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

[King Ragnar]

8 hours ago, SeanF said:

In the TV Show, there is no-one now who could conceivably have a better claim to the Iron Throne than Dany.  Aerys, Rhaegar, and Viserys are all dead.  Robert and his children are dead.  Stannis, Renly, and Shireen are all dead. 

If people knew of Gendry, maybe he could have a claim. Edric Storm is well-known amongst the people of Storm's End, but his whereabouts are unknown for the moment.

 

IMO Edric has te best claim

[dsug]

1 hour ago, Ser Bronn Blackfyre said:

If people knew of Gendry, maybe he could have a claim. Edric Storm is well-known amongst the people of Storm's End, but his whereabouts are unknown for the moment.

 

IMO Edric has te best claim

It was my understanding that in the hierarchy of like inheritance legitimate women come before bastards. Not saying Cersei is Robert's daughter (ew) but a woman with a legitimate blood claim should come (in my understanding) before a bastard. In this case, the King's mother would come before his father's unknown bastard. 

Maybe I'm wrong but i feel like it would be that way. 

[Rhollo]

8 hours ago, dsug said:

It was my understanding that in the hierarchy of like inheritance legitimate women come before bastards.

True, which makes Jon being choosen over Sansa in the North illogical.

When it comes to the show, discussing legitimacy and rules of succession just seems futile.
Jon becomes King in the North over Sansa without even being legitimized
Olenna, who was born a Redwyne and is just the mother / wife of the previous two Tyrell lords is now apparently leading the house (so pretty much the same "claim" Cersei has to being head of house Baratheon and therefore queen)
Ellaria, whose connection to house Martell is "mother of a bastard daughter of the prince" can claim Dorne.

So if Cersei dies, I guess all the mothers of Roberts bastards are next in line to the IT.

[Lord_Ravenstone]

On September 7, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Cron said:

Well, Cersei's father didn't marry a Lannister, Cersei's father WAS a Lannister, Tywin.

As I recall, I believe the Baratheon in Jaime and Cersei's ancestry was an aunt or great aunt or something like that.

I'll have to try to track down the details, but my memory is that a study was done of KNOWN people, and of them, Cersei and Jaime have the best claim after the death of Tommen, b/c of a known Baratheon in their ancestry.

Granted, the connection is pretty remote, but the word "known" is critical up above.  The main Baratheon line is wiped out, and it may be reasonable to assume there are other people with closer relationships to the Baratheons than Cerseif and Jaime, but of KNOWN people, my understanding remains that Cersei and Jaime have the best claim (and that means "Cersei," cuz she's a few minutes older than Jaime) 

They're not descended from any Baratheons. The idea that Cersei is descended from a Baratheon comes from non-canon role playing game 

[Cron]

2 hours ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

They're not descended from any Baratheons. The idea that Cersei is descended from a Baratheon comes from non-canon role playing game 

interesting, and I'm defnitely not claiming you're wrong, cuz you might be right, BUT...

...the fact that the information is non-canon at this time does not necessarily guarantee that Cersei won't make that very claim next season.

The fact that we've not yet been told it's canon is NOT a guarantee that it's not canon, or that it never will be canon.

I do still believe Cersei will have some "claim," though, rather than just an assertion that she owns the throne cuz she's sitting on it, and might makes right.  (Not that Cersei DOESN'T believe might makes right, in fact I strongly believe she does, but for public consumption I strongly assume she will have some claim to argue.  If I'm wrong, then I think that will be pretty weak story-telling.

[Bear Claw]

On the show there are no more Barratheon heirs, so I guess it would be up to a council to decide. Maybe she had a puppet council make the decision that she would succeed to the throne? I guess that could be why Qyburn put the crown on her head. He was probably on the council (or was the council). Anyway, she mostly just wills herself to be the Queen. People are probably too scared to speak out against her. 

[Lord_Ravenstone]

On September 10, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Cron said:

interesting, and I'm defnitely not claiming you're wrong, cuz you might be right, BUT...

...the fact that the information is non-canon at this time does not necessarily guarantee that Cersei won't make that very claim next season.

The fact that we've not yet been told it's canon is NOT a guarantee that it's not canon, or that it never will be canon.

