Landless younger sons

[rmanoj]

Is it realistic that someone like Kevan Lannister would be a mere knight in his brother's household, without lands or a lordship of his own? I can understand why this might be the case for the younger sons of lesser houses, but each great house controls territory that is at least comparable in size and population to a medieval European kingdom in real life. I don't think the younger sons of medieval kings were ever landless - they tended to be great dukes and earls with extensive holdings. This does not appear to be the case in Westeros. I don't think this is just the result of people being afraid that these younger sons would establish cadet branches that might become too powerful and threaten the main line. I recall someone in the books discussing Loras Tyrell joining the Kingsguard and claiming that this was not such a bad thing, as finding lands for a third son was never easy (I don't remember where I read this). Difficult for your average lord? Sure. Difficult for Mace Tyrell? I don't understand how. Maybe Westeros just has a very high density of lords so that even the great houses don't have much land to split among their sons?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

The Lannisters have ruled for thousands of years. Their lands would have to be unlimited if every generation they gave away lands to younger sons.

Kevan would have been better off as Tywin's right hand man rather than having some minor lands. We are told in the Sworn Sword;

"You would lose your wager, good-brother. Gerold will never willingly forsake the pleasures of Lannisport and the splendor of Casterly Rock for some little lordship. He has more influence as Lord Tybolt's brother and adviser than he could ever hope for as my husband."

And of course we know Kevan did not lack for independence.

"I hold no lands, that is true. But I have certain incomes, and chests of coin set aside. My own father forgot none of his children when he died, and Tywin knew how to reward good service. I feed two hundred knights and can double that number if need be. There are freeriders who will follow my banner, and I have the gold to hire sellswords. You would be wise not to take me lightly, Your Grace . . . and wiser still not to make of me a foe."

 

[Lord Lannister]

Eh, it wouldn't exactly be practical for a great house to build a castle and divide up their lands for every single son. Suddenly the great house isn't so great after a couple of generations of that.

[The Mountain That Flies]

Some people prefer to just be aunts and uncles instead of having their own kids, as the overall responsibility would be too much for them.

In the same way, plenty of second sons could see the value in just being advisers for their lordly older brother. You get a good chunk of the glory and luxury with way less of a headache.

[Tarellen]

3 hours ago, rmanoj said:

Is it realistic that someone like Kevan Lannister would be a mere knight in his brother's household, without lands or a lordship of his own? I can understand why this might be the case for the younger sons of lesser houses, but each great house controls territory that is at least comparable in size and population to a medieval European kingdom in real life. I don't think the younger sons of medieval kings were ever landless - they tended to be great dukes and earls with extensive holdings. This does not appear to be the case in Westeros. I don't think this is just the result of people being afraid that these younger sons would establish cadet branches that might become too powerful and threaten the main line. I recall someone in the books discussing Loras Tyrell joining the Kingsguard and claiming that this was not such a bad thing, as finding lands for a third son was never easy (I don't remember where I read this). Difficult for your average lord? Sure. Difficult for Mace Tyrell? I don't understand how. Maybe Westeros just has a very high density of lords so that even the great houses don't have much land to split among their sons?

While the bulk of estate would go to the eldest younger non celabit sons of kings would be made powerful barons in there own right. So the great house of westeros either have limited land holdings or Martian is being unrealistic with younger sons

[SeanF]

Is it realistic that someone like Kevan Lannister would be a mere knight in his brother's household, without lands or a lordship of his own? I can understand why this might be the case for the younger sons of lesser houses, but each great house controls territory that is at least comparable in size and population to a medieval European kingdom in real life. I don't think the younger sons of medieval kings were ever landless - they tended to be great dukes and earls with extensive holdings. This does not appear to be the case in Westeros. I don't think this is just the result of people being afraid that these younger sons would establish cadet branches that might become too powerful and threaten the main line. I recall someone in the books discussing Loras Tyrell joining the Kingsguard and claiming that this was not such a bad thing, as finding lands for a third son was never easy (I don't remember where I read this). Difficult for your average lord? Sure. Difficult for Mace Tyrell? I don't understand how. Maybe Westeros just has a very high density of lords so that even the great houses don't have much land to split among their sons?

