Why there never was a Queen in the North?

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Why there never was a Queen in the North?

Lyanna is supposed to be the only woman buried in the Crypts at winterfell. House stark traces its origins to the wake of the Long night. That makes them a house with 8k years history. The north follows the same rules of succession than almost the rest of Westeros, which is Male primogeniture (younger sons before daughter, and daughter before brother).

How came WF was never inherited by a Lady/queen Stark?

We do know of other great houses that were ruled by women at some point, houses which we have much less information than of House stark.

i understand the pressure in middle age societies to produce male heirs. So it’s easy to see how certain lord might want to have more children, until he gets a boy.. But still, it sounds statistically impossible in 8k years, that no female heir would inherit the house holdings..

[Whitering]

Well, we don't know that it didn't happen, it may have gone down like the Kings and Queens of England, or more likely a male cousin took the Throne and the name.

[David Selig]

The Northern master race is too sexist.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

Because the North apparently operates under an inheritance system of male-preference cognatic primogeniture. So long as any male Stark descended from the current lord lives, a female cannot inherit.

Basically, boys rule girls drool.

[mediterraneo]

We know of at least a Stark woman who was the sole Stark of a generation, the one which was "stolen" by Bael the Bard and "given back" after a year, with an heir.
I feel that the Stark are still in debt of the blue rose he left in exchange in the first place, the Stark in Winterfell promised it to him, but I'm not sure about how much would the interest would be calculated on that.

[Queen‍‍‍‍‍‍ Alysanne‍‍™]

Basically, boys rule girls drool.

:lmao: I remember where that line came from

[David Selig]

Because the North apparently operates under an inheritance system of male-preference cognatic primogeniture. So long as any male Stark from descended from the current lord lives, a female cannot inherit.

This doesn't really explain it. The chance for always being a male heir available with such a system for 8000 years straight is astronomically low.

[ARYa_Nym]

Bael the Bard is a tale though so it may not be true. Ygritte acknowledges that when she tells Jon.

There's an SSM which says that there's never been a queen in the North. ETA: To clarify by queen I mean ruling queen.

[Jaak]

Why there never was a Queen in the North?

Lyanna is supposed to be the only woman buried in the Crypts at winterfell. House stark traces its origins to the wake of the Long night. That makes them a house with 8k years history. The north follows the same rules of succession than almost the rest of Westeros, which is Male primogeniture (younger sons before daughter, and daughter before brother).

i understand the pressure in middle age societies to produce male heirs. So it’s easy to see how certain lord might want to have more children, until he gets a boy.. But still, it sounds statistically impossible in 8k years, that no female heir would inherit the house holdings..

North follows Andal law now. And that´s just 3 centuries. Whereas we see Iron Islands reject Andal law - no woman may sit Seastone Chair regardless of greenlands laws, or so Aeron asserts. Asha does have support at Kingsmoot, but so does Victarion.

We hear what happened with Brandon the Daughterless. His daughter´s bastard became the ruler at Winterfell, and fought battles - as the ruler in his own right. When he came home to report his parricide, his mother received him as his mother - not as Winter Queen or Lady of Winterfell.

We hear of women disinherited in spite of Andal law in South as well. Wyman Webber made a will to disinherit his only daughter in favour of his male cousin (unless she marries). His will is taken seriously - Rohanne cannot simply dismiss it as illegal interference with her automatic right.

Over the 8 millennia, a woman must have been the best Andal law heir to Winterfell many times (I think 15th century Firenze had statistics - 60 % couples had one or more sons, 20 % daughters only, 20 % childless). Thus the law of Winterfell must have been different, and the woman was disinherited in favour of some man each time. We do not know the exact details - at least sometimes in favour of her own soon in her lifetime, sometimes perhaps an uncle or cousin or bastard brother. If Winterfell kept cousins around then there would usually have been cousins... and the women married to other Northern families could often have provided sons and grandsons to take over Winterfell.

