Let's say GRRM's plan is still for Jaime to take the throne? How?

[Lord Varys]

8 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

1. Jamie's claim to Casterly Rock is an interesting matter. Yes, he gave it up to be Kingsguard, but becoming King implies he has finally decided to ditch the Kingsguard and get married just as his father always wanted. As far as I know, Tywin's heirs are still officially the "proprietors" of Casterly Rock, but let's say, for argument's sake, that they did actually give away Casterly Rock when Daven was made Warden of the West. Even so, the current holders of Casterly Rock are entirely dependent on the Lannisters NOT losing power in King's Landing. So if the Lannisters and Tyrells lose their alliance, they lose their hold on the city, and as a consequence they would lose EVERYTHING. So whoever holds Casterly Rock, as long as they hold it via the Lannisters holding power in KL the. they have EVERY interest in seeing Jaime on the Throne.

2. If Tommen and Myrcella are dead, and the Lannister/Tyrell alliance is crumbling, the line of succession is going to be the very last thing on their minds I promise you. It might be Selwyn Tarth who is next in theory, sure. In practice, King Selwyn has zero potential to hold the alliance and therefore the Kingdoms together  and may, in any case, be dead also courtesy of Aegon. Selwyn Tarth is not in King's Landing, he does not have a following, and he can't seal an alliance with marriage. He would have the backing of neither the Lannisters nor the Tyrells. What they are going to need is not some abstract legal logic for figuring out who sits on that throne, but a pure pragmatic solution that preserves the interests of both families and allows them to stay in power in the face of a serious threat from Euron and possibly others. Why should the Tyrells back Selwyn? You seem to forget that the Tyrells may hate the Lannisters, but they NEED them to keep power. Their only alternative is a contender who is actually serious (maybe Aegon, maybe Euron, maybe Dany, maybe Jon. Certainly not Selwyn Tarth).

3. Yes, there are people who care somewhat about the legality of claims, like dead Ned. Anyone who cares ONLY about that and ignore the actual strategic situation on the ground is doomed just as he was. Any "legal" claim is still rooted in conquest, which basically means that someone way back simply TOOK the throne and then did the necessary subjugation and/or diplomacy to turn it into a lasting dynasty, which was then maintained because it was in everyone's best interests to do so. The Baratheon legitimacy was already a very thin argument. It was nothing more than a convenience to prevent the allied families from turning on each other after the Rebellion, but what it was actually based on was the overthrow of the Targaryens. 

What we have after the deaths of Tommen and Myrcella is a very very different situation. The Targaryens were thrown out a generation ago and they simply are no longer the basis of legitimacy, at least, of the legal kind. If Dany became extremely popular she could acquire the sort of legitimacy that Renly had, which is a step away from democratic legitimacy (rather than heredity). But otherwise she would return as a conqueror and nothing more. Her legitimacy ended when her father was killed and the Targ dynasty was thrown out. So the Tyrells and Lannisters are not going to be browsing Targaryen family trees when looking for a new way to stay in power.

Sorry, but most of your arguments don't make any sense. Lets go through that in detail:

1. Right now Cersei is still Lady of Casterly Rock, and her heirs are her remaining children. After them comes Kevan's son Martyn and his daughter Janei, and then on to Genna's line, until it goes back to Stafford's brood. Cersei has named Daven Warden of the West and Damion castelan of Casterly Rock.

Jaime may be Lord Tywin's son and all, and he is certainly respected by his cousins, but they have to fend for themselves. If Cersei/Tommen/Myrcella all die/fall then nobody in the West is going to rally around Jaime unless he happens to be there at this point, having discarded the Kingsguard and claimed the Rock as the son of Tywn (assuming the Lannisters there would accept such a move - could be, if they felt they were in trouble and looked to him for leadership).

But in any sense nobody is taking the Rock or the West from the Lannisters regardless what happens in KL. Not until some huge army actually invades the West, takes Lannisport, and successfully besieges Casterly Rock (the latter is a completely impossible task). There might be shifts within the Lannister power structure, but no one is going to topple them. No one even tried back in Tytos' days, after all.

