|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Apr 9, 2019 6:51:39 GMT
Check out Right of Conquest, you seem not to know what that is. Tired of debating things with ignorants who jump to their own conclusions. Yes I do and I understand that brief link better, and I know how it applies in Game of Thrones terms because Tywin said so. Next time you read the books, pay special attention to the conversation between Tywin and Cersei when the latter wonders aloud by what right Balon claimed to be a King. Tywin explains it's Right of Conquest, when you've no other right but the willingness and ability to defend it. There's no precedent for the wife of a former King to ascend to the throne in Westeros so Cersei is claiming it solely on the basis she will fight anyone who defies her. It's a legal concept, other claims are based upon inheritance by blood, ratifications by parliamentary bodies, treaties both foreign and domestic etc. When you've got none of that but a military and the willingness to break heads it's called Right of Conquest.
So GRRM is an ignorant too, confusing "right of conquest" with "law of the strongest". I'm not surprised, he's a political idiot anyway. Cersei rose to the throne in a power vacuum. You decide to think she intimidates others but she could hardly do this with just Qyburn and a big kingsguard. The only plausible alternative is that she is accepted by those who reject the strife that would emerge otherwise and welcome the stability the Lannister wealth can help ensure. That's the very reason the British monarchy was put back on the throne after that Cromwell scum had made a bloody mess of things.
|
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 750
Likes: 301
 
|
Post by Marendil on Apr 9, 2019 7:41:32 GMT
Yes I do and I understand that brief link better, and I know how it applies in Game of Thrones terms because Tywin said so. Next time you read the books, pay special attention to the conversation between Tywin and Cersei when the latter wonders aloud by what right Balon claimed to be a King. Tywin explains it's Right of Conquest, when you've no other right but the willingness and ability to defend it. There's no precedent for the wife of a former King to ascend to the throne in Westeros so Cersei is claiming it solely on the basis she will fight anyone who defies her. It's a legal concept, other claims are based upon inheritance by blood, ratifications by parliamentary bodies, treaties both foreign and domestic etc. When you've got none of that but a military and the willingness to break heads it's called Right of Conquest.
So GRRM is an ignorant too, confusing "right of conquest" with "law of the strongest". I'm not surprised, he's a political idiot anyway. Cersei rose to the throne in a power vacuum. You decide to think she intimidates others but she could hardly do this with just Qyburn and a big kingsguard. The only plausible alternative is that she is accepted by those who reject the strife that would emerge otherwise and welcome the stability the Lannister wealth can help ensure. That's the very reason the British monarchy was put back on the throne after that Cromwell scum had made a bloody mess of things. GRRM just represented a very simple and tangible legal concept that existed in our world as well. Frankly I'm tired of explaining it, the second paragraph of your link is telling you the same thing, I don't understand the confusion.
Cersei controls the Lannister armies through Jamie and the Gold Cloaks as well, and for a while, elements of the Reach. That's pretty much all she does control now that her allies the Freys got Arya'd.
This designation isn't a pejorative, it's just a recognition of what is. Cersei blew up the Sept of Balor rather than attend her own trial that the reigning King had negotiated in a concordat, putting him in the position of having to arrest his own mother or accept her rule and he cashed out instead. Cersei crowned herself on the basis of seizing the throne for herself and daring anyone to defy her, which has worked out everywhere she has armies and nowhere else. Call it whatever you like, but I'm going to continue to use the correct term regardless of your postmodern tendencies in this regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 9, 2019 8:17:48 GMT
I expect her to remain Lady of Winterfell. Perhaps not the last Stark but the last Stark that holds a position of power.
I don’t expect her to have a suitor lined up. I think her years of forced and failed relationships will have soured her on the prospect of a husband. The future of House Stark being a question that doesn’t really need answered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Apr 9, 2019 12:55:40 GMT
So GRRM is an ignorant too, confusing "right of conquest" with "law of the strongest". I'm not surprised, he's a political idiot anyway. Cersei rose to the throne in a power vacuum. You decide to think she intimidates others but she could hardly do this with just Qyburn and a big kingsguard. The only plausible alternative is that she is accepted by those who reject the strife that would emerge otherwise and welcome the stability the Lannister wealth can help ensure. That's the very reason the British monarchy was put back on the throne after that Cromwell scum had made a bloody mess of things. GRRM just represented a very simple and tangible legal concept that existed in our world as well. Frankly I'm tired of explaining it, the second paragraph of your link is telling you the same thing, I don't understand the confusion. That 2nd paragraph is about sovereign states accepting the conquest of some neighbour by some other neighbour. In the eyes of the surrounding kingdoms, Harren the Black took the Riverlands by "right of conquest" as described there. Cersei seizing power is not such a case, no one is invaded and no power is removed or replaced. Acceptance is not that from neighbours but from those ruled themselves. There was no conquest of anything, it is a pure matter of succession.
