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

[Lotharloo]

Okay, here's the realistic answer:

 

Cersei's claim is that she can take the throne with the power she has while there is no immediate opposition in sight. (as you were told really early in the thread). This fact, i.e., a random powerful person taking the throne when there is a power vacuum, has also happened many many times throughout history, real history. It would be bad writing to have this not happen in the show.

[Kusanagi]

Just now, Lotharloo said:

Okay, here's the realistic answer:

 

Cersei's claim is that she can take the throne with the power she has while there is no immediate opposition in sight. (as you were told really early in the thread). This fact, i.e., a random powerful person taking the throne when there is a power vacuum, has also happened many many times throughout history, real history. It would be bad writing to have this not happen in the show.

How many times?

Taking something by power does not mean she has a claim. She can have a claim and take something by power. She can also have a claim and not take something by power. The concept of claim doesn't change even if it is a fictional work.

[Kusanagi]

If people still cannot understand:

Sansa has a claim to Winterfell, but she decides not to take it, having power or not. Power is not a requisite to a claim.

[CrypticWeirwood]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

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.

Hurray, I’m glad to see that somebody here gets it.

[dsug]

1 hour ago, Kusanagi said:

How many times?

Taking something by power does not mean she has a claim. She can have a claim and take something by power. She can also have a claim and not take something by power. The concept of claim doesn't change even if it is a fictional work.

That's the point. She doesn't really have a claim. In the time of turmoil and in a power vacuum, she strongarmed her way onto the Iron Throne. Same thing Aegon did, same thing Robert did, same thing Euron did. 

[UnmaskedLurker]

@Kusanagi--

You seem to be making two separate and independent points. One point is that you assert that Cersei has no claim of any kind to the IT. On one level, I agree with you. The Targ dynasty set up rules that the Baratheon dynasty appears to have more or less accepted as applicable which set forth how the IT should be inherited. And Cersei is not in that line of inheritance. But in Medieval Europe and in Westeros, new Claims are sometimes invented out of thin air. There is no binding legal precedent in these matters. If someone makes up a new way to inherit that has never existed before -- and gets away with it by seizing power -- then that new way to inherit becomes a new precedent. So if Cersei wants to assert that she can inherit as Tommen's mother -- and no one successfully opposes her -- then this new form of Claim becomes a new way to inherit the IT -- until someone else says otherwise and successfully gets his or her way on the matter. In this fictional world (and to a large extent in Medieval Europe), Claims are just words backed up by force -- no matter how BS the words might be.

The second point you make is that it is bad writing to ignore the likely opposition that people would have had to Cersei Usurping the throne in this manner. I simply disagree for the reasons I stated above. Cersei literally killed anyone with any power base or authority who might oppose her. For me, that display of power and ruthlessness was more than sufficient to satisfy what I would expect from the writers (again, acknowledging that I believe in many other instances there were illogical "leaps" that I just needed to ignore to enjoy the show -- I just don't agree that this situation is one of them).

Finally, please accept that people can understand your arguments completely and disagree with you. People can follow your logic, understand the points you are making, be intelligent enough to evaluate the merits of each side of the argument -- and then disagree with you. We are not arguing facts here -- but rather judgment calls. While some judgments can be unreasonable at times, sometimes differing judgments can both be reasonable. I accept that your judgment is reasonable -- even though I do not agree with it. Please give others the same courtesy.

[Cas Stark]

The people should be rioting though, since Marg was popular, the Tyrells were the ones feeding the multitudes and most are religious enough to feel that the Sept being blown up is a REALLY bad thing.

Also,with the Tyrells dead, where exactly does Cersei think she's getting any food from here on out?  The show established that Highgarden was feeding KL, not that they care, but, still.

[TheLastLibrarian]

There is no basis, Westeros is in chaos, traditions and lines of succession no longer exist, the anarchy is so strong that you can take anything from anyone, it was shown very clearly in the episode, Cersei story was the same as Jon's, it's a parallel, Cersei killed the queen, her son died and she took the iron throne, Jon Snow usurped Winterfell from sansa which is the rightful heir with the help of the northern lords, neither Jon nor the lords followed the law of succession, they took her right as heir while she was sitting with them

[Hippocras]

2 hours ago, Kusanagi said:

All Baratheons relatives have a better claim. Dany has a better claim. Cersei has none.

There ARE no Baratheons.

Stannis is dead, Renly is dead, Shireen is dead. Gendry is supposed to be dead along with almost all of his known half-siblings. The only exceptions are Edric Storm and Mya Stone, both kept safe from the death order by competing powers, and in any case, they are bastards. The only one of these who was even acknowloedged by Robert is Edric, and he is a child in exhile with no means to gather support. Gendry and Mya would not even be able to prove their relationship to Robert and have no interest in doing so or in ruling.

What Baratheons are you thinking are going to appear out of the woodwork here? There simply are none.

