The Dustin succession crisis that apparently never was

[Canon Claude]

When Halys and Daryn Hornwood both perished in the War of the Five Kings, there immediately followed a succession crisis regarding who would inherit the Hornwood title. Lady Hornwood (not actually of any Hornwood blood) was past the age of having more children, and she was sick with grief, but men from all over the North offered to marry her if it meant ruling the Hornwood lands.

So with all that in mind, where was all that fuss when Lord Dustin perished before his time during Robert's Rebellion? 

The Dustins are apparently one of the most important houses of the North, definitely more so than House Hornwood. They control Barrowton, which is the second or third most important place in the North, depending on who you're asking.

And yet, with all that in mind, a woman who isn't born into the Dustins gets to rule House Dustin for the rest of her life without ever marrying or having children? Or, for all we know, never naming an heir?

I'm not saying that women have to marry or have children, mind you. I'm complaining that in the context of Westeros, it makes no sense that Barbrey Dustin could just go on ruling house Dustin despite not having a Dustin husband or a half Dustin child she's raising. Was there nobody related to Willam that objected? He had an uncle, apparently, but we never hear of any objections he may have had at Barbrey taking charge. And given the track record of Northern uncles, that makes Willam's uncle a rarity.

Did Eddard just feel too guilty about Willam that he let Barbrey rule as Lady Dustin? And if he did, why did nobody object or denounce that inaction for going against the usual process?

[velo-knight]

It may be that there are no other strong heirs to the Dustin lands, so Lady Dustin can rule them as a sort of placeholder. It's not a permanent solution - just as Ser Rodrik's offer to marry Lady Hornwood wouldn't have been a long-term solution - but it settles the immediate question of "who rules the Barrowlands right now".

Keep in mind Lady Barbrey would initially have the support of her father's Ryswell family, and by the time that fades with the death of her father she'd already be ensconced in Barrowton. At that point, if House Dustin is extinct in the male line, it might prove difficult to press a claim until she passes. Marriage might join her to another house, and threaten to take the inheritance away from house Dustin, so there may be an understanding with whatever heirs are in the mix that Barb can rule as long as she's unmarried.

[Lord Varys]

It seems that Barbrey would have dealt quite harshly with any fool who dared to challenge her claim to Barrowton. And she would have prevailed there if she had the backing of Winterfell and the Iron Throne.

It would not surprise me if more than one (distant) cousin of her husband disappeared without a trace or had a some mortal accident.

[Lord Varys]

52 minutes ago, velo-knight said:

It may be that there are no other strong heirs to the Dustin lands, so Lady Dustin can rule them as a sort of placeholder. It's not a permanent solution - just as Ser Rodrik's offer to marry Lady Hornwood wouldn't have been a long-term solution - but it settles the immediate question of "who rules the Barrowlands right now".

There is no reason to believe that Barbrey isn't the Lady Dustin of Barrowton, quite permanently. There are no heirs mentioned, nor are there any male Dustins in her service. It doesn't seem as if there is a clear heir presumptive to Barrowton right now, unlike the Arryn situation in the Vale.

[aryagonnakill#2]

1 hour ago, Canon Claude said:

When Halys and Daryn Hornwood both perished in the War of the Five Kings, there immediately followed a succession crisis regarding who would inherit the Hornwood title. Lady Hornwood (not actually of any Hornwood blood) was past the age of having more children, and she was sick with grief, but men from all over the North offered to marry her if it meant ruling the Hornwood lands.

So with all that in mind, where was all that fuss when Lord Dustin perished before his time during Robert's Rebellion? 

The Dustins are apparently one of the most important houses of the North, definitely more so than House Hornwood. They control Barrowton, which is the second or third most important place in the North, depending on who you're asking.

And yet, with all that in mind, a woman who isn't born into the Dustins gets to rule House Dustin for the rest of her life without ever marrying or having children? Or, for all we know, never naming an heir?

I'm not saying that women have to marry or have children, mind you. I'm complaining that in the context of Westeros, it makes no sense that Barbrey Dustin could just go on ruling house Dustin despite not having a Dustin husband or a half Dustin child she's raising. Was there nobody related to Willam that objected? He had an uncle, apparently, but we never hear of any objections he may have had at Barbrey taking charge. And given the track record of Northern uncles, that makes Willam's uncle a rarity.

