Houses in Long Night

[Jaak]

I'm going to assume a "damn you, autocorrect" moment and just clarify - you mean "Venerable Bede" right? The "Venomous" threw me off...

Actually, a reference to the Memorable History of England, that is, "1066 and all that".

Next thing was Wave of Egg-Kings.

Soon after this event Egg-Kings were found on the thrones of all these kingdoms, such as Eggberd, Egg-breth, Eggfroth, etc. None of them, however, succeeded in becoming memorable - except in so far as it is difficult to forget such names as Eggbirth, Eggbred, Egg-beard, Eggfish, etc. Nor is it even remembered by what kind of Eggdeath they perished.

Which of these 7 ruled in Wessex?

None. Wessex had just 1 Egg-king, name normally spelt "Egbert"

Summary - none of them succeeded in becoming memorable. Just the founder, Hengest - and after him a long period where an unspecified number of unmemorable kings are remembered to have ruled.

We DO hear of Kings shivering and dying on their thrones during Long Night. There would have been a number of vacancies afterwards....

[TheSovereignGrave]

Lannisters are an Andal house, they were not around during the Long Night, the Casterlys may have been.

The Lannisters are First Men. It just happens that they're only matrilinearly descended from the Lannisters of old, but they still retain the name of Lannister.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

'Only matrimonially descended'. That value judgement...

[Jak Scaletongue]

The Lannisters are First Men. It just happens that they're only matrilinearly descended from the Lannisters of old, but they still retain the name of Lannister.

'Only matrimonially descended'. That value judgement...

What? He said matrilinear (it should be matrilineal: from the mother's side) not matrimonial (through marriage). One of the legends suggest that Lann the Clever married one of Lord Casterly's daughters. So, through their mother (matrilineal), Lann's children were Casterly's. Lord Casterly's daughter was matrimonially bound to Lann, but none of his descendants are. While, technically, matrimonial isn't *wrong* exactly, it isn't really correct when discussing descent or descendants (or relevant unless discussing spouses).

My daughter is, matrilineally, descended from Germans while, patrilineally, she's descended from Englishmen. Matrimonially doesn't really apply yet, but one day, when she's married someone, she will be matrimonially bound to them (but not descended from).

[Jaak]

We don´t actually hear whether Lannisters have matrilineal descent from Lann, or from Casterlies!

Counterexample - House of Jagellons. Jogaila married Queen Jadwiga. But when she died, he not only kept her throne in his lifetime but she was childless - and he remarried and left her throne to his children by his later wife. The Jagellons have no matrilineal descent from Jadwiga.

Jogaila was the most famous, but not the only husband to keep his wife´s inheritance to his children by a later wife.

We are told that Lann married a Casterly daughter and Joffrey Lydden a Lannister daughter, but in neither case are we specifically told whether their later Lannister heirs were by that wife or another.

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

What? He said matrilinear (it should be matrilineal: from the mother's side) not matrimonial (through marriage). One of the legends suggest that Lann the Clever married one of Lord Casterly's daughters. So, through their mother (matrilineal), Lann's children were Casterly's. Lord Casterly's daughter was matrimonially bound to Lann, but none of his descendants are. While, technically, matrimonial isn't *wrong* exactly, it isn't really correct when discussing descent or descendants (or relevant unless discussing spouses).

My daughter is, matrilineally, descended from Germans while, patrilineally, she's descended from Englishmen. Matrimonially doesn't really apply yet, but one day, when she's married someone, she will be matrimonially bound to them (but not descended from).

Auto-correct totally twisted my words. Firefox told me I spelt it wrong! I meant Matrileanially. Through the female line. 'Only matrilinealy', why is paternity more important?

[Jak Scaletongue]

We don´t actually hear whether Lannisters have matrilineal descent from Lann, or from Casterlies!

Counterexample - House of Jagellons. Jogaila married Queen Jadwiga. But when she died, he not only kept her throne in his lifetime but she was childless - and he remarried and left her throne to his children by his later wife. The Jagellons have no matrilineal descent from Jadwiga.

Jogaila was the most famous, but not the only husband to keep his wife´s inheritance to his children by a later wife.

