his. That strikes me more as being a liar and a cheat than some kind of 'reproductive freedom'.

[butterbumps!]

It shows that Cersei being a bad person has nothing to do with the patriarchy, and thus, the bulk of your post is irrelevant to the central issue..that she is bad person and was a bad person from a young age.

I fear you missed my entire point.

Cersei is such a despicable person (and seriously, I don't agree with the defenses of her enormities) that it completely occludes the reality of what's going on at the start of the series.

If you read my post, you will see that I listed Jof's heinousness and incest as immediate strikes against her. The point is that the things that turn us off from her (in addition to her own malfeasance) end up compelling us toward endorsing some really terrible, unenlightened views by far more sympathetic characters. It's somewhat of a hoodwink.

And so does Cersei, the only difference being she rejects male-intehits-male system and endorses Cersei-intehits-everyone system. She's not the hero who fights flawed system, she wants to become system herself.

Nitpicking here (and probably tangential to the discussion), but we're talking about guys who rebelled against Aerys for that same reason.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how much of your points stands, since Cersei is relatively rarely reviled for incest & having kids with Jaime (since most posters don't have any problems with consensual relationships of any kind ). Her anti-fandom commonly relies on her murders and such for reviling her.

I think you might have missed my point, too. She's not overturning the patriarchy but wants to become it. Can you look at it again? It's speaking to the fact that she's such an awful person, that her awfulness, in relation to the good guys opposed to her, ends up prompting us to support and endorse this misogynistic system of order without realizing just how terrible it is, feeling that a "war for the correct semen" is totally justified and correct. That's kind of brilliant.

And wrt Aerys, I guess once Jof called for an excess of their own family's heads they might be moved to intervene, but it's very clear Ned and Stannis were opposed to Jof because he's not Robert's.

I don't know to what extent your post is tongue-in-cheek, but I live in a country whose Head of State is an hereditary monarch. There'd be an absolute firestorm if it were to be revealed that the heir to the Throne was in fact the product of incest between a queen-consort and her brother. You can multiply that tenfold in a country where the monarch is actually Head of the Government.

Is it worth a war if the truth never truly got out?

[Hajk]

I'm not sure how much of this is really serving as a defense of Cersei. I think the main "defense" of Cersei (if one can call it that), would be an objective look at her "treason."

The "hate" odds are so stacked against her from the beginning for having those 3 little treasons because of:

1. Jof's heinousness

2. How noble Ned and Jon Arryn are, and must be correct in wanting to "rectify" the situation

3. it's incest

that we completely gloss over the fact that:

1. hey, the good guys are totally supporting this awful, misogynistic patrilineal succession system, and, guess what? we're being led to endorse it too.

2. they're opposing Jof not because he's an unfit shithead, but because he has the wrong father to the extent they're willing to start a war over this

3. and by implication, that means if Jof were the same unfit shithead, Ned, Jon and Stannis would have no issue with his being on the throne, because he'd be Robert's

4. Cersei (and Jaime) were exercising their reproductive rights in the (nearly only) consensual relationship we see, something I think most of us would regard positively, generally speaking.

So, there's something absolutely brilliant in Cersei's character that compels us to wholeheartedly endorse patrilineal succession by virtue of condemnation of Cersei by the "good guys" willing to start a war so the guy made with the right semen sits the throne, condemn reproductive rights, and completely fail to see many of our own personal values reflected in what Cersei did, while loving Ned + Co for holding ideals we'd probably find pretty atrocious.

who's in this brigade?

I said something quite similar in a thread the other day about how the good guys basically decided to start a war that would cause immense suffering over the fact that the wrong immoral jackasses' sperm got to Cersei's egg. That conversation ended with me being dubbed a sexist troll after which the other poster ended it.

ETA: Your avatar, what is it? Looks quite cute.

[SeanF]

I must be old fashioned, I still consider it a dirty trick to foist off someone else's children on your partner and claim they are his. That strikes me more as being a liar and a cheat than some kind of 'reproductive freedom'.

Somehow, even in this day and age, I couldn't see such an argument cutting much ice with the British public, even in places like Islington and Hebden Bridge.

[Winter's Knight]

Uhh, Tyrion is an attainted traitor-there's a price on his head because he's believed to have killed the king and his Hand and father. Cersei isn't out killing random dwarves, mercenaries are, to you know, claim a reward?

She should of course, ideally punish those men bringing in random heads, but, as everyone keeps remiding me, that's just how life was back then for the poor and the disabled.

*Let the record show: I endorse WK's take on the babycide information. The matter isn't settled because the text isn't at all clear that she definitely did this. I've noticed that until Sansa's last chapter in ASOS, readers assumed it was FACT that "The Lannisters" (read: Cersei) killed Jon Arryn. They were proven wrong. Don't assume, people.

I haven't been this pleased since Lummel made one of my comments his title.

