"One day, Bran, you will be Robb's bannerman..."

[Varys' member]

"One day, Bran, you will be Robb's bannerman, holding a keep of your own for your brother and your king, and justice will fall to you"

Bran I - aGoT (Eddard to Bran)

What did Ned mean by "holding a keep of your own"? Did he expect Bran to form a new branch of the Stark family elsewhere? If indeed older Bran did in fact hold a keep in the name of House Stark, let's call it House Stark of Winterfort by the Sea (where ever that is), then that would be a second location where people bearing the name Stark would live.

Then why doesn't the phenomenon happen more often in various Houses throughout various generations? Certainly, most Westerosi Lords father multiple (legitimate) children and it must happen quite frequently for them to have up to 2, 3 or more male children. Look at House Tyrell or House Stark who have 3 male children, for instance.

Why don't we see more than a few locations bearing the same name of a much older House? Arguably, it happened to Starks once (with the Karstarks), it happened to Daynes, Royces, Flints, Baratheons. But it doesn't seem to happen that frequently. Over the course of history, I would imagine that this phenomenon happens A LOT and yet we only see a few occurances.

What am I missing? I know some male children will eventually become Maesters, Septons or Brothers of the NW, or they will either die or replace a dead brother who was Lord of the main branch House. But again, to me, over the course of history, there should still be several minor branches of a same House.

Discuss.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

I have seen mention before that Ned wanted to set Jon up with a hold somewhere in the far North/ Gift, so maybe Bran would have been the same. Ned may have had an idea, similar to Jon's (maybe that's where he got it from) about re-settling that area.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

That's what the Starks do: give a younger brother a cadet keep and a piece of land. Dragonstone or Summerhall, only maybe in smaller scale.

There is an SSM about it, I'm certain of that, only can't find it right now.

[Infinate]

First I would say its likely that only very powerful houses could pull this off easily. Second you do hear about cadet branches of lannisters and arryns. Mortality rates tend to be quite high. Isnt there something with the starks about 3rd sons joining the watch? Seems to be wars and rebellions nearly every generation so likely lots of options and possibly entire branches wiped clean.

[Ser Leftwich]

There might also be a case where younger sons marry into noble families that only have daughters as heirs, and they might keep the family name of the female line. Though Oakheart and Mormont are the only examples (that I can think of) outside of Dorne.

[Twenty of House Goodmen]

In a likelihood, he probably would've been an extremely minor noble of a small keep in Stark lands, similar to landed knights irl medieval Europe.

[The Skinner]

In this time period with limited medical knowledge, living conditions, and practices it was much more common for children to stillborn/miscarried, or to die in infancy as we see in the books, this is especially true in the north where winter falls hardest south of the wall.

Plus due to the martial culture of westeros it's also common to die in fights/drunken brawls, training and tourney accidents, challenges of single combat between nobles. Many younger sons may become sellswords and die in another land or just leave their homes to make their own names. Because of this families shrink and grow continually, in TWOIAF it say that after the death of Beron Stark there was debate about the succession because there was ten Stark children.

This is happens in the books it's just harder to see because we are seeing it as it happens and not just in hindsight.

[Jak Scaletongue]

What did Ned mean by "holding a keep of your own"? Did he expect Bran to form a new branch of the Stark family elsewhere? If indeed older Bran did in fact hold a keep in the name of House Stark, let's call it House Stark of Winterfort by the Sea (where ever that is), then that would be a second location where people bearing the name Stark would live.

Then why doesn't the phenomenon happen more often in various Houses throughout various generations? Certainly, most Westerosi Lords father multiple (legitimate) children and it must happen quite frequently for them to have up to 2, 3 or more male children. Look at House Tyrell or House Stark who have 3 male children, for instance.

Why don't we see more than a few locations bearing the same name of a much older House? Arguably, it happened to Starks once (with the Karstarks), it happened to Daynes, Royces, Flints, Baratheons. But it doesn't seem to happen that frequently. Over the course of history, I would imagine that this phenomenon happens A LOT and yet we only see a few occurances.