Did Eddard just feel too guilty about Willam that he let Barbrey rule as Lady Dustin? And if he did, why did nobody object or denounce that inaction for going against the usual process?

When there are no wars going on, and both WF and Kings Landing have stable rulers, things are much more likely to be handled peacefully.  Since Lady Dustin is the legal ruler, there was no need to do anything.  Now as she gets older and does not have an heir, that will be a different story.

[Stormking902]

Thank you iv been wondering this exact same thing its illogical to assume the Dustins do not have any blood relatives in the form of cousins or distant cousins, hell Cat Stark was bringing up Robbs very distant cousins in the Vale as possible heirs but yet the Dustins have none??? Its just a plot hole plain and simple to think barrowtown its self dont have any Dustin blood running around it in the form of bastards or cousins etc. Same goes for the Hornwoods if im not mistaken there is even a bastard Hornwood floating around somewhere? 

[Dofs]

Maybe there is a child heir somewhere? Johanna Lannister ruled Casterly Rock on her own when her son was small and she wasn't of Lannister blood.

[Lord Varys]

Guys, widows and dowagers also have claims. Not necessarily the strongest claims but they have claims nonetheless. And if there is clear heir around, only a bunch of distant cousins with contradicting claims, etc., then the liege lord and the king might actually favor the claim of the widow over those distant relations. Especially if Eddard Stark feels he owes the widow.

[Stormking902]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Guys, widows and dowagers also have claims. Not necessarily the strongest claims but they have claims nonetheless. And if there is clear heir around, only a bunch of distant cousins with contradicting claims, etc., then the liege lord and the king might actually favor the claim of the widow over those distant relations. Especially if Eddard Stark feels he owes the widow.

Eddard owes lady Dustin nothing her husband did his duty and gave his life protecting his liege lord sure he could have sent his body home to Barrowtown as he did his sisters but he didnt and thats that, lady Dustin acts like Eddard slighted her in some way or like lord Dustin was the only man to die that day hell Eddard himself almost lost his life if it wasnt for Reed. He should have married her to Benjen and givin Benjen Barrowtown instead she was able to rule in her own right and she is still bitter....... Of all the characters in asoiaf she is top 5 on my most hated list.

[Maxxine]

5 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Guys, widows and dowagers also have claims. Not necessarily the strongest claims but they have claims nonetheless. And if there is clear heir around, only a bunch of distant cousins with contradicting claims, etc., then the liege lord and the king might actually favor the claim of the widow over those distant relations. Especially if Eddard Stark feels he owes the widow.

This is actually what I was about to say but couldn't think of how to put in words. Her claim would clearly derive from her husband. And while it is unusual it's not impossible especially if there were no close relatives around. Since she was married I don't think she had absolutely no rights to the land even if she would be far down the list. I also think she benefits from being a very assertive woman & already having a good hold over her lands unlike Lady Hornwood. I wouldn't call it a plot hole more something made for plot convenience, think edmure not already being married despite being around 30 & heir to Riverrun. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Sorry, but passing this off as no big deal is not credible to me.

The seat of House Dustin is one of the most powerful and prominent prizes in the North. And to a lesser degree, in all of Westeros. Sure, Lady Dustin continuing to rule until she dies is still plausible, but not without a significant backstory that we obviously don't know about yet.

The idea that the seat is just being left heirless until she dies does not sound credible. Nor does it sound credible that she will just be able to name an heir of her choice, even if he has no Dustin blood.

To me her strength of personality, strong Ryswell relations and the goodwill of her liege lord, Eddard Stark, can explain her ability to live out her days ruling Barrowton, as a sign of respect, perhaps.

But I'm pretty sure there must be nephews, cousins or other distant Dustin relations available to take over the mantle once she dies. Such a powerful seat is not just going to end up going to some Ryswell relation of hers, or some random non-Dustin blooded lordling who she takes a fancy to in her old age.

Nope. There is more to this situation which we do not know yet.

[Lord Varys]

43 minutes ago, Stormking902 said:

Eddard owes lady Dustin nothing (...).

