Ease off Jamie, he's a good guy.......

[The Wolves]

Cersei knew she couldn't marry Jaime, but I think he's the only person she's ever loved. Rhaegar might have been her "first choice" but she didn't love him, hell she didn't even know him. She would just marry whoever made her queen.

Meanwhile, Jaime didn't understand why he and Cersei couldn't be married. He'd rather take a vow of celibacy and break it with Cersei than be married to anyone that's not her.

But I don't think Cersei ever loved Jamie like that. I don't think Cersei has ever loved anyone the closest Cersei has ever loved anyone is her children and that's questionable. Cersei sees Jamie as an extension of herself and the part that does what Cersei can't do like getting Jamie to go after Arya or trying to get him to kill Tyrion.

Her love is fickle because the second she couldn't use Jamie he became worthless in her eyes. Jamie is like that also, he's fickle in his love with Cersei and he's also a narcissist. Jamie thought that once his and Cersei's obstacle(Robert)was taken care of they would be together but since Cersei bursted that bubble he's withdrawn his love.

[Minsc]

The fact that Cersei is passing her bastards off as trueborn heirs isn't evil,

It might not be evil, however it is still morally wrong as she is essentially denying Robert his right to pass off his claim to his true heirs and thus essentially stealing their claim.

Also "just safe" is not the entire issue, what about their future? I can't see Cersei satisfied with them growing up as wealthy bastards, or if that doesn't work out, plain old peasants.

Cersei might want to ensure her children's future, however this does give her the right to commit fraud to achieve that protect and future.

If she cannot be satisfied with them receiving only the benefits that she can grace them then it is imperative that she find some ethical and legal means to achieve that goal which doesn't steal from another to fuel her ambitions.

There's a moral conflict to staying in King's Landing, but I can see how the arguments against leaving, and the possibilities of unfavorable outcome as refugees made Cersei choose to stay.

I wouldn't say it was entirely her hubris keeping them in KL. She does have a valid point as to what she would be giving up.

Actually, she doesn't have a valid point any how nothing she would be giving up out weighs the costs that came about from her decision to stay.

As the comfort and well-being of her children don't out weigh the countless individuals that would die because she decided to start a conflict/war in order to continue reaping benefits that neither them nor she are honestly owed.

[CelticAggression]

How is that exclusive to men?

Also, see men die in battle if and when there's a war on. Women-rich or poor, peace or war-will die in childbirth all the time. That is not a risk exclusive to the nobility.

Women die in childbirth when it's convenient to the plot.

On topic, can everyone stop whinging about Bran? He didn't exactly have a choice. If Bran told anyone he and Cersei would be fucked (no pun intended). Also, if not for the fall, who knows if Bran would have realized his destiny of becoming a tree? Jaime's the most fair and reasonable man in Westeros, aside from Jon and Mance. Most lords would have killed Edmure, left Brienne to die, and not many would try to help Pia either. He uses his power to help people less powerful than him when he can, kind of like Tyrion. Speaking of Tyrion, he'd be dead for a crime he didn't commit if not for Jaime.

[bbstark]

It might not be evil, however it is still morally wrong as she is essentially denying Robert his right to pass off his claim to his true heirs and thus essentially stealing their claim.

[Minsc]

On topic, can everyone stop whinging about Bran? He didn't exactly have a choice. If Bran told anyone he and Cersei would be fucked (no pun intended).

Attempting to kill an innocent child to cover up your own crimes isn't excusable.

Jaime's the most fair and reasonable man in Westeros, aside from Jon and Mance.

Not even close

Most lords would have killed Edmure, left Brienne to die, and not many would try to help Pia either.

Besides likely Ned, Robb, Edmure, Blackfish, Barristan etc.

[Minsc]

I'm actually not defending the morality of what Cersei did. As far as denying Robert's rights, she did to him exactly as much as he did onto her.

No, he didn't even come close.

In how, while his actions might have risked her children's inheritance her actions straight up denied him his right to pass down his inheritance.

Simply, flat out denying something is always greater then just creating a risk of denial.

Furthermore, besides with Edric and maybe Mya Robert never even thought about acknowledging his various bastards. Therefore, they could never come close to endangering her children's inheritance as they would be nothing but bastards without any proof on their parentage.

Cersei didn't singlehandedly start the Wot5K. Your argument doesn't stand.

Once it became known to her that Ned was aware of her children's true heritage and that he wasn't going to allow them to inherit she loses any moral justification to staying in King's Landing to provide for her children's future.

As how the only outcome will be either her children's lives or she must act out against Robert and Ned thus causing some deaths within their parties. And the social well-being of her children come behind that of the preservation of the lives of Robert, Ned, and their servants.

[The Wolves]

I'm actually not defending the morality of what Cersei did. As far as denying Robert's rights, she did to him exactly as much as he did onto her.

Robert and Cersei are not on equal ground on who denied who rights.

Robert did have multiple bastards but unlike Cersei he didn't try to give any of them a throne/crown that didn't legally belong to them.

Cersei stole what should have been Robert's TRUE BORN Children's inheritance and gave it to her bastard children. Robert has NEVER done that to Cersei.

Also Cersei had Robert's children murdered so that they couldn't contest her children's false claim, when did Robert do that to Cersei?

Cersei did more in denying Robert's rights for his trueborn children to inherit

[Jasta11]

Cercei's decision to actively deny Robert a trueborn heir is foolish and incredibly irresponsible. She knows fully well how her society works, and in that society the King needs children to pass on his line and secure the throne. To not only deny him those, but to do such a bad job of hiding it (I mean, fucking right in Winterfell? really?) might not be evil, but it's stupidity of the highest sort. Sure, her body, her freedom, but that only works to a point. Undermining Robert's legacy so much runs a risk of triggering civil war and, lo and behold, that's exactly what happens.