What am I missing? I know some male children will eventually become Maesters, Septons or Brothers of the NW, or they will either die or replace a dead brother who was Lord of the main branch House. But again, to me, over the course of history, there should still be several minor branches of a same House.

Discuss.

I don't think it's particularly odd. The only reason the Karstarks became a separate branch was because Karlon Stark earned it, right? So Bran would have still be a Stark, owing fealty to his brother, probably wouldn't have had a ton of land, just enough to keep him and his family supported. Possibly in an area of the Stark lands where Stark rule is a bit thin. Or, as others mentioned, in the Gift. Bran wouldn't have lost any power or anything, cause he'd still be a Stark and afforded the same respect as any other younger sibling did. Maybe his daughter would have married her cousin to keep the bloodlines close (like Rickard & Lyarra), or if Robb didn't have any boys, maybe one of Bran's or Rickon's would have married Robb's daughter to keep a Stark in Winterfell. There is a lot of uses for loyal siblings kept close.

[Consigliere]

His lord father had once talked about raising new lords and settling them in the abandoned holdfasts as a shield against wildlings. The plan would have required the Watch to yield back a large part of the Gift, but his uncle Benjen believed the Lord Commander could be won around, so long as the new lordlings paid taxes to Castle Black rather than Winterfell. "It is a dream for spring, though," Lord Eddard had said. "Even the promise of land will not lure men north with a winter coming on." - ASOS, Jon V

[Jak Scaletongue]

^^ Ouch, waited one winter too long, Neddy!

[Bloodraven's Bastard]

Discuss.

Simply put, it's a massive plot hole.

The Starks have been ruling part of Westeros for at least 8-10,000 years.

So Ned and Robb are confirmed dead, Bran and RIckon are presumed dead, Benjen was last seen wandering north of the Wall.

There's still probably about 3,000 Stark cousins who have a rightful claim to Winterfell and the North even if two generations of direct descendants are wiped out.

[hortensius]

House Tyrell of Brightwater Keep i think a member of the lannister family hold Lannisport as a cadet branch House Baratheons of storms end and Dragonstone and the starks seem to have a few past and present.

It seems to be an issue of available titles and enough sons and the strength of the families hold on the territories. Re bran it seems that there is ample land to start a cadet branch the issue would be keeping it loyal long term

[hortensius]

House Tyrell of Brightwater Keep i think a member of the lannister family hold Lannisport as a cadet branch House Baratheons of storms end and Dragonstone and the starks seem to have a few past and present.

It seems to be an issue of available titles and enough sons and the strength of the families hold on the territories. Re bran it seems that there is ample land to start a cadet branch the issue would be keeping it loyal long term

[Varys' member]

The question I'm raising doesn't seem to be addressed, maybe I'm not asking quite clearly. (EDIT : well it seems that as I was typing this message, people did answer)

Let's say Bran gets a keep of his own somewhere in the North and Robb inherits Winterfell. Heck, let's say Rickon also gets a keep. We then have 3 Stark keeps : Winterfell, Brankeep and Rickonkeep. Now let's say each of them reproduce enough to have at least 2 male children of their own. In an ideal world, when people live long enough, then Robb's eldest inherits Winterfell, Bran's eldest inherits Brankeep and Rickon's eldest inherits Rickonkeep. The second child of each one also get a new keep. Robb's youngest gets one, Bran's youngest gets one and Rickon's youngest gets one.

Of course, this example is unlikely because of all the reasons I gave (Maester, NW, etc.) and the reasons you gave (disease, war, drunken death, etc.). But there are A LOT of Houses and A LOT of years can pass. I would think that even if the probability of "House duplication" is rather small, over the course of the milleniums, the small proportions add up and eventually we should indeed witness this phenonemon, more than we presently witness it.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

The question I'm raising doesn't seem to be addressed, maybe I'm not asking quite clearly.