2. The line of succession certainly can matter after the demise of Cersei's children. As you correctly point out both the Tyrells and Lannisters (who don't even have an army in KL right now) lack legitimacy. That could be changed if they allied with/installed a weak figurehead with an actual claim on the Iron Throne (say, Selwyn Tarth, Brienne, or some other distant Targaryen or Baratheon cousin). By allying with such a person the Tyrells could actually get rid of the Lannisters who can no longer offer them the support of legal claim (which Tommen and Myrcella did). Jaime could never hope to give them such an advantage even if he wanted to.

The idea that anyone in KL on the throne at this point could hold together the kingdom who isn't Aegon is, of course, utterly stupid. But if the Tyrells wanted to cling to whatever shreds of power they still had they might to try to do something like that.

3. It is not just Ned who cares about the legality of claims. In fact, in the entire history of Westeros since the Targaryen conquest no one claiming the Iron Throne had not at least the pretense of royal blood (even the pretenders during the Dance, Trystane Truefyre, Gaemon Palehair, and Hugh Hammer claimed they had Targaryen blood). Usurpation/deposition doesn't necessarily put you in a bad legal position, either. Just look at the North. The Starks are still openly and secretly supported by many Northmen regardless of the fact that they have been effectively deposed and replaced by the Boltons.

Old loyalties die slowly. The Blackfyres seem to be done, but the Targaryens and the Starks are still in the race and can be restored to their seat.

Oh, and Renly had a legal claim, of course! Stannis and Cersei's children had stronger legal claims, but he was still the brother of King Robert, and the great-grandson of King Aegon V, which makes him a fairly unique person in Westeros. His take was to add the advantage of his popularity, charisma, and military power to bolster his not-so-strong legal claim. And that could have worked. But he wasn't some guy with no claim at all who just woke up and said I'll conquer the kingdom because I've the money to do so.

If Westeros was a place where you can win the Iron Throne if you are not related to the royal family then Tywin would have deposed Joffrey after the Blackwater, taken the throne for himself, and named Jaime his heir.

[TerrorVoid]

Well, since I kinda support JL=AAR, I think, he will be the king by the right of deed.

[Sigella]

If nothing else, it would resonate towards Maggy the Frog's prophesy. It would certainly make Cersei spit blood.

 

But I don't think its still in the cards.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

My feeling was that in the original outline, Tyrion and Jaime very much felt like equals. Tyrion was not a dwarf and as much a warrior as Jaime was. Jaime was the villain and Tyrion was the hero. Almost as Twins and opposites.

I think that GRRM took that part of the story (equals but opposite) and took the Jaime character and split it in half, making Cersie and Jaime twins and gave the hero/ villain story line to them. Cersie will try to take the Throne while Jaime plays the hero.

Tyrion on the other hand lost the versus Jaime story line but kept the involvement in the broader story with the Starks and Daenerys.

[Hippocras]

Lord Varys,

I really don't follow your logic and clearly you don't follow mine. I will try to explain better.

First, it really doesn't matter who is Lord or Lady of Casterly Rock or Warden of the West. Whoever they are, if their name is Lannister, then then have no interest whatsoever in seeing Aegon on the Iron Throne, nor Euron, nor Daenerys, and should he become a contender, not Jon either. Anyone with the name Lannister needs to make sure that doesn't happen.

Who would once have been in line for the throne based on the previous Targaryen dynasty is frankly a completely irrelevant question. If you are going by Targaryen legitimacy, then only Dany and possibly Jon or Aegon matter as long as they are alive. You can't skip them but still say Targ blood is what matters for legitimacy. But in reality the Targaryens were thrown out, and Lannister power is based not in anything Targaryen but in the Baratheons. Robert was put in power as a consensus move to build peace after the Targaryens were overthrown. Nothing before him matters in terms of line of succession for the Baratheon dynasty. Yes, he was chosen over the others because of his Targ blood, but that was merely a convenience. The winners needed SOME way to decide who among them would be King and as Jaime pointed out, Ned could easily have taken that throne for himself. Ned's concern for line of succession prevented him, but as far as the others were concerned Ned or Robert didn't matter and were both more palatable than Tywin at the time.