While the bulk of estate would go to the eldest younger non celabit sons of kings would be made powerful barons in there own right. So the great house of westeros either have limited land holdings or Martian is being unrealistic with younger sons

There were countries where great estates were sub-divided into ever smaller shares among successive generations, and countries which had primogeniture. Westeros is the latter.

The Starks give younger children holdfasts, with lands attached, but presumably the bulk goes to the eldest. Younger daughters get no land, but do get doweries, on marriage. The Lannisters have so much ready cash they can give younger children cash, rather than lands. Ser Kevan could have bought land, had he wished.

The Tyrells clearly give everything to the eldest. Mace Tyrell's uncle is Captain of the Oldtown City Guard, a relatively humble position for the son of a Lord Paramount.

Some younger children become Maesters, Septons/Septas or take the Black.

We can assume that younger children of Great Houses are usually comfortably off and/or have good marriages arranged for them, but the bulk of the family wealth goes to a single (usually male) heir.

Thinking specifically of Loras, I don't doubt that Mace could find a few thousand acres of land for him, but then, his future would be that of a petty lord or well to do knight. Loras serving in the Kingsguard is more prestigious for the Tyrells, and gives them another powerful voice at Court.

[Tarellen]

8 minutes ago, SeanF said:

While the bulk of estate would go to the eldest younger non celabit sons of kings would be made powerful barons in there own right. So the great house of westeros either have limited land holdings or Martian is being unrealistic with younger sons

 

There were countries where great estates were sub-divided into ever smaller shares among successive generations, and countries which had primogeniture. Westeros is the latter.

The Starks give younger children holdfasts, with lands attached, but presumably the bulk goes to the eldest. Younger daughters get no land, but do get doweries, on marriage. The Lannisters have so much ready cash they can give younger children cash, rather than lands. Ser Kevan could have bought land, had he wished.

The Tyrells clearly give everything to the eldest. Mace Tyrell's uncle is Captain of the Oldtown City Guard, a relatively humble position for the son of a Lord Paramount.

Some younger children become Maesters, Septons/Septas or take the Black.

We can assume that younger children of Great Houses are usually comfortably off and/or have good marriages arranged for them, but the bulk of the family wealth goes to a single (usually male) heir.

Yeah all or bulk goes to the eldest in primogeniture but still for the great house and the royal family they could make there younger sons powerful lords and still give the bulk to there heir. I guess the tyrells don't do it because there cheap and insecure

[SeanF]

While the bulk of estate would go to the eldest younger non celabit sons of kings would be made powerful barons in there own right. So the great house of westeros either have limited land holdings or Martian is being unrealistic with younger sons

There were countries where great estates were sub-divided into ever smaller shares among successive generations, and countries which had primogeniture. Westeros is the latter.

The Starks give younger children holdfasts, with lands attached, but presumably the bulk goes to the eldest. Younger daughters get no land, but do get doweries, on marriage. The Lannisters have so much ready cash they can give younger children cash, rather than lands. Ser Kevan could have bought land, had he wished.

The Tyrells clearly give everything to the eldest. Mace Tyrell's uncle is Captain of the Oldtown City Guard, a relatively humble position for the son of a Lord Paramount.

Some younger children become Maesters, Septons/Septas or take the Black.

We can assume that younger children of Great Houses are usually comfortably off and/or have good marriages arranged for them, but the bulk of the family wealth goes to a single (usually male) heir.

Yeah all or bulk goes to the eldest in primogeniture but still for the great house and the royal family they could make there younger sons powerful lords and still give the bulk to there heir. I guess the tyrells don't do it because there cheap and insecure

I don't know if a Lord Paramount can create lesser lordships or if only the King can award them. If the latter, making your younger sons modest landowners with no rights of jurisdiction isn't doing them many favours. Even if you are made a lord, you'd be a minor lord.

