Anarch Half-Hoare

Members
  • Content count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Anarch Half-Hoare

  • Rank
    Commoner
  1. Thanks, Lord Varys. That was roughly my understanding (and confusion) too. I suppose there is some way we can compromise this, namely then with the notion that towns without charters aren't allowed to just build or expand whatever new fancy buildings they'd like to build. It could've made more sense if charterless towns were only 'ruled' by landed knights or such perhaps, but Lord Harroway's Town shows that it's ruled by a lord, although admittedly that could just be a 'lowly' lord (GRRM at one point at least explains that there are different 'ranks' of lords, like barons, counts, dukes etc.). That is about the only way I can stick some sense of it.
  2. Thank you. I've sent it in!
  3. "There has never been a city in the riverlands, strange as that might seem (though large market towns are common), likely because of the fractious history of the region and a tendency for the kings of the past to refuse the charters that might have given some Saltpans or Lord Harroway’s Town or Fairmarket leave to expand." - Riverlands, TWOIAF What are town charters? I'm a bit at a loss with finding proper information on this, within GRRM's works or even on the wider internet as to what a character technically entails. There are various conflicting explanations some sources claim that towns might need charters from their King or Overlords to be allowed to expand warehouses or docks, or even to be allowed to host markets etc. Are these places ruled by a lord or a landed knight?
  4. It seems to be implied that Eustrace got to keep his family name, but that his line went extinct with the union though, considering his children with Webber would've been given the Webber name too. (Else this would've broken the will of her father and might've given her uncle a claim to Coldmoat). This might explain why we never hear the name Osgrey again in later books. Which is not all that surprising considering Osgrey was reduced to a knightly house after the Blackfyre Rebellion. Or... it could've been an oversight by GRRM when he referred to the name as Lord Eustrace Osgrey at the end of the novella. And yeah, I definitely understand the 'riffing' with ideas thing, some of the events and happenings in Westeros are quite confusing, but I suppose that is the beauty of having a world in which certain customs (marriage and succession) seem quite malleable.
  5. Thank you for the answer, I did a lot of research in the meanwhile and my main confusion or ignorance came from not realizing how houses could branch like this. It's even referred to in the first Bran chapter: Quote: "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. When that day comes, you must take no pleasure in the task, but neither must you look away. A ruler who hides behind paid executioners soon forgets what death is." (Bran I, A Game of Thrones) So branching houses is a lot more commonly than I first expected. I'm also going to assume that this branching would only happen if Robb (as Lord Stark) already had a likely heir. The world of Westeros is sometimes a bit difficult to understand, until you realize that a lot of 'rules' and 'customs' seem quite malleable.
  6. Considering Ser Eustace Osgrey was the last remaining Osgrey alive I'm not sure who would still be 'House Osgrey' to restore any lands to? Unless they had a union in which Eustrace kept his Osgrey name, but that also doesn't seem to match up with him being referred to as 'Lord Webber' after their marriage in the Sworn Sword. Edit: Sorry, I'm bad at this! Turns out he was referred to as Lord Eustace Osgrey even after the matrilineal marriage to Rohanne Webber, but then this means his line (House Osgrey) would've gone extinct with their union.
  7. Perhaps something that seems a bit concerning or might indicate an answer is that House Osgrey (unlike Webber) is not mentioned anymore in any of the books after the Sworn Sword. Could House Osgrey (a knightly house) have gone extinct when that marriage took place? But he had a son. So that seems unlikely as well. So the most plausible explanation I can understand in that particular situation would then be for Edwyn Osgrey (the first son) to be made the Knight of Standfast and given it's holding, while the lands remained under House Webber 'control'. (Sorry, last track of the fact that he died during the Blackfyre Rebellion).
  8. Hey everyone. I've a quick question for the better read people on this forum. What would customarily have happened to the lands and holdings of Lady Rohanne Webber and Ser Eustace Osgrey when they got married at the end of the Sworn Sword. The novella mentions: Which seems to imply that the lands and holdings 'merged'. Would this only be temporarily until Lord Eustace Webber (formerly Osgrey) would have perhaps a second male son to be given Standfast? I've a similar question for how the Manderly - Hornwood marriage would've gone. Lord Manderly seems to imply he wants to marry the Hornwood widow and "make her a Manderly again". But what would happen to the Hornwood lands, would they become Manderly lands. Would House Hornwood go extinct with it? Or would it perhaps be given to a potential new son born from the union (although I believe Lady Hornwood was considered 'no longer in her fertile years' as Maester Luwin put it?)