I do still believe Cersei will have some "claim," though, rather than just an assertion that she owns the throne cuz she's sitting on it, and might makes right.  (Not that Cersei DOESN'T believe might makes right, in fact I strongly believe she does, but for public consumption I strongly assume she will have some claim to argue.  If I'm wrong, then I think that will be pretty weak story-telling.

I mean they did the same thing with Ellaria  taking over Dorne. They just don't care.

[Cron]

1 hour ago, Lord_Ravenstone said:

I mean they did the same thing with Ellaria  taking over Dorne. They just don't care.

Fair enough

And Jon Snow is now "King in the North," even though it's not at all clear (to me at least) what gives him a right to that, other than, possibly, meritocracy's acclamation.

So maybe Cersei DID just decide that "possession is 9/10ths of the law."

HAR!

[Darwin Teague]

I can't keep up with all of the relationships and stuff, but in my mind, it doesn't matter who would be a legitimate king or queen. Daenerys  is  coming to take  the throne and she needs somebody to fight. Cersei is the logical choice for that.

 

They are just setting up the big battle for the throne.

[JonSnow4President]

The "story" purpose of course is obvious (posted above).  The in universe logic is the part that makes no sense.  And achieving a writing aim using ridiculous and nonsensical means leads to weak scenes.  (I couldn't stop laughing when Lancel decides to ignore a trial that challenges the very political reality of Kings Landing to follow an orphan). 

[Ashes Of Westeros]

Cersei is a widow of the king and the mother of two previous kings. And most important there was noone around who had a better claim than hers or enough power to seize the IR. Quebryn putting a crown is also strange, as far as remember only a High Septon can crown a king. But HS is dead, people who could object are dead too and the city is in chaos. And chaos is a ladder, Shortly, Cersei sits on the IR because she can.

[Ashes Of Westeros]

On 9.9.2016 at 10:16 AM, Rhollo said:

When it comes to the show, discussing legitimacy and rules of succession just seems futile.
Jon becomes King in the North over Sansa without even being legitimized

Indeed. Rephrasing Tyrion, I don't question this logic, I deny it's existence. What happened in e9 and e10 seems to be written of some fanfic to me.

In Dorne it seems there are no noble houses or Martell's bannermen at all, who would object Martell's removal.

[Evarei]

It's simple. People needlessly try to complicate things

Cersei seized the throne by force. Right of conquest. Jon was given the throne through his deeds and valor. Right of acclamation. Daenerys is Queen through her bloodline. Birthright. 3 different ways of ascending to the throne.

Succession laws are always muddy, especially during wartime. And it's wartime again in the world of GOT. The feudal system matters less and less and it's a good thing.

[Evarei]

Dp

[Rhollo]

21 hours ago, Evarei said:

It's simple. People needlessly try to complicate things

Cersei seized the throne by force. Right of conquest. Jon was given the throne through his deeds and valor. Right of acclamation. Daenerys is Queen through her bloodline. Birthright. 3 different ways of ascending to the throne.

Succession laws are always muddy, especially during wartime. And it's wartime again in the world of GOT. The feudal system matters less and less and it's a good thing.

Yeah, Jon's deeds and valor. Being a deserter from the night's watch, leading the Nothmen into defeat by not sticking to his own plans, failing to give a single command in battle and just being lucky that the Vale cavalry arrives last minute to save their asses.

Feudal system matters less and less: No, it doesn't. New Kings are proclaimed, and new Kingdoms are formed. That's perpertuating the feudal system. It's just the succession laws within that system that matter less and less, somehow making it possible even for unlegitimized bastards to ascend to the throne.

I wonder how many of the Northern and Vale lords will soon regret this decision. Because now they have to worry about their children - both legitimate and illigitimate - campaigning against each other for succession (often violently, most likely) in the future, since there is a precedent on the highest level that line of succession doesn't matter, and instead bannerman and vassals "vote" for the person they deem most qualified as their liege lord.

[dsug]

15 hours ago, Rhollo said:

Yeah, Jon's deeds and valor. Being a deserter from the night's watch, leading the Nothmen into defeat by not sticking to his own plans, failing to give a single command in battle and just being lucky that the Vale cavalry arrives last minute to save their asses.

Feudal system matters less and less: No, it doesn't. New Kings are proclaimed, and new Kingdoms are formed. That's perpertuating the feudal system. It's just the succession laws within that system that matter less and less, somehow making it possible even for unlegitimized bastards to ascend to the throne.