In all likelihood, you have more power and prestige if you're a younger son who's castellan of Casterly Rock, or Highgarden, or representing your family at Court, or acting as your family's battle commander, than you ever would as a petty lord.

[Lord Varys]

There is a very obvious flaw in the entire conception of this series. If we are to buy that certain noble families survive the insane amount of thousands of years pretty much unscathed and still in charge of their ancestral castles (something for which there is no example in real world history, really) then those noble lines have to be especially fertile. That means there would have to be a huge amount of cadet branches of all the major noble houses everywhere in their territories. The idea that all those cadet branches that must have developed all conveniently died is even less likely than the assumption that such noble houses even existed.

The second son problem is essentially part of that problem. There are places where this kind of thing is less obvious than in others. For instance, we know that Casterly Rock is a insanely huge castle, and its wealth should be enough support an entire army of Lannisters. We know that many Lannister cousins still live in Casterly Rock, branches that are rather removed from the main line. We may not have learned all their names yet.

While the lordship goes to the eldest son, this doesn't mean all the other lions get nothing. They may all have incomes granted to them by their lordly fathers, grandfathers, uncles, cousins, etc. Rich houses like the Lannisters, Tyrells, Hightowers, etc. can afford that. Others, too, although on a much smaller level. We know there are many Arryns in the Vale, and many great houses like the Manderlys or the Martells have their cousins serve them in important offices.

In the case of the Tyrells, for instance, we know that being a cousin to Mace Tyrell doesn't mean you are far removed from wealth and prestige. Lazy Leo is Mace's cousin, the son of Moryn Tyrell, the Lord Commander of the City Watch of Oldtown, and he is both rich and well-connected. Most likely because he has incomes of his own, as does his father.

A weird situation in Westeros is, of course, that no king ever seems to ennoble his younger sons and grant them great seats and lordships taken from some enemy or rebel. Not to mention that they could serve their lordly brothers and fathers in other capacities, say, as royal or lordly officials, as tenants/vassals who are granted fiefs for a limited time and such, but this all doesn't seem to be the case (or is at least no flashed out).

The only hint in that direction we get is that Bran is apparently supposed to command some holdfast in the name of the Starks when he is a man grown.

[SeanF]

There is a very obvious flaw in the entire conception of this series. If we are to buy that certain noble families survive the insane amount of thousands of years pretty much unscathed and still in charge of their ancestral castles (something for which there is no example in real world history, really) then those noble lines have to be especially fertile. That means there would have to be a huge amount of cadet branches of all the major noble houses everywhere in their territories. The idea that all those cadet branches that must have developed all conveniently died is even less likely than the assumption that such noble houses even existed.

The second son problem is essentially part of that problem. There are places where this kind of thing is less obvious than in others. For instance, we know that Casterly Rock is a insanely huge castle, and its wealth should be enough support an entire army of Lannisters. We know that many Lannister cousins still live in Casterly Rock, branches that are rather removed from the main line. We may not have learned all their names yet.

While the lordship goes to the eldest son, this doesn't mean all the other lions get nothing. They may all have incomes granted to them by their lordly fathers, grandfathers, uncles, cousins, etc. Rich houses like the Lannisters, Tyrells, Hightowers, etc. can afford that. Others, too, although on a much smaller level. We know there are many Arryns in the Vale, and many great houses like the Manderlys or the Martells have their cousins serve them in important offices.

In the case of the Tyrells, for instance, we know that being a cousin to Mace Tyrell doesn't mean you are far removed from wealth and prestige. Lazy Leo is Mace's cousin, the son of Moryn Tyrell, the Lord Commander of the City Watch of Oldtown, and he is both rich and well-connected. Most likely because he has incomes of his own, as does his father.