And no, Robert bedding whores doesn't change anything to the situation. The King has a duty to sire trueborn children which, as far as he knew, he actually did. Three of them in fact, so the line of succession is indeed secure and old Bob has done his duty on that front. Is it fair that Robert can bed every women in sight but Cercei has to have his children? No. But it's also not fair that Cercei gets to be born in the most powerful family in the Seven Kingdoms, married to a King, while so many other women are born to rule their own household at best. The world of Westeros ain't fair. Deal with it.

Jaime is not as responsible about this as her, of course, but he's not off the hook either. Continuing to sleep with his sister behind his king's back is a dick move at best, but he probably doesn't care one bit about the consequences. He loves Cercei, so he will bed her, no matter the potential costs to others.

[Winter's Knight]

Tch. Robert's so-called rights were stolen to begin with. Robert won the throne for his children by slaughtering thousands, Cersei attempted to win it for hers through a lie and her own blood. If undiscovered the only man who'd have died was Robert.

So tell me: why is her method, which is so much less bloody, worse than his?

[Minsc]

Tch. Robert's so-called rights were stolen to begin with. Robert won the throne for his children by slaughtering thousands, Cersei attempted to win it for hers through a lie and her own blood. If undiscovered the only man who'd have died was Robert.

So tell me: why is her method, which is so much less bloody, worse than his?

Robert only went to war after war was declared against him, thus the risk of conflict was already there.

Cersei went about creating the risk of war, because it would fuel her ego to have little extensions of herself on the throne.

[CelticAggression]

Tch. Robert's so-called rights were stolen to begin with. Robert won the throne for his children by slaughtering thousands, Cersei attempted to win it for hers through a lie and her own blood. If undiscovered the only man who'd have died was Robert.

So tell me: why is her method, which is so much less bloody, worse than his?

Boom! Truth.

[The Wolves]

So tell me: why is her method, which is so much less bloody, worse than his?

Because Cersei's methods are more bloody than Robert's

There is a HUGE difference between RR and TWot5k

[bbstark]

There's a lot of talk on here about Robert's right, which I find hillarious, because Robert campaigned to win the throne not based on his right, but basically for personal reasons.

Cersei is doing the same thing. If you want, you can call her a conquerer without an army.

I've already addressed the killing of the bastards. That act is immoral. However Cersei passing off her bastards as Robert's true heirs is a poorly thought out political move. It's not by definition wrong.

Robert's so-called right only exists within the paradigm of his conquest. The only reason this is being called "right" is because if Robert had found out, he'd have Cersei's head, while Cersei had to grin and bear her "insult". We're throwing around different words here, for essentially the same thing.

I'm not convinced.

[CelticAggression]

Attempting to kill an innocent child to cover up your own crimes isn't excusable.

Not even close

Besides likely Ned, Robb, Edmure, Blackfish, Barristan etc.

What part of "no choice" do you not understand? You would have done the same, don't even lie.

[Minsc]

There's a lot of talk on here about Robert's right, which I find hillarious, because Robert campaigned to win the throne not based on his right, but basically for personal reasons.

Yes, because he didn't want to be murdered because some mad man said so. Robert didn't just think that he would look cool sitting on the throne and then ride up in kill Rhaegar in effort to make that dream come true.

Instead, Aerys ordered him to be executed and he proceeded to fight against this order and following his win the Lords of Westeros named him king as they didn't trust the Targaryan claimants anymore while liking him more.

However Cersei passing off her bastards as Robert's true heirs is a poorly thought out political move. It's not by definition wrong.

It is by definition fraud as she is passing something off which is false as being true, which is wrong.

[Winter's Knight]

Robert only went to war after war was declared against him, thus the risk of conflict was already there.

Cersei went about creating the risk of war, because it would fuel her ego to have little extensions of herself on the throne.

And? Would you rather she raised an army and tore the realm apart again like Renly and Robb and Stannis?

Because Cersei's methods are more bloody than Robert's

There is a HUGE difference between RR and TWot5k

So tell me. Ned and Robert dethroned Aerys because the latter wanted their heads yeah? Because Aerys had been burning people for quite a while before Brandon and Rickard.

Then what is so different about Cersei doing the same to a king who rapes her at his pleasure? And she would have done so without killing thousands.

But if you prefer Robert's method, fine. Take the Wot5K as Cersei's war of conquest.

[Minsc]

What part of "no choice" do you not understand? You would have done the same, don't even lie.

No, I wouldn't as I am not a selfish idiot that would be committing a capital crime because I cannot control my cock.

Jaime directly had a choice, as he could either attempt to kill an innocent or he could accept the risk that he would rightfully receive punishment for his crimes.

He chose the selfish route.

[Winter's Knight]

What part of "no choice" do you not understand? You would have done the same, don't even lie.

Cersei seems to think he went too far and if she thinks you're being too heavy-handed, there's a serious issue.

[Minsc]

And? Would you rather she raised an army and tore the realm apart again like Renly and Robb and Stannis?

You mean what she did because King's Landing was too comfy to leave, despite the risks this placed her children in?

[CelticAggression]

No, I wouldn't as I am not a selfish idiot that would be committing a capital crime because I cannot control my cock.

Jaime directly had a choice, as he could either attempt to kill an innocent or he could accept the risk that he would rightfully receive punishment for his crimes.

He chose the selfish route.

What would be the punishment for what he did, by the way? Someone on this forum must know for sure.