Dany's claim is based in a dynasty that was overthrown. To stake her claim she has to reconquer. She has absolutely no Baratheon dynastic claim, and those with a stake in the current order are not going to just hand her the throne.

[UnmaskedLurker]

1 minute ago, Hippocras said:

There ARE no Baratheons.

Stannis is dead, Renly is dead, Shireen is dead. Gendry is supposed to be dead along with almost all of his known half-siblings. The only exceptions are Edric Storm and Mya Stone, both kept safe from the death order by competing powers, and in any case, they are bastards. The only one of these who was even acknowloedged by Robert is Edric, and he is a child in exhile with no means to gather support. Gendry and Mya would not even be able to prove their relationship to Robert and have no interest in doing so or in ruling.

What Baratheons are you thinking are going to appear out of the woodwork here? There simply are none.

I don't think Edric exists on the show and this discussion is about show-Cersei's claim to the throne. I don't think any acknowledged bastards of Robert are known on the show. As far as we know, Robert's father was an only child -- so there do not appear to be any Baratheon cousins to inherit (and further back than that would be prior to the Targ ancestor of Robert's grandmother). 

But basically you are correct. There simply are no other people with strong claims to the throne. They are all dead or not known to have a claim at all (such as Gendry).

[dsug]

30 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The people should be rioting though, since Marg was popular, the Tyrells were the ones feeding the multitudes and most are religious enough to feel that the Sept being blown up is a REALLY bad thing.

Also,with the Tyrells dead, where exactly does Cersei think she's getting any food from here on out?  The show established that Highgarden was feeding KL, not that they care, but, still.

The people may riot reason seven. It's only one episode lol. We'll have an entire season to establish how Cersei's rule goes down. She just got crowned. 

[MoreOrLess]

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

The people should be rioting though, since Marg was popular, the Tyrells were the ones feeding the multitudes and most are religious enough to feel that the Sept being blown up is a REALLY bad thing.

Also,with the Tyrells dead, where exactly does Cersei think she's getting any food from here on out?  The show established that Highgarden was feeding KL, not that they care, but, still.

We haven't really see enough to know what the mood of the people is have we? I think its certainly possible that Cersei will be very unpopular after killing the Tyrells and even moreso the Faith which could play into a decent of her becoming ever more brutal as her rule fails.

[Desert Fox]

I certainly wouldn't riot against the Queen the who just exploded a huge part of the city killing off the entire nobility including her own son the king (we know she didn't kill him but to a commoner it would look like she had him killed).  

It would be rediculous if anyone not within her range of control actually supported her claim. But it's pretty damn clear that won't happen. Two or three of the 8 kingdoms are in open rebellion seeking independence. Two of them plus remnants of another just allied with Daenarys the reConquerer. That leaves the crownlands, westerlands, and maybe Riverlands. The later two aren't even certain. Jamie may claim control the westerlands and deny cersei support. He certainly looked pissed. And the Frays seem to barely control the Riverlands. And now they lost their leader.  And if the lannisters abandon cersei they will too. 

[Kusanagi]

7 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

@Kusanagi--

You seem to be making two separate and independent points. One point is that you assert that Cersei has no claim of any kind to the IT. On one level, I agree with you. The Targ dynasty set up rules that the Baratheon dynasty appears to have more or less accepted as applicable which set forth how the IT should be inherited. And Cersei is not in that line of inheritance. But in Medieval Europe and in Westeros, new Claims are sometimes invented out of thin air. There is no binding legal precedent in these matters. If someone makes up a new way to inherit that has never existed before -- and gets away with it by seizing power -- then that new way to inherit becomes a new precedent. So if Cersei wants to assert that she can inherit as Tommen's mother -- and no one successfully opposes her -- then this new form of Claim becomes a new way to inherit the IT -- until someone else says otherwise and successfully gets his or her way on the matter. In this fictional world (and to a large extent in Medieval Europe), Claims are just words backed up by force -- no matter how BS the words might be.

The second point you make is that it is bad writing to ignore the likely opposition that people would have had to Cersei Usurping the throne in this manner. I simply disagree for the reasons I stated above. Cersei literally killed anyone with any power base or authority who might oppose her. For me, that display of power and ruthlessness was more than sufficient to satisfy what I would expect from the writers (again, acknowledging that I believe in many other instances there were illogical "leaps" that I just needed to ignore to enjoy the show -- I just don't agree that this situation is one of them).

Finally, please accept that people can understand your arguments completely and disagree with you. People can follow your logic, understand the points you are making, be intelligent enough to evaluate the merits of each side of the argument -- and then disagree with you. We are not arguing facts here -- but rather judgment calls. While some judgments can be unreasonable at times, sometimes differing judgments can both be reasonable. I accept that your judgment is reasonable -- even though I do not agree with it. Please give others the same courtesy.

Oh my.