A weird situation in Westeros is, of course, that no king ever seems to ennoble his younger sons and grant them great seats and lordships taken from some enemy or rebel. Not to mention that they could serve their lordly brothers and fathers in other capacities, say, as royal or lordly officials, as tenants/vassals who are granted fiefs for a limited time and such, but this all doesn't seem to be the case (or is at least no flashed out).

The only hint in that direction we get is that Bran is apparently supposed to command some holdfast in the name of the Starks when he is a man grown.

I expect that in reality, the longevity of many Great Houses is mythical, and they've been around for hundreds, not thousands of years. I expect too, that many of them have died out in the direct line, and titles and lands have passed to cousins, who kept the family name.

[Veloknight]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

I expect that in reality, the longevity of many Great Houses is mythical, and they've been around for hundreds, not thousands of years. I expect too, that many of them have died out in the direct line, and titles and lands have passed to cousins, who kept the family name.

Agreed on both counts. I tend to remove an order of magnitude and put the youngest Andal kingdoms at ~800 years (which is much more in line with the known history of Valyria), and the still-remembered First Men kingdoms at ~2000 years (which puts the Starks on par or a little better than the oldest royal and imperial monarchies in the world) - impressive, but it's likely the Starks have had a number of extinctions and various cousins / female-line claimants resuming the line. Given the seemingly small number of houses in the North, it's likely every great Nothern house has very strong blood ties to Winterfell. With the exception of the Boltons, we could expect literally any of them to be able to claim Winterfell in a true vacancy, point to some recent Stark ancestry, and take the name "Stark" - and the Boltons likely could, too, and are merely the only Northern house that would probably stick with their current name.

I do think, given the vastness of Westeros, it's odd that we don't see more second sons being made powerful barons. I often wonder if the origins of Westerosi feudalism are much different than historical feudalism - if, perhaps, it was instead an outgrowth of tribal leaders (petty kings) carving up subordinate kingdoms for minor heirs, whose houses eventually gained their own names and nobility. Envisioning a more tribal history of the earlier 'kings" for much of Westeros (esp. the time of 100 kingdoms) certainly makes a more interesting picture.

I'd love to see an alternate timeline for Westeros based on a more plausible human timescale and the assumption that, as in our time, histories tend to get expanded and distorted and it's fair to assume GRRM would do the same in-world. 2k years seems like a reasonable amount of time for the events that are commonly referenced in myth to occur, explains why they are fuzzy in detail but remain remembered, and more importantly connects the big events of the world much more tightly to the known behavior and history of Valyria.

[devilish]

Second brothers were still heirs until the first born had a male child and even then, with so many sicknesses that cannot be cured he would still be relevant. It would be unwise for the first born to give his brother too many lands as he may turn against him if the right scenario occur. Having said that it would also be unwise to treat them badly as they are from noble birth (hence they can be used to seal alliances), they were well taught (in an age were education and martial training was somehow rare) and their fortune rest on the fortune of the house itself. 

Usually second brothers would cover roles of great importance (governors, castellans, generals etc) which would give them a steady income and they would marry off rich people/bannermen's daughters whose fathers would want to increase their own influence with the Lord. Things start getting tougher the further you go from the main branch.

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, SeanF said:

I expect that in reality, the longevity of many Great Houses is mythical, and they've been around for hundreds, not thousands of years. I expect too, that many of them have died out in the direct line, and titles and lands have passed to cousins, who kept the family name.

The First Men houses and the oldest Andal houses most certainly have to be there for thousands of years. Anything else doesn't make any sense in light of the historical documented accounts.

The interconnectedness with the second sons and the ancient lines is that the the male and female cadet branches really would have multiplied over such long periods of time. Just one glance at the Targaryen and the Stark family tree shows how many noble lines in the North and the Realm have claims to Winterfell and the Iron Throne.

And while one can reasonably say that second or third cousins of a great lord through the male line would keep the name of the house, the idea that a Hunter marrying the daughter and heiress of a Lord Royce would give her name rather than his own to their children who would Runestone after her is much less certain. After all, both names are ancient and noble, and Westeros is a patriarchal society.