But he might have felt he owed her. He might have also known that she had loved Brandon and that Brandon had loved her.

42 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

This is actually what I was about to say but couldn't think of how to put in words. Her claim would clearly derive from her husband. And while it is unusual it's not impossible especially if there were no close relatives around. Since she was married I don't think she had absolutely no rights to the land even if she would be far down the list. I also think she benefits from being a very assertive woman & already having a good hold over her lands unlike Lady Hornwood. I wouldn't call it a plot hole more something made for plot convenience, think edmure not already being married despite being around 30 & heir to Riverrun. 

The claims of widows are reasonably strong. They usually hold a castle in their husband's absence and might also be formally and factually in charge of the garrison and the lands. Some second or third cousin with the name but the parentage and bearing of some peasant could easily enough laughed out of the castle in such a scenario.

We also see the power of wives and widows when they take the reins of a lordship or of the government in the name of their minor children. That works because as wives they share in the power of their husbands, be they lords or kings. An outsider may find it hard to overcome that, and some distant relation is always effectively an outsider.

Lady Hornwood was Ramsay's ticket to the lordship of Hornwood. He is the Lord of Hornwood now by right of his late lady wife, who was the former wife of the former Lord Hornwood. A title apparently can pass to another house and bloodline that way, especially if a house is effectively extinct.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The seat of House Dustin is one of the most powerful and prominent prizes in the North. And to a lesser degree, in all of Westeros.

Don't overplay it. Yeah, it is an important seat in the North but I don't think the average guy in the Reach or the West does even know where the place is (and certainly not how powerful it is in comparison to other Northern houses they don't care about). The only people in the North they would know down there are the Starks and Manderlys.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Sure, Lady Dustin continuing to rule until she dies is still plausible, but not without a significant backstory that we obviously don't know about yet.

An interesting backstory isn't a requirement. There certainly is an explanation why she became the Ruling Lady of Barrowton but it doesn't have to be an interesting one.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The idea that the seat is just being left heirless until she dies does not sound credible. Nor does it sound credible that she will just be able to name an heir of her choice, even if he has no Dustin blood.

There is no requirement for a king or a lord of a clear heir apparent, or name/confirm an heir presumptive during his lifetime but he also can ignore that, not caring who is going to succeed. In troubled times this could lead to unrest and uncertainty in his old age but in peaceful times it might have had no effect whatsoever. Lord Gyles Rosby died without an heir despite the fact that he was sick for quite a long time, yet he still died as the unquestioned Lord Rosby.

Lord Tywin Lannister died without naming or recognizing an heir aside from his eldest son Ser Jaime, who could not inherit Casterly Rock due to his Kingsguard vows. The fact that Tyrion should have been his heir according to custom and law didn't make it so.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

To me her strength of personality, strong Ryswell relations and the goodwill of her liege lord, Eddard Stark, can explain her ability to live out her days ruling Barrowton, as a sign of respect, perhaps.

Barbrey certainly needed the goodwill of Winterfell and perhaps even of King Robert to get confirmed as Lady of Barrowton. She couldn't have taken the title, town, and castle without their permission. But there is no indication that this was a mere sign of respect. Lady Barbrey is the unquestioned ruler of Barrowton, and there is no hint that anybody is doubting or challenging her authority.

The best explanation is actually both. Ned felt he owed Lady Barbrey some solace and thus gave her Barrowton because there was also no clear Dustin heir with a good claim to be found. And keep in mind that Lord Roose Bolton and his wife Bethany Ryswell Bolton as well as the other Ryswells might have put pressure on Ned to decide the succession in Barbrey's favor if there were other claimants out there. Ned would not have wanted to antagonize such a mighty coalition and risk a civil war in the North immediately after the Rebellion (something that could have easily happened if the only alternative to Lady Barbrey was some minor lordling descended from Lord Willam's grandfather through the female line.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But I'm pretty sure there must be nephews, cousins or other distant Dustin relations available to take over the mantle once she dies. Such a powerful seat is not just going to end up going to some Ryswell relation of hers, or some random non-Dustin blooded lordling who she takes a fancy to in her old age.