What new way? what new claim? If that's the case, show us, so we don't need to have this conservation.

What should I accept your honeypotting as story logic, after all it only exists in your head?

[Kusanagi]

7 hours ago, Hippocras said:

There ARE no Baratheons.

Stannis is dead, Renly is dead, Shireen is dead. Gendry is supposed to be dead along with almost all of his known half-siblings. The only exceptions are Edric Storm and Mya Stone, both kept safe from the death order by competing powers, and in any case, they are bastards. The only one of these who was even acknowloedged by Robert is Edric, and he is a child in exhile with no means to gather support. Gendry and Mya would not even be able to prove their relationship to Robert and have no interest in doing so or in ruling.

What Baratheons are you thinking are going to appear out of the woodwork here? There simply are none.

Dany's claim is based in a dynasty that was overthrown. To stake her claim she has to reconquer. She has absolutely no Baratheon dynastic claim, and those with a stake in the current order are not going to just hand her the throne.

Which part of therefore call a Great Council you don't understand?

Did you forget Robert claims he his Targaryen blood so he is the legit ruler of the seven kingdoms?

[Kusanagi]

7 hours ago, dsug said:

That's the point. She doesn't really have a claim. In the time of turmoil and in a power vacuum, she strongarmed her way onto the Iron Throne. Same thing Aegon did, same thing Robert did, same thing Euron did. 

That's not the point. The point is claim and power are two separate things. The former is legal, the latter is brute force. You can use brute force without the legal cause, you can push the legal cause without brute force, or you can do both. 

In Cersei's case she has no claim, but she uses brute force, it is that simple.

If she uses brute forces then she uses brute forces, that's it why make something up in your mind?

[dsug]

26 minutes ago, Kusanagi said:

That's not the point. The point is claim and power are two separate things. The former is legal, the latter is brute force. You can use brute force without the legal cause, you can push the legal cause without brute force, or you can do both. 

In Cersei's case she has no claim, but she uses brute force, it is that simple.

If she uses brute forces then she uses brute forces, that's it why make something up in your mind?

What did I make up, exactly? I'm saying she has no claim, but she's using force. You're saying she has no claim, but using force. 

For someone who has yet to actually make a point, you're being very nasty and antagonistic to everyone you're supposed to be "discussing" with. 

[Hippocras]

10 hours ago, Kusanagi said:

Which part of therefore call a Great Council you don't understand?

Did you forget Robert claims he his Targaryen blood so he is the legit ruler of the seven kingdoms?

you are being truly, truly naive.

Why on earth would ANYONE, in the current instability,  patiently sit around for the months and months that would take, in a time of brewing war, in order to let a bunch of maesters decide their fates for them?

You don't get it. SOMEONE was going to simply take that throne in that situation, and Cersei was simply the one to do it. She is the closest remaining relative of the dead King (officially still fathered by Robert), and as such, has as much grounds to do so as anyone else, but the most important factor is that she simply did it.

Yes, her legal claim is weak, but there is simply noone around with any stronger claim in the Kingdoms that remain invested in the Baratheon dynasty. EVERYONE's claim is weak, and power vacuums are disastrous for everyone. 

Furthermore, there is not a single person in the Kingdoms who is not aware that Robert's reign and beyond was backed in every way by the Lannisters, and that they were the true power behind the throne. The Lannister backing existed because of Cersei's marriage to Robert, and now that the Baratheons are gone, maintaining the illusion of continuity rests on maintaining the power structure as is, which is heavily weighted Lannister. There is noone else who can maintain that sense of continuity. Everyone else is in fact even more of a conqueror because their reign would imply dismantling that Lannister power structure and replacing it with a major unknown. The people who want that are already enemies and are backing Dany or Jon. The remaining people have major stakes in the current order and are NOT interested in seeing it uprooted.

[GravyFace]

She took it because she could. She killed everyone who was in power, everyone in Tommen's small council, and the faith who largely controlled the small folk. Olenna is the only survivor and she's gone south. There's no one in KL to oppose Cersei, and if anyone from some other house wants to oppose her, then they're going to have to wage a war against her. That's it. Cersei took the throne because she could, and whoever takes it from her will have to use just as much force or more.

[RUSSELL BELL]

She's ascending the throne as Queen regent. She can do so as being the mother to the king or the husband to Robert Baratheon. Besides, there is literally no one else that could possibly have a stronger claim anyway. 

Either way, it doesn't matter. And for people that say it might not happen in the books, while you may be right don't be so sure. 

In George's original outline, Jaime ascends the throne before Dany's conquest simply by killing every other person in line ahead of him. Not quite the same as Cersei but she did kill Robert I guess. We know that George split original Jaime into Jaime and Cersei so that checks out. 

And yes I know the original draft has changed quite a lot but quite a few beats of the original outline stayed the same. 

The prophecy from Maggy the frog also confirms this although I don't think that bit is in the show so can't really confirm that.