A lot of houses simply would have been taken over by other lines, and there would be pretty much no reason why the hell they wouldn't have used their own names.

[SeanF]

I expect that in reality, the longevity of many Great Houses is mythical, and they've been around for hundreds, not thousands of years. I expect too, that many of them have died out in the direct line, and titles and lands have passed to cousins, who kept the family name.

The First Men houses and the oldest Andal houses most certainly have to be there for thousands of years. Anything else doesn't make any sense in light of the historical documented accounts.

The interconnectedness with the second sons and the ancient lines is that the the male and female cadet branches really would have multiplied over such long periods of time. Just one glance at the Targaryen and the Stark family tree shows how many noble lines in the North and the Realm have claims to Winterfell and the Iron Throne.

And while one can reasonably say that second or third cousins of a great lord through the male line would keep the name of the house, the idea that a Hunter marrying the daughter and heiress of a Lord Royce would give her name rather than his own to their children who would Runestone after her is much less certain. After all, both names are ancient and noble, and Westeros is a patriarchal society.

A lot of houses simply would have been taken over by other lines, and there would be pretty much no reason why the hell they wouldn't have used their own names.

I view a lot of the historical claims as being in the same light as the Wuffingas of East Anglia claiming to be descended from Woden, Tyr, and Thor.

[Tarellen]

On February 5, 2016 at 1:53 AM, devilish said:

Second brothers were still heirs until the first born had a male child and even then, with so many sicknesses that cannot be cured he would still be relevant. It would be unwise for the first born to give his brother too many lands as he may turn against him if the right scenario occur. Having said that it would also be unwise to treat them badly as they are from noble birth (hence they can be used to seal alliances), they were well taught (in an age were education and martial training was somehow rare) and their fortune rest on the fortune of the house itself. 

Usually second brothers would cover roles of great importance (governors, castellans, generals etc) which would give them a steady income and they would marry off rich people/bannermen's daughters whose fathers would want to increase their own influence with the Lord. Things start getting tougher the further you go from the main branch.

Yeah but for the lord paramounts second son they would also be given estate from the family to support them selves if there anything like historical royalty 

[thelittledragonthatcould]

3 minutes ago, Tarellen said:

Yeah but for the lord paramounts second son they would also be given estate from the family to support them selves if there anything like historical royalty 

Perhaps at one time, hundreds of yeats ago, they did and they either were spread to far thin in regards to land or there was one to many rebellions were a brother or his children tried to overthrow one of the old Kings.

Or perhaps that, unlike our mediaeval period, the Andals who came to Westeros simply did not like that custom.

Westeros is not an exact parallel to our own medieval period. Some customs will have developed differently to our historical royalty.

[Jak Scaletongue]

On 2016-02-05 at 7:59 AM, SeanF said:

The First Men houses and the oldest Andal houses most certainly have to be there for thousands of years. Anything else doesn't make any sense in light of the historical documented accounts.

The interconnectedness with the second sons and the ancient lines is that the the male and female cadet branches really would have multiplied over such long periods of time. Just one glance at the Targaryen and the Stark family tree shows how many noble lines in the North and the Realm have claims to Winterfell and the Iron Throne.

And while one can reasonably say that second or third cousins of a great lord through the male line would keep the name of the house, the idea that a Hunter marrying the daughter and heiress of a Lord Royce would give her name rather than his own to their children who would Runestone after her is much less certain. After all, both names are ancient and noble, and Westeros is a patriarchal society.

A lot of houses simply would have been taken over by other lines, and there would be pretty much no reason why the hell they wouldn't have used their own names.

 

I view a lot of the historical claims as being in the same light as the Wuffingas of East Anglia claiming to be descended from Woden, Tyr, and Thor.

