Lucailduca

Same person, two lordships. Is it possible?

53 posts in this topic

Just now, LadyoftheNorth72 said:

If the war hadn't happened and Edmure had died without issue, Robb would have been heir to both Riverrun and Winterfell. That's the best postulate I can think of right now. 

yes and no, I think that most likely in the position, Robb passes Riverrun on to Bran (assuming the war didn't happen like you say)

So yes, it would be Robb's if he wanted it but I would assume most families with multiple children would rather a second son become Lord and raise the affluence of the entire House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dickon will only be lord of horn hill. His wife will be lady of maiden pool. Surely dickon can rule two places, but he rules maidenpool by the name of his wife. He is not official lord of maidenpool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

Dickon will only be lord of horn hill. His wife will be lady of maiden pool. Surely dickon can rule two places, but he rules maidenpool by the name of his wife. He is not official lord of maidenpool. 

You think so? I'm not sure, since westeros society is pretty sexist. Shouldn't his wife become lady Tarly and rules nothing?

Anyway let's assume you are right: the problem would arise later with their son and heir (unless they have more than one)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lucailduca said:

You think so? I'm not sure, since westeros society is pretty sexist. Shouldn't his wife become lady Tarly and rules nothing?

Anyway let's assume you are right: the problem would arise later with their son and heir (unless they have more than one)

If they only have one child, then yes, this person will be a lord of horn hill and maidenpool at the same time, inherited from his parents.  It is up to him if he wants to split them to his future children or remain as a united lordship. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as a practice, double lordships are frowned upon in westeros...the crown does not want power to be consolidated in one house and the other rival nobles would not tolerate it either...the balance between the lords,lords paramount andthe king depends that the lesser lords do not grow their dominions..even were it legal, eventually the lordship would be split again by political and military pressure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, most prolly name a relative to rule the other castle as castellan, thus creating a cadet branch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't Ramsay be Lord of both Winterfell and Hornwood? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

Dickon will only be lord of horn hill. His wife will be lady of maiden pool. Surely dickon can rule two places, but he rules maidenpool by the name of his wife. He is not official lord of maidenpool. 

This is what I was thinking as well. If Eleanor is the  Mooten heir, she would be Lady Mooten, wife of Lord Tarly, and then whichever child inherits from her could either keep the name Mooten, the way Doran and is siblings are still Martells even though it was their mother who ruled, or become House Tarly of Maidenpool, similar to the various Royce, Flint, Frey, etc. lords are styled.

24 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Wouldn't Ramsay be Lord of both Winterfell and Hornwood? 

Well, Ramsay certainly thinks so ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Wouldn't Ramsay be Lord of both Winterfell and Hornwood? 

That's what I was thinking, but isn't this sort of problem quite common in Westeros?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Wouldn't Ramsay be Lord of both Winterfell and Hornwood? 

He's a tricky example. The reason he marries Fake Arya is because he needs a legit-ish claim to hold Winterfell. So while he rules it for now, his heirs would rule because of their supposed Stark blood. Hornwood he gained because he married Lady Hornwood at sword point. Technically it should be given to her closet blood heir (a Tallhart I believe) but being LP and a whole Civil War as a distractor they've managed to gobble that piece up.

At the end of the day. He could give three sons a castle each (if he inheritis the dreadfort) or one son three castles.

It's important to remember inheritances laws are legal/civil laws. Not immutable laws of nature. They are subject to reinterpretation, bending, wrangling and all other things. There is some case law but that's it.

Edited by GallowsKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way It seems odd to me that the shield of the house depicts the three castles they owned even if the house is way older than the acquisition of the three seats: form Florys the Fox to Lorimar Peake that won Manderley's castle, what was their symbol? One castle? two castle?

It's not unheard of for a house to change their sigil. Once again, Littlefinger's an example.

In the particular case of the Peakes, I could see whoever the Lord Peake that ruled when they acquired their second castle take on the two castles as his personal sigil, then his heirs just went with that because they thought it was cool/cooler than whatever their original sigil was.

And then when they got the third, it just kinda made sense surely.

This thing about personal sigils becoming the actual sigil of cadet branches has always got me wondering a bit. If Egg never ascended to the throne, and it just stayed in Baelor's branch or whosever else, would his sigil have been the four red dragons of Maekar? I mean obviously he could have devised his own personal sigil, but if House Targaryen of Summerhall perdured, would their sigil have become Maekar's? That is, assuming Summerhall was to be given to Maekar's heirs, which has not been established I think (I mean it could have been more of a "Prince of Dragonstone" thing where the ruling King decides just which of his kin he slaps the title on)

Another really interesting thing, imo, is the Karstark sigil, as it really has NOTHING to do with a direwolf, haha. Are we ever given a backstory for the sunburst btw?

In any case, they're definitely another example of a house changing their sigil at some point along the way as Karl Stark's would have been the grey direwolf on white.

(Sorry about the not-so-slight off topic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roddy Darwin said:

(Sorry about the not-so-slight off topic)

No need at all. I thought it was very interesting!!!

 

3 hours ago, Roddy Darwin said:

That is, assuming Summerhall was to be given to Maekar's heirs, which has not been established I think (I mean it could have been more of a "Prince of Dragonstone" thing where the ruling King decides just which of his kin he slaps the title on)

I think it's not something you choose: the heir to the throne used to become Prince of Dragonstone (like the prince of Wales in the UK) while the second in line to be king or any other younger offspring, became Prince of Summerhall (like the duke of Cambridge or York for example) untill the unfamous tragedy. But the title stays in the family I suppose, without originating new houses: when the prince of Dragonstone becomes king, then a new prince arises, as well as new heirs with new titles. Maekar was granted the castle the same way Rhaegar was granted Dragonstone: it's implied one day they will return it to house Targaryen. By the way, they already are royalty: I don't think they mind being lord, given that every lord in the realm bows in front of them.