We are told that Lann married a Casterly daughter and Joffrey Lydden a Lannister daughter, but in neither case are we specifically told whether their later Lannister heirs were by that wife or another.

Dude, it was an example. I know we don't *know* anything. I even specified that we only have *one* legend that says Lann married a Casterly.

Auto-correct totally twisted my words. Firefox told me I spelt it wrong! I meant Matrileanially. Through the female line. 'Only matrilinealy', why is paternity more important?

Damn autocorrect! It kept telling me I was wrong, too, but I knew I was smarter than the computer! I'm not always smarter than the computer, but this time I was (with a little help from Google...;)). But it's a weird word, but the "suggestions" weren't anywhere close!

Would you like me to go into a long, deep discussion of how paternity became more important? Cause I can, and I'll even enjoy it! I'm not sure anyone really wants to read it...

Short version: generally men are bigger - and once they've decided they're in charge, they want to make sure that their children actually are theirs. But it is much more complicated than that simple statement. That's just the over-simplified version!

[Jaak]

Would you like me to go into a long, deep discussion of how paternity became more important?

Cause I can, and I'll even enjoy it! I'm not sure anyone really wants to read it...

I do.

And some input of mine:

For these nations, greatly inflamed by lascivious unchastity, and ravishing very many women with singular baseness,

by performing in this way, men beget from them countless filthy offspring through mingling in a union of unlawful sexual union.

These offspring, who would have been superfluous had they continued after they had come to maturity

by holdings of goods to dwell in the inadequate land which they inhabited,

savagely fighting against their fathers and their grandfathers or more often amongst themselves, are driven out by lot -

the multitude of those reaching puberty having been brought together - according to long-standing usage,

into the realms of foreign nations to obtain for themselves in battle realms

whereby they might be able to live in never-ending peace, as did, for instance, the Getae,

Goths who pillaged almost all of Europe up to where they now reside.

The Normans did not in 10th and 11th century care all that much about lawful marriage... like King William the Bastard.

Do you see how this weakens paternity, too?

[Jak Scaletongue]

I do.

And some input of mine:

The Normans did not in 10th and 11th century care all that much about lawful marriage... like King William the Bastard.

Do you see how this weakens paternity, too?

Then I will work on it this weekend (I'm at work, and I'm already pushing my luck ;))!

As for William the Bastard - well, first off, his father didn't have any true-born kids, so in that case it was considered lawful for a bastard to inherit (and in those days, give enough money to the church and they'll say whatever you wanted them to say!). And a lot of people did complain about William's bastard birth - but he was a warrior and just killed them (in battle usually, but still killed them). After enough people die for complaining, people stop complaining...out loud. His bastard birth was one of the impetus for his invasion of England - they won't call him bastard if he can show them he's a *worthy* bastard. And we don't call him William the Bastard, we call him William the Conqueror - and he knew his actions would affect how his underlings saw him. Once he started winning battle against those lords who *did* call him a bastard, the Church* backed William (cause they didn't want to be defeated and looted, they wanted to be on the "winning" side), which in turn gave his rule legitimacy. Getting the Church* on his side is what stopped everyone from denigrating him, the Church and being a better fighter.

*The Church as a whole - no doubt there were plenty of priests who spoke out against him, but those priests who had ambitions to be *more* than a simple priest kept their traps shut and the bishops let William do whatever he wanted, cause William had the power to destroy their ambitions and replace them with "yes-men."

[AryaNymeriaVisenya]

Dude, it was an example. I know we don't *know* anything. I even specified that we only have *one* legend that says Lann married a Casterly.

Damn autocorrect! It kept telling me I was wrong, too, but I knew I was smarter than the computer! I'm not always smarter than the computer, but this time I was (with a little help from Google... ;)). But it's a weird word, but the "suggestions" weren't anywhere close!

Would you like me to go into a long, deep discussion of how paternity became more important? Cause I can, and I'll even enjoy it! I'm not sure anyone really wants to read it...

Short version: generally men are bigger - and once they've decided they're in charge, they want to make sure that their children actually are theirs. But it is much more complicated than that simple statement. That's just the over-simplified version!