I suppose, in the end, it would depend on the marriage contract.  If the hypothetical Royce heiress is marrying a younger Hunter son and Daddy Royce insists (INSISTS, I tell you! lol) that the condition of this marriage is that the Royce name will carry on in Runestone, young Hunter has two options - agree, and his children will carry on the Royce name as per Daddy Royce's wishes (and likely Lady Royce's as well), or refuse and don't marry Lady Royce.  Daddy *could* always find someone lower down who will agree - and young Hunter's older brother (or father) may well prefer to have the family connection, regardless of what the kids are to be called. 

And as a House as ancient and noble as both Hunter and Royce are, House Hunter may feel it's worth it to agree to Daddy Royce's terms on this occasion in order to ensure that in the event the Hunter's only have a daughter to inherit, the Royce's may offer a second or third son on the same or similar conditions House Hunter is currently agreeing to.

At the end of the day though, I suspect that there any number of reason why one House would agree to help another House maintain the traditional name of the House.  Between politics, rivalries, personal feelings, historic amity or enmity, environment, the current season, etc, etc, etc it would all come into effect when making a decision like that - and what one generation agreed to under one set of circumstances, another generation under a different set of circumstances may refuse.  What worked for House Hunter and Royce 100 years ago might not have worked out the same way 250 years ago.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

On 4.02.2016 at 6:22 PM, thelittledragonthatcould said:

The Lannisters have ruled for thousands of years. Their lands would have to be unlimited if every generation they gave away lands to younger sons.

If they gave out hereditary lands. But there's no such objective obstacles against giving out appanages. That's how they called the mechanism of providing second sons with some land without the risk of splitting the domain into smaller and smaller pieces. Like, in France, Monsieur (the king's oldest brother, usually) would hold the Duchy of Orleans.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

6 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

If they gave out hereditary lands. But there's no such objective obstacles against giving out appanages. That's how they called the mechanism of providing second sons with some land without the risk of splitting the domain into smaller and smaller pieces. Like, in France, Monsieur (the king's oldest brother, usually) would hold the Duchy of Orleans.

Perhaps there is something similar to that then and that is what Kevan is alluding to when he tells Cersei he can look after himself.

"I hold no lands, that is true. But I have certain incomes, and chests of coin set aside. My own father forgot none of his children when he died, and Tywin knew how to reward good service. I feed two hundred knights and can double that number if need be."

It is also implied that Stafford would be due some kind of inheritance as well

Two of the captives were Lannisters of Lannisport, distant kin to the Lannisters of Casterly Rock, but the third was a young squire, Stafford Lannister, the eldest son and heir of Lord Tytos's late brother, Ser Jason.

So perhaps something was set aside for the sons of the Lords of the Rock (and their children).

[devilish]

1 hour ago, Tarellen said:

Yeah but for the lord paramounts second son they would also be given estate from the family to support them selves if there anything like historical royalty 

Does he need that? Lets say Tarallen is Devilish Lannister's younger brother. Dad is not 100% sure that I will treat you fair so he had given you enough money to support yourself and your future family  if needed (not an estate because if I am an Ahole I'll strip that away from you, so he gave you money to flee if necessary).

Now assuming we've got a decent relationship then I'll probably give you a position of trust. Why shouldn't I? You well educated, fiercely loyal to the family and you're basically taught since birth to treat the Lord Paramount with respect. Also friction between us will be interpreted as weakness by our bannermen and instability to our realm. That's not good for the business. Therefore its only fair that I'll give you a position of trust (possibly that of a castellan or advisor). That means free accommodation in the castle for you and your future family on top of a huge salary. Your position makes you in constant contact with me. Your future wife will become my wife's friend, you will mingle with me everyday and our future children will live together. Hence loads of noblemen and merchants would court your hand to have their daughter marrying you and hence have a permanent indirect link to me. That means a huge dowry to you (which may include lands) and your new step dad/brother in law will make sure to be extremely friendly with you else his advantage may easily turn into a huge disadvantage (imagine if your step dad decides not to treat you fair, you could easily whisper nasty stuff to me and guess whom I would believe?)

A Lord Paramount second son doesn't need an estate. Its given to him because he's who he is