I wonder how many of the Northern and Vale lords will soon regret this decision. Because now they have to worry about their children - both legitimate and illigitimate - campaigning against each other for succession (often violently, most likely) in the future, since there is a precedent on the highest level that line of succession doesn't matter, and instead bannerman and vassals "vote" for the person they deem most qualified as their liege lord.

you just proved their point by needlessly complicating things

This isn't the books where every single possibility and repercussion is painstakingly over-explained. The show has to simplify things. If Jon frees the North from the hated Boltons, is a male, and isn't being challenged by Sansa and Bran is assumed dead, it is no stretch of logic to think that the people would get behind him. That's simply how it is. 

Take Robert Baratheon for example. He won the throne with his deeds and valor. He toppled a hated regime (Targaryens/Boltons) and became king because pretty much everyone decided he was the best. He had help (Starks,Arryns/Sansa, LF) and didn't do it alone, but he still was the "face" of the rebellion. And people still worship the Baratheon bloodline like its sacred. 

Hell, even Robb. A bunch of guys got together and said "we want you as our king!" and he became fucking king. Power resides where men believe it resides. If the all of the North wants Jon as their King, guess who the North has as their king? Jon. 

[Rhollo]

7 hours ago, dsug said:

you just proved their point by needlessly complicating things

This isn't the books where every single possibility and repercussion is painstakingly over-explained. The show has to simplify things. If Jon frees the North from the hated Boltons, is a male, and isn't being challenged by Sansa and Bran is assumed dead, it is no stretch of logic to think that the people would get behind him. That's simply how it is. 

But Jon didn't free the North from the Boltons, that's the point. That was Sansas and Littlefingers doing. He dind't even negotiate the Vale alliance so you could give him any credit for that. And there is also the point that for most of the nortmen, he should still a member of the night's watch.

There are so many established rules just overlooked and handwaved away, that yes, it is in fact a very big stretch in logic that Jon even became elegible as KitN, let alone get crowned.

7 hours ago, dsug said:

Take Robert Baratheon for example. He won the throne with his deeds and valor. He toppled a hated regime (Targaryens/Boltons) and became king because pretty much everyone decided he was the best. He had help (Starks,Arryns/Sansa, LF) and didn't do it alone, but he still was the "face" of the rebellion. And people still worship the Baratheon bloodline like its sacred. 

Very bad example, because Robert claimed the throne through his Tararyen ancestry. He made sure to be next in the line of succession by kiling (or exiling) every other Targaryen who could make a better claim than him.
Technically, he didn't overthrow the Targaryen dynasty, he continues it.

 

7 hours ago, dsug said:

Hell, even Robb. A bunch of guys got together and said "we want you as our king!" and he became fucking king. Power resides where men believe it resides. If the all of the North wants Jon as their King, guess who the North has as their king? Jon. 

Robb was already ruling the north, declaring him KitN was declaring northern independence from the rest of the realm. They didn't put anyone into a position of power ignoring succession laws.

 

If you want to ignore all this for the sake of simplicity and are content with "Lord's basically elect their leader, sucession laws are just vague suggestions", fine.

I find that disappointing. Because the series is called "Game of Thrones" after all, and a game loses it's credibility if the rules just change all the time or are thrown out the window if the writers don't feel like following them anymore.

Especially, if it wouldn't have been that hard to fix these plot holes. Just have him legitimized by Robb or Stannis and actually show him as a capable commander / leader in the battle against the Boltons.

[dsug]

10 hours ago, Rhollo said:

But Jon didn't free the North from the Boltons, that's the point. That was Sansas and Littlefingers doing. He dind't even negotiate the Vale alliance so you could give him any credit for that. And there is also the point that for most of the nortmen, he should still a member of the night's watch.

There are so many established rules just overlooked and handwaved away, that yes, it is in fact a very big stretch in logic that Jon even became elegible as KitN, let alone get crowned.

Well if we're being technical, Jon was released from his vows when he died. I'll grant you that I'm unsure how widely known his assassination/resurrection is, but he most definitely fulfilled his vows. 

10 hours ago, Rhollo said:

Very bad example, because Robert claimed the throne through his Tararyen ancestry. He made sure to be next in the line of succession by kiling (or exiling) every other Targaryen who could make a better claim than him.
Technically, he didn't overthrow the Targaryen dynasty, he continues it.