So you think paternity is more important in a patriarchy? Would seem to make sense in a social structure but really you are no more your father than you are your mother. There is no way a man can make sure his children are his without obvious looks and DNA. Its one of the major stupidities of patriarchy.

[Jak Scaletongue]

So you think paternity is more important in a patriarchy? Would seem to make sense in a social structure but really you are no more your father than you are your mother. There is no way a man can make sure his children are his without obvious looks and DNA. Its one of the major stupidities of patriarchy.

First of all - that's the point of a patriarchy, to ensure that paternity is more important than maternity. It's not a belief, it's *how* a patriarchy works. If the father isn't more important than the mother, then you aren't in a patriarchy anymore (modern day we're in a transition period; mothers aren't ignored anymore, but it's still custom for your last name to be the same as your father's - but with modern day habit of *not* getting married, it is becoming more and more common for children to share their mother's name rather than their fathers - hence, a transition period).

And yes, we know *now* that we are the combined genes of our parents. But at one point people actually believed the mother did nothing except incubate the kid. Really, they did. Now, the time-period that Westeros generally represents (medieval/Middle Ages) was at a point where they understood the mother's role, but didn't respect it. And since they didn't respect it, it was irrelevant - to an extent; if the father was high-born but the mother was low-born, then it mattered because it might "affect" her child adversely, and she (and her birth) would be blamed for any "bad" behaviour. But if both parents were high-born, then the father got all the credit and "nature" was blamed for bad behaviour. If they were both low-born, nobody of importance cared.

The way patriarchies ensured the paternity of their children was by shaming women for having any shred of sexuality of their own. Their sexuality was their husband's. Their virginity belonged to their husband - not themselves, their husband. They victim-blamed the women for getting raped, they killed women for sleeping with other men, they disowned (or killed) children they couldn't trust were their own, they would isolate and embarrass any women who didn't meet the status quo, they called any women they simply perceived as not fitting into their box a whore, a witch, sorceress, etc. There were a lot of ways to try to ensure a child was their own - we just don't approve of most of the methods any more (but some methods are alive and well, still).

There's no *physical* way for a father to be sure of his children, so they created societies and societal norms that ensured a father knew who his children were. And ensured that women were far to fearful to do anything about it.

[Jaak]

As for William the Bastard - well, first off, his father didn't have any true-born kids, so in that case it was considered lawful for a bastard to inherit

(and in those days, give enough money to the church and they'll say whatever you wanted them to say!). And a lot of people did complain about William's bastard birth -

but he was a warrior and just killed them (in battle usually, but still killed them).

William the Bastard was no warrior when he was a bastard orphan age 7 or 8. Yet he somehow survived to rule... which 12 year old orphan Edward V, until then generally acknowledged as trueborn, did not.

[The silver dragon]

The Umber's probably lived during the long night,seeing as their keep is called "the last hearth"

[Luddagain]

Take a look at the houses that were first men and most of these will have been around at the time of the great pact with the CoF and therefore survived the Long Night

 

So in the North we have: Stark, Bolton, Ryswell, Dustin (Barrow King), Umber and I think Flint.  The Manderleys are ANCIENT. I am also going to assume that ALL the Neck houses with names such as Reed and Marsh are very, very old.

 

In the Vale we know the Royces are ancient but the Arryns are not.  I think the residual Mountain Clans are what is left of the pre Andal mob.  

 I think you will also find the families of the three Sisters island sto be ancient.

 

In the Riverlands, Brackens and Blackwoods are ancient. At a guess the Smallwoods too.

 

In the Reach all the old houses have gardener origins, albeit via the female line. This means that Tarly, Florent, etc were around before the LN. Obviously the Huightowers may be the oldest of all

 

In the Westerlands, it is not clear but we can assume Lann the clever predated the long night. The Reynes once but no more. The Westerlings are ancient.

 

In the Stormlands, Duranden gave rise to Baratheon. I think we will find Tarth very ancient

 

In Dorne we have the Daynes. I guess the Yronwoods may also be ancient.

 

The Ironborn - the Fairwind people - possible others.

[Damon_Tor]

Perhaps the Greyjoys if the tales are true

 

The Greyjoys (and the rest of the major Ironborn houses) descend from the Grey King, who arrived on the Iron Islands sometime after the Long Night.