Does North have different succession rules?

[Knight Of Winter]

I noticed one interesting thing regarding succession in North I'd like to discuss here. Normally, succession rules go as follows:

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

So, basically, male progeny comes first, female second; and in absence of both cousins of close proximity come next. That is, unless someone arrives with a huge army, which somehow trumps all the claims.

Anyhow, from two cases we've encountered in the books, it seems North works a little bit differently. There, it seems widow freely interhit land from their husbands and can pass it to their line. So, in ACOK, we meet Donella Hornwood nee Manderly, whose husband and son just got killed in Robb's campaign. With lord's and his heir's death, Donella starts ruling Hornwood lands pretty much by herself. It's even repeatedly mentioned how plenty of suitors vie for her hand - which implies that her new husband would become recognized as "legal" ruler of Hornwood lands. So, in short, rulership did not pass to some close or distant Hornwood cousin, but to widow and whoever she marries.

And while we might shrug that off as one-time occurrence, in ADWD we encounter exactly the same case in the person of Barbrey Dustin. Her story is well known - born a Ryswell, she married young Lord Dustin, who left no children before dying in Robert's Rebellion. So, again, Dustin lands are not passed to Dustin cousins, but to his Ryswell widow - who rules them without anyone questioning her right to rule. And when she dies, one could easily speculate that some of her Ryswell kin will inherit Dustin lands.

So, can we conclude something from these two instances - because I can't remember any opposite examples in the North? Does North have different succession rules?

[Colonel Green]

Donella's position is because House Hornwood is apparently otherwise extinct (even though it's actually not; Berena Hornwood is still alive, but for some reason nobody ever talks about her having a claim, just the idea of Donella adopting her kid). It kind of seems like Barbrey's position may be somewhat similar.

[Universal Sword Donor]

To the OP, not really.

Jon's description of succession to Cregan and elsewhere mirrors the Andal rules. Lady Oakheart rules her house. I could probably think of another non-Dornish, Andal example (Lady Whent?) if I wanted to.

tl;dr: no not at all

[Leonardo]

I noticed one interesting thing regarding succession in North I'd like to discuss here. Normally, succession rules go as follows:

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

So, basically, male progeny comes first, female second; and in absence of both cousins of close proximity come next. That is, unless someone arrives with a huge army, which somehow trumps all the claims.

Anyhow, from two cases we've encountered in the books, it seems North works a little bit differently. There, it seems widow freely interhit land from their husbands and can pass it to their line. So, in ACOK, we meet Donella Hornwood nee Manderly, whose husband and son just got killed in Robb's campaign. With lord's and his heir's death, Donella starts ruling Hornwood lands pretty much by herself. It's even repeatedly mentioned how plenty of suitors vie for her hand - which implies that her new husband would become recognized as "legal" ruler of Hornwood lands. So, in short, rulership did not pass to some close or distant Hornwood cousin, but to widow and whoever she marries.

And while we might shrug that off as one-time occurrence, in ADWD we encounter exactly the same case in the person of Barbrey Dustin. Her story is well known - born a Ryswell, she married young Lord Dustin, who left no children before dying in Robert's Rebellion. So, again, Dustin lands are not passed to Dustin cousins, but to his Ryswell widow - who rules them without anyone questioning her right to rule. And when she dies, one could easily speculate that some of her Ryswell kin will inherit Dustin lands.

So, can we conclude something from these two instances - because I can't remember any opposite examples in the North? Does North have different succession rules?

Barbrey Dustin is different from Donella as she never bore a child of Dustin while Donella bore a Hornwood, so like Lysa it made sense for her to rule due to administration not really changing.

If Barbrey Dustin had a child who was not a Dustin, they do not inherit Barrowton. She only rules due to her status as Willam's widow. There are likely other Dustins in Barrowton and it might even be something that will come up, because I agree right now it doesn't make much sense that she is ruling aside from her ruling while Willam was gone and it just kind of falling into her hands. Obviously none of the Dustins made enough stink or she did away with them or compromised somehow.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

To the OP, not really.

Jon's description of succession to Cregan and elsewhere mirrors the Andal rules. Lady Oakheart rules her house. I could probably think of another non-Dornish, Andal example (Lady Whent?) if I wanted to.

tl;dr: no not at all

Little Lady Hayford is one.

As to the OP, I think Lady Dustin and Lady Hornwood were afforded their rights in the absence of other heirs. The Tallharts were trying to give their half-Hornwood kid the Hornwood lands and title at the time Ramsay forcibly married Donella. Lady Hornwood was sort of a placeholder while they decided who would actually inherit the lands, e.g. the Tallhart boy or the bastard if he was legitimized.

[Mithras]

I think the reason why Lady Dustin held her position as the ruler Lady of Barrowton is that Ned allowed her because he felt ashamed of having her husband killed in his battle and not even being able to bring his bones back.

[Knight Of Winter]

To the OP, not really.

Jon's description of succession to Cregan and elsewhere mirrors the Andal rules. Lady Oakheart rules her house. I could probably think of another non-Dornish, Andal example (Lady Whent?) if I wanted to.

tl;dr: no not at all

Lady Waynwood in the Vale is another example.

I was not talking about daughters inheriting Lord's title and lands (which is common is Westeros in the absence of sons), but widows.

As to the OP, I think Lady Dustin and Lady Hornwood were afforded their rights in the absence of other heirs. The Tallharts were trying to give their half-Hornwood kid the Hornwood lands and title at the time Ramsay forcibly married Donella. Lady Hornwood was sort of a placeholder while they decided who would actually inherit the lands, e.g. the Tallhart boy or the bastard if he was legitimized.

Yeah, that's the part that mystifies me. When faced with similar situation is ASOS, politically knowledgeable Catelyn schooled Robb about his many-times removed Vale cousins who could inherit North in case he dies childless. Did both Lords Hornwood and Dustin really not have some cousins in similar position?

[Mithras]

Yeah, that's the part that mystifies me. When faced with similar situation is ASOS, politically knowledgeable Catelyn schooled Robb about his many-times removed Vale cousins who could inherit North in case he dies childless. Did both Lords Hornwood and Dustin really not have some cousins in similar position?

All the noble families have to have such relatives unless they practice incest like the Targs. In fact, The Flints had a claim to Horwood too.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

A bit. As in only males can rule Winterfell.

Yeah, that's the part that mystifies me. When faced with similar situation is ASOS, politically knowledgeable Catelyn schooled Robb about his many-times removed Vale cousins who could inherit North in case he dies childless. Did both Lords Hornwood and Dustin really not have some cousins in similar position?

They do.

The difference is that widows are not kicked out of their homes. A son or brother-in-law living in the castle anyway may take over immediately, but more distant relatives will take over after the widow is dead.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

A bit. As in only males can rule Winterfell.

That is not true by law but has previously been executed in practice. It is also probably part of the reason the Starks marry the two family strands together once they get some distance. There is nothing to stop a woman pressing her claim.