[Mark Antony]

Yet,

Me hopes Sansa will achieve that title and more

[Winter's Knight]

Unbroken male line for thousands of years. One rolls one's eyes at it.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

This doesn't really explain it. The chance for always being a male heir available for 8000 years straight is astronomically low.

Uh, yeah, it does explain it unless someone can come up with an instance where a female Stark inherited the throne and had a matrilineal marriage. You may not like the odds, but it's not your story is it? GRRM doesn't have to account for the odds of it happening if he doesn't want to. Fact is, the Stark line has lasted through known history of the North and there are no known female rulers of the North. And apparently according to a post above, there's even an SSM confirming it.

If anyone wants to question whether or not the North follows male-preference cognatic primogeniture, we can deduce from the way Cat and Robb address succession that without a doubt Bran and Rickon both would have come before Sansa and Arya.

Unbroken male line for thousands of years. One rolls one's eyes at it.

GRRM rolls his eyes at you rolling yours :rolleyes:

[Jon's Queen Consort]

I don't believe that there were no Queens, I am sure that there would be some Queens Consort but no Queens Regnant. A Queen Consort since she was no Stark had no right to be buried in the crypts.

I think that a daughter cound pass her rights to her son. She couldn't become Queen but her son could be King.

[Trigger Warning]

Marry a man.

Man becomes king.

Rinse and repeat.

Or favour remote male family members over closer females in succession.

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

Because the North apparently operates under an inheritance system of male-preference cognatic primogeniture. So long as any male Stark descended from the current lord lives, a female cannot inherit.

Basically, boys rule girls drool.

yeah, a younger brother comes before a sister.. but still 8k years is way to much. Are we supposed to believe that no Stark king/lord was survived by only daughers?

[Djinn]

It thematically makes sense, if Dorne in one end of Westeros, is the more gender balanced society present, then it's opposite, the North, would be the most unbalanced. Or misogyny loves the cold.

[Usrnmhsnomning]

I think that a daughter cound pass her rights to her son. She couldn't become Queen but her son could be King.

That's not how it comes across when Robb and Cat discuss it. Girls can definitely inherit, but males come first.

yeah, a younger brother comes before a sister.. but still 8k years is way to much. Are we supposed to believe that no Stark king/lord was survived by only daughers?

Yes, we are, because that's what the evidence we have dictates. If you can find evidence to support otherwise I'd be happy to see it.

[David Selig]

Uh, yeah, it does explain it unless someone can come up with an instance where a female Stark inherited the throne and had a matrilineal marriage. You may not like the odds, but it's not your story is it? GRRM doesn't have to account for the odds of it happening if he doesn't want to. Fact is, the Stark line has lasted through known history of the North and there are no known female rulers of the North. And apparently according to a post above, there's even an SSM confirming it.

GRRM has to consider the odds if it wants his made up world to be remotely plausible. 8000 years or even 2000 years without a single case where the ruling lord had only daughters is so unlikely that it's virtually impossible.

If anyone wants to question whether or not the North follows male-preference cognatic primogeniture, we can deduce from the way Cat and Robb address succession that without a doubt Bran and Rickon both would have come before Sansa and Arya.

That's how the system is now, but who knows how it was 500 years ago or 1500 years ago? Maybe they had their own version of the Salic law but it was scrapped after the Targs came.

[ARYa_Nym]

[Have there ever been a ruling Lady of Winterfell or Queen of Winter?]

No. Although I do hope to someday write the Dunk & Egg story where they travel to Winterfell and meet the She-Wolves.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Various_questions_concerning_Tywin_Oberyn_Gregor_the_North_and_Sansa/

[LordToo-Fat-to-Sit-a-Horse]

We know of at least a Stark woman who was the sole Stark of a generation, the one which was "stolen" by Bael the Bard and "given back" after a year, with an heir.

I feel that the Stark are still in debt of the blue rose he left in exchange in the first place, the Stark in Winterfell promised it to him, but I'm not sure about how much would the interest would be calculated on that.

1) we don´t know if the tale is true

2) the son was ruling lord when he killed his father (the king beyond the wall) , so succession jumped the mother.. Did the Starks changed their succession rules at some point?