As far as the Baratheon dynasty goes, Tommen and Myrcella will die, IMO most likely without anyone ever proving they are illegitimate (I see no reason to be so certain Jaime will decide to announce it). So that leaves Stannis and Shireen...probably dead, Renly...dead, and Robert's bastards. Of the bastards, Gendry who he is about to meet is clearly not a good bet for the Lannisters. Edric Storm is probably camp Aegon IMO, and Mya doesn't seem to know who she is but should she find out, would not be top candidate for the Lannisters and Tyrells either. 

If the Tyrells and Lannisters cannot agree on who should be King and Queen, their alliance will dissolve and they will back rival contenders. This is of course also a possibility. But for this thread we need to assume they will try to continue to make it work as a means to cling to power. If you look at their respective situations, it is clear that neither family has much reason to be optimistic that their family interests would be well served by an alliance with Aegon or Dany or Euron or Jon, though that of course depends on future events.

As for Lannisters backing Jaime...I truly fail to see why you believe they would not if their alternatives are Aegon, Euron, Dany or Jon. He is in the Riverlands last we saw, doing an extremely successful job of winding down the siege, resolving grievances, breaking standoffs, being more respectful to the defeated families than they likely expected. His tactical and strategic abilities are improving now that he has lost his hand and needs to think, and he is reasonably diplomatic. With him is Daven Lannister who is Warden of the West and shows no sign of being anything but respectful and amicable towards Jaime. Of course the Lannisters would stand by him.

As for the Tyrells, with Tommen dead they will likely need a new way for Margaery to be queen, as that is their route to power. Yes, Willas remains unmarried so they could try to find a way to power using him but I don't really see how unless we are talking Dany. No other queen holds power that they can marry in to. Cersei is not an option for them. Maybe he marries Myrcella, but that would be short-lived. And with Euron making serious incursions into Tyrell territory they will need to secure some backing from someone somewhere to fight off the threat.

So it is as simple as this: The Tyrell/Lannister alliance does not need to fight for the throne and for King's Landing because they are already the ones who hold it. For them it is not a matter of doing any conquering but of defending what they have. In order to defend it, they need to figure out how to maintain their alliance, and pick a set of figureheads that can achieve this. So could the Tyrells support Jaime? Well if he did only two things then they certainly could. All he would need to do is pick up where Kevan left off and rescue the deteriorating diplomatic situation (which he already started to do in the Riverlands), proving he is capable and pragmatic and not at all like his sister; and then marry Marge.

[StarkofWinterfell]

Jaime is part of the Kingsguard, so he couldn't be king. If everyone else in his family was dead, some second cousin would do.

[Hippocras]

9 hours ago, StarkofWinterfell said:

Jaime is part of the Kingsguard, so he couldn't be king. If everyone else in his family was dead, some second cousin would do.

That is quite unimportant.

First, there is precedent for leaving the KG. See Barristan Selmy. That precedent exists in the novels in order for at least one more person to also leave the KG.

Second, if circumstances make it seem necessary to Jaime that he become king, one of his many contradictory vows is not going to stop him. Especially after his failure to protect all three of his children. He's at a pretty low point as far as his competence as KG goes.

[Veloknight]

When debating how important law is, keep in mind that to be seen as viable a legal claim is necessary. That is, for men to believe power resides in you, they need to have not only seen some military backing, but also a belief that others will back you. That's the point of the whole claims issue: not merely whose technically first, but who has legitimacy, and how much. Without legitimacy, rule by force doesn't work, precisely because you need an army, and without some other reason to convince them you're able to hold the throne, you won't get one. This has nothing to do with loyalty to the Targaryens, and everything to do with how politics operates in general. Even today, a family name is enormously helpful in politics to be seen as viable.

Lord Tarth might not have a strong base of support, but that would not prevent factions from coalescing around him. If he's even remotely good at politics, he'll cultivate several, so as to be dependent on none - if not, he'll become someone's puppet king. Provided he or the other close Targ relative has other desirable attributes (relative to the acceptable candidates), it shouldn't be an issue.

[Hippocras]

1 hour ago, Veloknight said:

When debating how important law is, keep in mind that to be seen as viable a legal claim is necessary. That is, for men to believe power resides in you, they need to have not only seen some military backing, but also a belief that others will back you. That's the point of the whole claims issue: not merely whose technically first, but who has legitimacy, and how much. Without legitimacy, rule by force doesn't work, precisely because you need an army, and without some other reason to convince them you're able to hold the throne, you won't get one. This has nothing to do with loyalty to the Targaryens, and everything to do with how politics operates in general. Even today, a family name is enormously helpful in politics to be seen as viable.