I had thought we could all see Robert's "Targaryen ancestry" for what it is: bullshit. That is the definition of a flimsy excuse. He had the throne because he took it, not because some satellite targaryen banged an obscure baratheon decades ago. He was the poster boy for the rebellion, he got the throne when it was all said and done. 

He's Robert Baratheon, not Targaryen. 

10 hours ago, Rhollo said:

 

Robb was already ruling the north, declaring him KitN was declaring northern independence from the rest of the realm. They didn't put anyone into a position of power ignoring succession laws.

 

If you want to ignore all this for the sake of simplicity and are content with "Lord's basically elect their leader, sucession laws are just vague suggestions", fine.

I find that disappointing. Because the series is called "Game of Thrones" after all, and a game loses it's credibility if the rules just change all the time or are thrown out the window if the writers don't feel like following them anymore.

Especially, if it wouldn't have been that hard to fix these plot holes. Just have him legitimized by Robb or Stannis and actually show him as a capable commander / leader in the battle against the Boltons.

Let's keep in my mind Jon being crowned was his final scene. We don't necessarily know the specifics yet. All we saw was a bunch of guys chanting and cheering. Did you seriously expect some maester to show up at the end of the scene with a clipboard or something to talk about the line of succession? There's already been rumors that Sansa may challenge his reign and stuff like that, so maybe all of your questions will be answered. It was a single scene in a single episode. There's still plenty of time to address that stuff, if they choose to. 

[Iron Mother]

On 6/28/2016 at 11:11 AM, shmewdog said:

Cersei's coronation at the end of episode 10 doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  With Tommen's death, the matter of who should ascend the throne becomes rather complicated.  Since no one seems to know about Gendry,  and since Dany's only claim would be through conquest, I assume that the next claimant would have to be descended from a Targaryen daughter.  Robert justified his claim not just on conquest, but also from his grandmother's Targaryen blood.  Are there any living characters who have Targaryen lineage through the female line?  I checked through the lineages listed in the back of the World of Ice and Fire, but nothing sprung out at me.

I read an article online that argued that if Tommen were to die, the next claimant would have been Tywin Lannister, as he is supposedly descended from a Lannister-Targaryen marriage somewhere in his ancestry.  Since it was a clickbait article I take it with a grain of salt to say the least.  But assuming it is true, then with Tywin dead, Jaime sworn to not hold lands and Tyrion attainted, the next ruler would indeed be Cersei.  Not that her reign will likely last long, she has the backing of literally no one of the other regions and she's got Dany, Unsullied, Dothraki allied with Ironborn, Martells and Tyrells coming for her. 

Anybody able/willing to shed some light on this? 

Yeah, I started a whole thread about this long ago and - as usual - the Hunter that runs this Westworld we call Ice and Fire chat board threw fresh hell onto my offerings to the forum.  Meaning, my earnest attempt to interact on this subject matter was scalded beneath a pot of molten gold splashed onto my well-formed skull.

I was trying to explain/ask..... we were all shocked and in wonder when Cercei rested herself on the Iron Throne and became coronated by the authority of a defunct maester with no citadel chain.  But I realized I was forgetting if there really WAS some kind of succession circumstance for it.

I don't think we have any more information to know.  It may not be as scandalous as it seems (the claiming of the throne specifically)...... succession.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

I think people need to see the british line of succession to see how ridiculous Cersei's crowning is

http://www.britroyals.com/succession.htm

(notice how Kate Middleton and Prince Philip are not on it)

The maesters will have that list for all the houses in the kingdom. Basically even if Queen Elizabeth's line was entirely gone, the crown would still have a successor. I believe its currently Viscount Linley, the son of Princess Margaret. And even if her line was gone in a freak Monarchy destruction, it would go to the next heir of Queen Elizabeth's great grandfather, Prince Richard.

So its absurd to suggest the Maesters don't know who is the legitimate heir of the Baratheon line. Especially as the Starks know the next after them are in the Vale.

As it is Cersei is crowned because no one in Kings Landing can stop her. She's not in line. 5 Kingdoms are in open rebellion. And considering Joe Dempsie was in Belfast we have to wonder if his identity will get out via Melisandre leading the Stormlands to abandon her. GRRM has written about bastards ruling the Stormlands twice.