|
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 750
Likes: 301
|
Post by Marendil on Apr 9, 2019 17:45:10 GMT
GRRM just represented a very simple and tangible legal concept that existed in our world as well. Frankly I'm tired of explaining it, the second paragraph of your link is telling you the same thing, I don't understand the confusion. That 2nd paragraph is about sovereign states accepting the conquest of some neighbour by some other neighbour. In the eyes of the surrounding kingdoms, Harren the Black took the Riverlands by "right of conquest" as described there. Cersei seizing power is not such a case, no one is invaded and no power is removed or replaced. Acceptance is not that from neighbours but from those ruled themselves. There was no conquest of anything, it is a pure matter of succession. Except she doesn't have any established right to succeed, she just claimed it and anyone who denies her has to shut up or face her armies. Don't get hung up on the semantics of 'conquest,' it doesn't matter that there's no invasion, what matters is that she has no other legal right to succeed. Renly as Master of Laws described Robert's ascension as Right of Conquest and used the same term to describe his own bid despite both of them having strong blood claims. Henry VII had a weak blood claim (which was why he spent much of his reign killing his wife's relatives) thus his claim rested ultimately on Right of Conquest. Type right of conquest henry VII into google and read for a little bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo of Red Keep on Apr 10, 2019 6:20:58 GMT
Except she doesn't have any established right to succeed, she just claimed it and anyone who denies her has to shut up or face her armies. Don't get hung up on the semantics of 'conquest,' it doesn't matter that there's no invasion, what matters is that she has no other legal right to succeed. Renly as Master of Laws described Robert's ascension as Right of Conquest and used the same term to describe his own bid despite both of them having strong blood claims. I'll insist on semantics. Succession rules at the top of the hierarchy are always an uncertain thing, always questionable by nature, since there is nothing above to enforce them. This is why constitutions were invented, as an attempt to place a non personified layer above that top. Then they get amended ;-) Any ruler is kept in place by the strength of armies and police forces, even the elected ones. Robert didn't conquer, he was chosen after the Targaryens were removed. The show does not explain why, which is a pity. The books say his Targaryen grandmother was thought to give him better acceptance from the former Targaryen supporters and do not confirm it did. So he was chosen and most of the rest just accepted it as a welcome return to normality. The same went with Cersei.
|
|
Marendil
Sophomore
@marendil
Posts: 750
Likes: 301
|
Post by Marendil on Apr 10, 2019 17:13:01 GMT
Except she doesn't have any established right to succeed, she just claimed it and anyone who denies her has to shut up or face her armies. Don't get hung up on the semantics of 'conquest,' it doesn't matter that there's no invasion, what matters is that she has no other legal right to succeed. Renly as Master of Laws described Robert's ascension as Right of Conquest and used the same term to describe his own bid despite both of them having strong blood claims. I'll insist on semantics. Succession rules at the top of the hierarchy are always an uncertain thing, always questionable by nature, since there is nothing above to enforce them. This is why constitutions were invented, as an attempt to place a non personified layer above that top. Then they get amended ;-) Any ruler is kept in place by the strength of armies and police forces, even the elected ones. Robert didn't conquer, he was chosen after the Targaryens were removed. The show does not explain why, which is a pity. The books say his Targaryen grandmother was thought to give him better acceptance from the former Targaryen supporters and do not confirm it did. So he was chosen and most of the rest just accepted it as a welcome return to normality. The same went with Cersei. My point was you're just making it more difficult for yourself to understand by being pedantic about the wording, it doesn't matter as it's still called the same thing whether there's been a foreign invasion or not. Your link was just to a peripheral application in property law, it's not the meat and bones of the subject.
Let me try this, it is better in some legal respects to be considered a conqueror rather than an usurper, the latter implies the throne belongs to someone else or was taken illegitimately, the former is a declaration you're changing the rules, because we all know that happens whether the priests, pen-pushers or the people like it or not. So while Viserys might still call Robert Baratheon an usurper, the position of the crown is Viserys has no legitimate claim as his family was overthrown and Viserys and Daenerys are traitors by pretending differently. You point out to the Targaryen supporters that Robert was second in line for the throne anyway (Daenerys wasn't even born yet when Robert was crowned) so it's not that much different, just a little family feud, so don't feel too 'conquered' as it's going to be business as usual--now get on your knees and swear an oath. The ease of this argument makes Robert a better choice as not everyone is going to instantly forget a dynasty that ruled for three hundred years.
Cersei has no other claim except that she's changing the rules, unless you think she's just keeping the throne warm for some Dornish or Vale relative of Robert Baratheon through Rhaelle Targaryen or a Baratheon cadet branch.
|
|