Lord Tarth might not have a strong base of support, but that would not prevent factions from coalescing around him. If he's even remotely good at politics, he'll cultivate several, so as to be dependent on none - if not, he'll become someone's puppet king. Provided he or the other close Targ relative has other desirable attributes (relative to the acceptable candidates), it shouldn't be an issue.

I agree with your assessment of legitimacy, somewhat, but fully disagree that people would rally behind Lord Tarth...unless of course he has some claim that comes via the BARATHEON dynasty and not the Targaryen one. Because as I already said, the Targaryens were thrown out and anyone who is concerned about THAT path to legitimacy will not be backing the Lannister/Tyrell alliance regardless: They will be backing one of Dany, Aegon or Jon. So we are specifically not talking about anyone who is concerned about Targaryen basis for legitimacy.

The people we are talking about here are not the ones who are already lost to some rival faction (Aegon, Euron, Dany or Jon) but the ones who hold power via Robert Baratheon's overthrow of the Targaryens. It is THOSE people who will need a new King once Tommen and Myrcella are dead. And they will very definitely not be rallying behind anyone who a. Is a Targaryen and b. Can not rescue the Tyrell/Lannister alliance in order to preserve their hold on King's Landing.

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Based on Jaime being a kingsguard and his plot development and where it seems to be going nope. But Jaime who I believe is the valonqar does seem to often have a kingmaker role. He makes or kills kings. Directly or indirectly. His actions often do prove influential about the fate of who is going to be king of Westeros. Whether is by his actions of killing Aerys, and doign so before he blew up the capital or his relationship with Cersei which eventually lead to Robert's death, and of course from that relationship the result was Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella.

 

Littlefinger reminds me the most of the original plan for Jaime.

[Hippocras]

16 minutes ago, Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren said:

Based on Jaime's plot development and where it seems to be going nope. But Jaime who I believe is the valonqar does seem to often have a kingmaker role. He makes or kills kings. Directly or indirectly. His actions often do prove influential about the fate of who is going to be king of Westeros. Whether is by his actions of killing Aerys, and doign so before he blew up the capital or his relationship with Cersei which eventually lead to Robert's death, and of course from that relationship the result was Joffrey, Tommen and Myrcella.

 

Littlefinger reminds me the most of the original plan for Jaime.

I fully agree that at this point in the story King Jaime seems rather unlikely. But this thread is about speculating HOW it could still happen should it turn out to still be GRRM's plan. Really I am far more interested in discussing the "how" than debating if people think it is likely because clearly it seems far from likely to all of us.

Jaime is in a very interesting psychological place last we saw him. In the Riverlands we saw him using both carrots and sticks in an extremely measured way in order to defuse some very tense situations. In some ways he is becoming much more like his father since Tywin's death. He is starting to feel responsible for the well-being of the Lannister clan and their power base.

As for his sword training, it is very unclear how much progress he is making. Maybe he will be able to fight well with his left hand eventually, or maybe not. If not, that fact combined with the eventual deaths of ALL of his children under his watch as Kingsguard could well put him in a very different psychological place: a new place where he no longer feels like he is useful as a Kingsguard and genuinely believes he needs to redeem himself specifically by taking on the role of head of the Lannister clan...which his father always wanted him to be. If that happens, becoming King in the absence of heirs for his dead children is a distinct possibility as a bid to save his family and their alliance with the Tyrells.

[Queen Alienor]

Jaime has absolutely no claim to the throne. He has no Targaryen ancestry we know of, and was only related to the Baratheons by Cerseis marriage.

And while there have been many pretenders, everyone who wanted that throne at least claimed to be related to the Targaryens. Robert, Stannis, and Renly are all great-grandsons of Aegon V, Joffrey and Tommen claim descend through Robert. The other two kings, Robb and Balon, don't want the Iron Throne to begin with.

Point is, without such a claim, Jaime has a really big problem if he wants the throne (if he even wants it, which seems rather out of character). The people of Westeros are not just going to follow some random noble who decided he wants to be king. Nobody would rally for him.