[Cas Stark]

I fear you missed my entire point.

Cersei is such a despicable person (and seriously, I don't agree with the defenses of her enormities) that it completely occludes the reality of what's going on at the start of the series.

If you read my post, you will see that I listed Jof's heinousness and incest as immediate strikes against her. The point is that the things that turn us off from her (in addition to her own malfeasance) end up compelling us toward endorsing some really terrible, unenlightened views by far more sympathetic characters. It's somewhat of a hoodwink.

I think you might have missed my point, too. She's not overturning the patriarchy but wants to become it. Can you look at it again? It's speaking to the fact that she's such an awful person, that her awfulness, in relation to the good guys opposed to her, ends up prompting us to support and endorse this misogynistic system of order without realizing just how terrible it is, feeling that a "war for the correct semen" is totally justified and correct. That's kind of brilliant.

And wrt Aerys, I guess once Jof called for an excess of their own family's heads they might be moved to intervene, but it's very clear Ned and Stannis were opposed to Jof because he's not Robert's.

Is it worth a war if the truth never truly got out?

No, I didn't miss your point. I don't agree with it. Not everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand what you are getting at. Ensuring that the person who is going to inherit your name, land or throne is your legitimate heir has been historically quite important. You can diminish her dishonesty with smoke and mirrors about the patriarchy and the war for the correct semen, but that doesn't make what she does any less despicable. We don't know how Jon and Ned would react to Joff as a monster if were Bob's son because he's not, we do know that they already did depose one rightful king because he was a monster, so even that point, which is irrelevant to Cersei's character is quite weak on it's own.

[SeanF]

I fear you missed my entire point.

Is it worth a war if the truth never truly got out?

If I were in Ned's position, my prime concern would have been to protect myself, my family, and my staff. In that situation, I'd probably have found an excuse to resign my position and return North.

[SeanF]

Uhh, Tyrion is an attainted traitor-there's a price on his head because he's believed to have killed the king and his Hand and father. Cersei isn't out killing random dwarves, mercenaries are, to you know, claim a reward?

She should of course, ideally punish those men bringing in random heads, but, as everyone keeps remiding me, that's just how life was back then for the title and disabled. title.

Actually, she showed herself to be quite kind-hearted by forgiving people who killed the wrong dwarves.

[butterbumps!]

I said something quite similar in a thread the other day about how the good guys basically decided to start a war that would cause immense suffering over the fact that the wrong immoral jackasses' sperm got to Cersei's egg. That conversation ended with me being dubbed a sexist troll after which the other poster ended it.

ETA: Your avatar, what is it? Looks quite cute.

I haven't been called a sexist in a while, so I'll take the risk. It's Kirby with the jester power-up ("Beam" it's called).

No, I didn't miss your point. I don't agree with it. Not everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand what you are getting at. Ensuring that the person who is going to inherit your name, land or throne is your legitimate heir has been historically quite important. We don't know how Jon and Ned would react to Joff as a monster if were Bob's son because he's not, we do know that they already did depose one rightful king because he was a monster, so even that point, which is irrelevant to Cersei's character is quite weak on it's own.

The reason I thought you missed my point is because you were arguing against things I didn't allege.

Putting aside how Cersei handled it afterward, the system itself is the problem-- that one's "profession" is determined by marriage and birth, which infringes on personal reproductive rights; one's body doesn't belong to self but to the state is the problem. The way Cersei pawned those kids off as Robert's is a symptom of that problem, not necessarily the problem itself. To the extent Cersei chose the father of her kids, yes, this is exercising reproductive rights.

I know patrilineal succession has been important historically; that doesn't mean we should be endorsing it. It's the "not endorsing it" that was my point. Especially in this series that keeps challenging it after it's set up as being the "right" way.

We can make a very educated guess that unless something truly egregious occurred-- like Jof sent for the heads of Ned's family-- that Jof's suitability would not have been a concern. His rationale for going against Cersei was exclusively the succession issue.

[Winter's Knight]

No, I didn't miss your point. I don't agree with it. Not everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't understand what you are getting at. Ensuring that the person who is going to inherit your name, land or throne is your legitimate heir has been historically quite important. You can diminish her dishonesty with smoke and mirrors about the patriarchy and the war for the correct semen, but that doesn't make what she does any less despicable. We don't know how Jon and Ned would react to Joff as a monster if were Bob's son because he's not, we do know that they already did depose one rightful king because he was a monster, so even that point, which is irrelevant to Cersei's character is quite weak on it's own.

That'snot what Bumps is saying though.

Through a narrative slight of hand, Martin effectively has us rooting for war and the deaths of thousands and the destabilisation of seven kingdoms, just to ensure that the guy with the right dna ascends the throne.

Ned isn't concerned with Joff's character or ability to rule,just his parentage and we've been supporting him for it.