Uhm I can't even guess the reason behind Karlstark's choice of their sigil... the sun of winter, ok.... but it's a long way from the direwolf!

Edited by Lucailduca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Roddy Darwin said:

It's not unheard of for a house to change their sigil. Once again, Littlefinger's an example.

In the particular case of the Peakes, I could see whoever the Lord Peake that ruled when they acquired their second castle take on the two castles as his personal sigil, then his heirs just went with that because they thought it was cool/cooler than whatever their original sigil was.

And then when they got the third, it just kinda made sense surely.

This thing about personal sigils becoming the actual sigil of cadet branches has always got me wondering a bit. If Egg never ascended to the throne, and it just stayed in Baelor's branch or whosever else, would his sigil have been the four red dragons of Maekar? I mean obviously he could have devised his own personal sigil, but if House Targaryen of Summerhall perdured, would their sigil have become Maekar's? That is, assuming Summerhall was to be given to Maekar's heirs, which has not been established I think (I mean it could have been more of a "Prince of Dragonstone" thing where the ruling King decides just which of his kin he slaps the title on)

Another really interesting thing, imo, is the Karstark sigil, as it really has NOTHING to do with a direwolf, haha. Are we ever given a backstory for the sunburst btw?

In any case, they're definitely another example of a house changing their sigil at some point along the way as Karl Stark's would have been the grey direwolf on white.

(Sorry about the not-so-slight off topic)

To throw yet another spanner into the works, Egg could probably have kept Maekar's sigil when he ascended the throne - see Rhaenyra's Seahorse/Dragons sigil (which has to be one of my favourites I might add). From what I recall of the Dance, she seems to adopt that rather than the traditional Targaryen three headed dragon alone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Rhaenyra's case, I thought it was another case of just a personal sigil. In this case, it makes a lot of sense to chose to display that one instead of the traditional Targ banner since both claimants can legally fly it. We also see Aegon II using a golden dragon, but I assumed both were probably thinking they'd go back to the good old red three headed dragon once they're done killing each other and the dust settles.

In fact, wouldn't it be kind of good PR not to do that? Sure, Corlys probably liked the seahorse/dragon a bunch, but in the eyes of the smallfolk, wouldn't it maybe make her seem like maybe less of a real Targaryen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roddy Darwin said:

In fact, wouldn't it be kind of good PR not to do that? Sure, Corlys probably liked the seahorse/dragon a bunch, but in the eyes of the smallfolk, wouldn't it maybe make her seem like maybe less of a real Targaryen?

Well, the Velaryon are from Valryia and they were dragonriders... plus every Targaryen shares their blood, since they intermarried a lot of times. Maybe the quarter of the sigil showing the falcon of house Arryn to honor Rhaenyra's mother could have been more problematic, but let's remember Aegon's mother was a Hightower. I don't know about the pr but I agree it's one of the best sigill ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree that all things considered, the Velaryon sigil does have its place in Rhaenyra's. Not only because of the reasons you mentioned, nor because of Corlys being a pretty badass dude in his own right at the time of the Dance (nor even because I think I'm a bit of a Velaryon/Celtigar fanboy myself) but because it can also symbolize the fact that Rhaneyra's heirs will also be Laenor's, therefore Rhaenys', and thus her claim ultimately reconciles both main claimants of 101.

However, my thinking was that I assume for most of the people she hopes to rule, when thinking about their King/Queen, 'all things' might not be considered. While lords and maesters might like to consider all these things, and know exactly how great the Velaryons are, I think for a lot of the smallfolk, things might be a lot simpler. There are the Targs, and they're the ones that rule us, and then there's them other guys want to rule us, and they're often the cousin of something something Targ, but them's not the real deal, are they? The Targs have them banners with a red three headed dragon on them. And what the hell is that thing anyway? Seahorse? Son, I seen lots of horses in my time, but none of em came from no see, and they sure as hell didn't look like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roddy Darwin said:

In Rhaenyra's case, I thought it was another case of just a personal sigil. In this case, it makes a lot of sense to chose to display that one instead of the traditional Targ banner since both claimants can legally fly it. We also see Aegon II using a golden dragon, but I assumed both were probably thinking they'd go back to the good old red three headed dragon once they're done killing each other and the dust settles.

In fact, wouldn't it be kind of good PR not to do that? Sure, Corlys probably liked the seahorse/dragon a bunch, but in the eyes of the smallfolk, wouldn't it maybe make her seem like maybe less of a real Targaryen?

There is no doubt as to Rhaenyra's Targaryen status, she is undoubtedly a 'real' Targaryen. Doubts are cast by the Greens over the paternity of her children, so in that sense I think the Dragon/Seahorse banner makes sense, as it reinforces Laenor as the father of her children and denies the accusations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/02/2016 at 5:08 PM, Roddy Darwin said:

Another really interesting thing, imo, is the Karstark sigil, as it really has NOTHING to do with a direwolf, haha. Are we ever given a backstory for the sunburst btw?

It's never outright said. My theory is that it is a pun. In heraldry there is a thing called "Canting arms" which are a visual representation of a name or title through symbols and quite often using a pun.

Now the Karstarks, their house words are "The Sun of Winter". Makes sense a sun is their sigil. But the Karstarks are descended from a younger Stark son many thousands of years ago. The Starks were known as the Kings of Winter amongst their titles. Hence a Karstark is a "son/sun of winter". It's a pun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now