[Hippocras]

3 minutes ago, Queen Alienor said:

Jaime has absolutely no claim to the throne. He has no Targaryen ancestry we know of, and was only related to the Baratheons by Cerseis marriage.

And while there have been many pretenders, everyone who wanted that throne at least claimed to be related to the Targaryens. Robert, Stannis, and Renly are all great-grandsons of Aegon V, Joffrey and Tommen claim descend through Robert. The other two kings, Robb and Balon, don't want the Iron Throne to begin with.

Point is, without such a claim, Jaime has a really big problem if he wants the throne (if he even wants it, which seems rather out of character). The people of Westeros are not just going to follow some random noble who decided he wants to be king. Nobody would rally for him.

It would be good to read the previous comments to avoid repetition. This point has already been extensively discussed.

 

As for him WANTING it, I agree. He doesn't. But I don't think he would be doing it because he wants it in the scenario I proposed. He would be doing it because the situation is pretty grim for his family.

[Hippocras]

Edited the title to make the intent of the thread clearer.

This is not about debating the likelihood. Please provide ideas on how it might still be possible on the remote chance that this is still GRRM's plan.

[Neds Secret]

22 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

Maybe Jaime can be king by being bastard of aerys and being legitimized by someone. 

Then he has a strong claim. 

How does Jaime legitimise himself?

[mediterraneo]

To be king he needs the power, the will and the legiptimacy.

He can get the power only in a consolidated westeros effort against a common enemy. Let's say defending the Realm from the White Walkers - bonus point if with a Valyrian Steel sword and a magical working golden hand.

On the legiptimacy, it is tricky. A witness of him being a bastard of Aerys and Joanna could be found or invented. But the legiptimacy part would be more difficult. Who would believe him? Even if Aerys's last words weren't "burn them all" but "they prophetized I would be killed by a bastard son... I'll legiptimize you right now, if just to spite that prophets...".
Another way would be to claim that the Targaryen rule is to be ended and a new source of legiptimation would come from "the deed" - we said defending Westeros from the Walkers in the first point, it could do. In this case you can also ditch the Kingsguard's tradition as a Conqueror's thing, a Targaryen thing unfit for the new era.

On the will of rule, I am blank.
Why would Jaime be willing to rule Westeros as king in time of peace? I could see him taking a regency to defend Myrcella, or maybe even to easen a transition to a new regime but... Ruling in his right and name?
Maybe only the dutiful deed defending Westeros from the outside threat of the first two points could push him there.

Well, resuming: I could only envision some happy ending kingship scenarios. Wouldn't it be more fitting some desesperate "last days of Argella Durrendon" scenario?

[Veloknight]

4 hours ago, Hippocras said:

I agree with your assessment of legitimacy, somewhat, but fully disagree that people would rally behind Lord Tarth...unless of course he has some claim that comes via the BARATHEON dynasty and not the Targaryen one. Because as I already said, the Targaryens were thrown out and anyone who is concerned about THAT path to legitimacy will not be backing the Lannister/Tyrell alliance regardless: They will be backing one of Dany, Aegon or Jon. So we are specifically not talking about anyone who is concerned about Targaryen basis for legitimacy.

The people we are talking about here are not the ones who are already lost to some rival faction (Aegon, Euron, Dany or Jon) but the ones who hold power via Robert Baratheon's overthrow of the Targaryens. It is THOSE people who will need a new King once Tommen and Myrcella are dead. And they will very definitely not be rallying behind anyone who a. Is a Targaryen and b. Can not rescue the Tyrell/Lannister alliance in order to preserve their hold on King's Landing.

They don't have a choice, though. Targaryen heritage was Robert Baratheon's claim to legitimacy, and he had a far stronger hand than any of the players now. The bottom line is for a claim to the throne to be useful, you need to be able to argue and genuinely convince people that others will believe that claim. It doesn't matter what you personally think about, say, the parentage of Tommen  - if you think others will believe it, and you're not a strict legalist.

Once the Baratheon/Lannister kids are dead, you need a suitable candidate. You could pick someone else, but anyone without a strong claim of descent from a previous monarch (which means only a Targaryen or a Baratheon bastard) is a weak choice who these factions are unlikely to try and prop up, and even less likely to succeed.