  9. Hey everyone. Another question from me regarding the practical daily life of nobles in Westeros. I'm someone who is heavily involved in running RP communities so at times I stumble upon things which don't always often hold obvious answers. This week I stumbled upon the not entirely clear issue of how wide the authority of the head and lord of a House and thus his family would extend regarding betrothals and marriage contracts. It is obvious that it extends to younger siblings and their own children, but does it extend to their uncles, their nephews, nieces and cousins too? I've did some basic research so far via various sources and the general conclusion seems to be that the lord of the House would hold all the power in decision making for betrothals for his family. ASOIAF University mentions: "the true head of an individual’s House is still going to have decisionmaking power over his or her fate, including presumably marriage" (source: http://asoiafuniversity.tumblr.com/post/160655645025/did-jon-arryn-have-any-control-over-the-marriage ) GRRM also answered a question related to this: However our own common sense would persuade us to think that a father would have the final say over whether or not whom his children get to marry, even if they are not the head of the House. GRRM also specifically only mentions "own children and unmarried younger siblings." From the top of my head I can recall Kevan Lannister who seemed to be sorting his own matchmaking for his son Lancel Lannister. But part of me would also believe that he would've interfered if a bad match had been proposed or made. However, I'd also think Kevan to be wise enough to discuss and consult such a matter with Tywin anyhow. But then when Tywin passed, would it fall on Tommen to make such a decision? The man did not seem to put much fate into the wisdom of the remaining Lannisters. It is however also worth noting that Kevan Lannister was not the typical 'uncle' example, the man held his own land, household knights and taxes - where as most uncles would be landless, without their own income, etc. The books are also sprinkled with examples of cousins and nephews of noble families with fathers and mothers who did not seem all that bright or all that well guided. Podrick Payne comes to mind, whose mother seemingly eloped with a bard and a father who didn't seem to make the most responsible choices for his child either. So the mainline family often didn't seem all that involved or bothered with what the cousins were up to, cousin-lines almost seem to have a certain stigma attached to them of being 'less', being free loaders, drunks, idiots, etc. As the ASOIAF University earlier link shows there apparently is the example of Jon Arryn who might've even discussed the possible matches for Ned Stark whom he fostered, so everything seems a bit blurry. Can it be this is mostly a case by case thing? Even if while technically the ultimate authority lies with the head of the house?
  10. Hey, thank you all for feedback on this question. I've been reading the replies throughout the week, and wouldn't want anyone to think I merely posted and then vanished again without thanking you all for your insights!
  11. Question is in the title. Say for example: 1. Lord Arryn stabs a commoner in King's Landing after a dispute (without it being self-defense) 2. Lord Arryn stabs Lord Hornwood in King's Landing 3. Lord Arryn stabs one of his own bannerlords in King's Landing 4. Lord Arryn stabs one of his own bannerlords in King's Landing after the latter publicly declares sedition against his liege What do you envision the consequences would be for those outlined scenarios? Would the law of King's Landing come down on the man? Did he even break any laws to begin with? In know that in the feudal ages it was described that nobility was not subject to any laws, and that for example violence and feuds were a part of their noble rights.
  12. Hey there, I'm a long-time lurker, first time poster, and these boards have often been a good source of information along with A Wiki of Ice and Fire. Trying to gather correct information on the workings of Westeros and it's laws and customs is quite important to me as I'm a very active ASOIAF role player and spend most of my spare time on it in an online community. Certain laws aren't entirely clear to me though and despite a good search through the books and various sites (including this forum) I haven't been able to find an answer to the following question: What happens to the land and keep(s) of a House when the last family member dies? The assumption my role play community currently goes by is that the lands become owned by the crown, who can then decide to hand it out to whomever they'd like. But I kinda always felt that this creates a bit of conflict with the Lord Paramounts of a region. Say for example lands in the Reach fall without owner and the crown decides to hand it to a close friend in King's Landing, it might perhaps annoy the Tyrells that they suddenly have to accept a vassal in their region whom they're not entirely agreeable with?