Let's say Bran gets a keep of his own somewhere in the North and Robb inherits Winterfell. Heck, let's say Rickon also gets a keep. We then have 3 Stark keeps : Winterfell, Brankeep and Rickonkeep. Now let's say each of them reproduce enough to have at least 2 male children of their own. In an ideal world, when people live long enough, then Robb's eldest inherits Winterfell, Bran's eldest inherits Brankeep

You're assuming Bran would get Brankeep in heredity. That isn't necessarily so. Might be that Bran would get the keep for life, but his sons would have to make their own fortune, and Brankeep still be in possession of the Starks of Winterfell (and eventually be given to Robb's second son, and then to Robb's heir's second son...).

[Jak Scaletongue]

Simply put, it's a massive plot hole.

The Starks have been ruling part of Westeros for at least 8-10,000 years.

So Ned and Robb are confirmed dead, Bran and RIckon are presumed dead, Benjen was last seen wandering north of the Wall.

There's still probably about 3,000 Stark cousins who have a rightful claim to Winterfell and the North even if two generations of direct descendants are wiped out.

There are some cousins kicking around up North, but unless I'm terribly mistaken it goes (ignoring the fact that Robb thought Bran and Rickon were dead):

1 Bran

2 Rickon

3 Sansa

4 Arya

5 Jon - ? - bastards get moved to the back, right? Or move him up 2, w/e

N/A Rickard's siblings - had none

6 Edwyle's siblings - a Jocelyn Stark married a Royce (assumed deceased)

7 J's eldest daughter

8 eldest child

? any other children

9 middle daughter

10 eldest child

? any other children

11 youngest daughter

12 eldest child

? any other children

13 Edwyle's aunt's and uncles - this is where we'd probably start finding actual Starks - but maybe not, depending on how many were girls.

So, succession would go to Valemen before third/fourth Stark cousins.

[Varys' member]

You're assuming Bran would get Brankeep in heredity. That isn't necessarily so. Might be that Bran would get the keep for life, but his sons would have to make their own fortune, and Brankeep still be in possession of the Starks of Winterfell (and eventually be given to Robb's second son, and then to Robb's heir's second son...).

That would still result in having 6 keeps in the name of Starks, so it's not an issue.

[Bloodraven's Bastard]

The question I'm raising doesn't seem to be addressed, maybe I'm not asking quite clearly. (EDIT : well it seems that as I was typing this message, people did answer)

Let's say Bran gets a keep of his own somewhere in the North and Robb inherits Winterfell. Heck, let's say Rickon also gets a keep. We then have 3 Stark keeps : Winterfell, Brankeep and Rickonkeep. Now let's say each of them reproduce enough to have at least 2 male children of their own. In an ideal world, when people live long enough, then Robb's eldest inherits Winterfell, Bran's eldest inherits Brankeep and Rickon's eldest inherits Rickonkeep. The second child of each one also get a new keep. Robb's youngest gets one, Bran's youngest gets one and Rickon's youngest gets one.

Of course, this example is unlikely because of all the reasons I gave (Maester, NW, etc.) and the reasons you gave (disease, war, drunken death, etc.). But there are A LOT of Houses and A LOT of years can pass. I would think that even if the probability of "House duplication" is rather small, over the course of the milleniums, the small proportions add up and eventually we should indeed witness this phenonemon, more than we presently witness it.

I answered your question above, cheese.

It's a massive plot hole in the books.

Cadet houses remain important because a Great house could be wiped out.

Then the Cadet house would take over.

Legally.

[Varys' member]

I answered your question above, cheese.

Hence the

(EDIT : well it seems that as I was typing this message, people did answer)

[Bloodraven's Bastard]

Hence the

My apologies. :)

Have you read the original synopsis that GRRM pitched to his (book) publishers ?