[Hippocras]

22 minutes ago, Veloknight said:

They don't have a choice, though. Targaryen heritage was Robert Baratheon's claim to legitimacy, and he had a far stronger hand than any of the players now. The bottom line is for a claim to the throne to be useful, you need to be able to argue and genuinely convince people that others will believe that claim. It doesn't matter what you personally think about, say, the parentage of Tommen  - if you think others will believe it, and you're not a strict legalist.

Once the Baratheon/Lannister kids are dead, you need a suitable candidate. You could pick someone else, but anyone without a strong claim of descent from a previous monarch (which means only a Targaryen or a Baratheon bastard) is a weak choice who these factions are unlikely to try and prop up, and even less likely to succeed.

They absolutely have a choice: 

Complete rejection of the Targ dynasty that was defeated and has been out of power in any case for a generation. Why on earth do people on this thread keep insisting that rules on paper are the root of power? Did Cersei ripping up Robert's will teach people nothing? What about Varys's riddle on power (it resides where people believe it resides)?

Do people really not understand that conquest has nothing to do with rules, but with winning?Aegon I was a conqueror. He was not King because some arcane legal right existed that made him King; he ruled because he WON. Then his descendents ruled, because of a convention (heredity) and nothing more. As soon as the people of Westeros lost patience with that convention that said Targs had a right to rule, they fought a Rebellion and kicked them out. Now they are GONE. Targs are NOT in power, and their family tree is absolutely no longer some unquestioned path to authority, particularly when it comes to the Lannisters.

The Lannister/Tyrell alliance currently holds power, and their vassals have an interest in keeping it that way. Freys, Boltons, Littlefinger for now, all those Lannister land grab marriages Tywin arranged....it ALL depends on the Lannisters holding on to power. On the Tyrell side things are a little less clear, but if they badly need help fending off an assault by Euron, and the Lannisters are their only hope of getting that help, they will absolutely do what they can to keep the Lannisters on their side no matter how much they hate them. This goes for their bannermen as well.

If they stay together, they may just have enough power to defeat Aegon and/or Euron, but ONLY if they stay together.

[Veloknight]

23 minutes ago, Hippocras said:

They absolutely have a choice: 

Complete rejection of the Targ dynasty that was defeated and has been out of power in any case for a generation. Why on earth do people on this thread keep insisting that rules on paper are the root of power? Did Cersei ripping up Robert's will teach people nothing? What about Varys's riddle on power (it resides where people believe it resides)?

 

I think I made it very clear why rules on paper matter. To get support from anyone beyond your immediate group (and even some of your bannermen might be flaky), you need to be able to convince people you can win, and the best way to do that is with a passable claimant. RR did not happen in a vacuum, either. The idea that any man with a hammer can be King is in no way enshrined in the Rebellion.

The whole point of Varys riddle is that it explains dynastic power! Men are inclined to support dynastic candidates, even when more able men abound, because they believe they have power. It's not naivety, either - because even if I don't give a fig for the Targaryens, I know that there are plenty of people who do. So, I get something (a dynastic claim, or a cause against a tyrannical king) to make people  believe that others besides them might back me, and then I combine that with military strength, and that's how conquest works. If it was all about pure strength, the Cleganes would rule the Seven Kingdoms. Tellingly, Varys is passing off his candidate as a Targaryen!

You cannot "completely reject" the historical fact. A good way to build legitimacy is with a claim of descent from a previous king. Assuming they're not planning on crowning Edric Storm, that means descent from a Targaryen king, not out of love for the Targaryens, but because they accept that that is what will be most convincing to others, and they want to win.

[SeethemFly]

Somebody may have already said this (I haven't had time to read the whole thread), but I thought that the "Jaime" from the outline actually split into two characters - Jaime and Cersei - with Cersei taking much of the original "Jaime's" storyline. In world, I could see Cersei trying to make a grab for the throne, or at the very least for power in Kings Landing (if she manages to get out of her current fix). This could lead to an eventual showdown between Cersei and our Jaime, who will kill her when she tries to burn Kings Landing down. Therefore, how will Cersei seize the throne is perhaps a more apt question.

I think you can see traces of the original "Jaime" still in Cersei, for example, her blaming Tyrion for Joffrey's death mirrors the original "Jaime" blaming the murder of the rivals to the throne on Tyrion.