Just because you like there to be other Dustins doesn't mean there are any other Dustins. If Lady Dustin had an heir - Dustin or otherwise - we would expect him to have been with her, either at Barrowton or Winterfell. If such an heir was a man grown he would also have likely been in command of the Dustin men but no such person is mentioned. That doesn't there is no heir but it makes it less likely.

And if there are no known heirs to Barrowton then it would indeed fall to Lady Barbrey and her last will to decide who should inherit the title and its holdings after her death. She could leave it to the Crown. She could leave it to her Ryswell kin. She could even leave it Roose Bolton by virtue of their kinship through her late sister Bethany.

[Lord Varys]

43 minutes ago, Stormking902 said:

Eddard owes lady Dustin nothing (...).

But he might have felt he owed her. He might have also known that she had loved Brandon and that Brandon had loved her.

42 minutes ago, Maxxine said:

This is actually what I was about to say but couldn't think of how to put in words. Her claim would clearly derive from her husband. And while it is unusual it's not impossible especially if there were no close relatives around. Since she was married I don't think she had absolutely no rights to the land even if she would be far down the list. I also think she benefits from being a very assertive woman & already having a good hold over her lands unlike Lady Hornwood. I wouldn't call it a plot hole more something made for plot convenience, think edmure not already being married despite being around 30 & heir to Riverrun. 

The claims of widows are reasonably strong. They usually hold a castle in their husband's absence and might also be formally and factually in charge of the garrison and the lands. Some second or third cousin with the name but the parentage and bearing of some peasant could easily enough laughed out of the castle in such a scenario.

We also see the power of wives and widows when they take the reins of a lordship or of the government in the name of their minor children. That works because as wives they share in the power of their husbands, be they lords or kings. An outsider may find it hard to overcome that, and some distant relation is always effectively an outsider.

Lady Hornwood was Ramsay's ticket to the lordship of Hornwood. He is the Lord of Hornwood now by right of his late lady wife, who was the former wife of the former Lord Hornwood. A title apparently can pass to another house and bloodline that way, especially if a house is effectively extinct.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The seat of House Dustin is one of the most powerful and prominent prizes in the North. And to a lesser degree, in all of Westeros.

Don't overplay it. Yeah, it is an important seat in the North but I don't think the average guy in the Reach or the West does even know where the place is (and certainly not how powerful it is in comparison to other Northern houses they don't care about). The only people in the North they would know down there are the Starks and Manderlys.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Sure, Lady Dustin continuing to rule until she dies is still plausible, but not without a significant backstory that we obviously don't know about yet.

An interesting backstory isn't a requirement. There certainly is an explanation why she became the Ruling Lady of Barrowton but it doesn't have to be an interesting one.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The idea that the seat is just being left heirless until she dies does not sound credible. Nor does it sound credible that she will just be able to name an heir of her choice, even if he has no Dustin blood.

There is no requirement for a king or a lord of a clear heir apparent, or name/confirm an heir presumptive during his lifetime but he also can ignore that, not caring who is going to succeed. In troubled times this could lead to unrest and uncertainty in his old age but in peaceful times it might have had no effect whatsoever. Lord Gyles Rosby died without an heir despite the fact that he was sick for quite a long time, yet he still died as the unquestioned Lord Rosby.

Lord Tywin Lannister died without naming or recognizing an heir aside from his eldest son Ser Jaime, who could not inherit Casterly Rock due to his Kingsguard vows. The fact that Tyrion should have been his heir according to custom and law didn't make it so.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

To me her strength of personality, strong Ryswell relations and the goodwill of her liege lord, Eddard Stark, can explain her ability to live out her days ruling Barrowton, as a sign of respect, perhaps.

Barbrey certainly needed the goodwill of Winterfell and perhaps even of King Robert to get confirmed as Lady of Barrowton. She couldn't have taken the title, town, and castle without their permission. But there is no indication that this was a mere sign of respect. Lady Barbrey is the unquestioned ruler of Barrowton, and there is no hint that anybody is doubting or challenging her authority.

The best explanation is actually both. Ned felt he owed Lady Barbrey some solace and thus gave her Barrowton because there was also no clear Dustin heir with a good claim to be found. And keep in mind that Lord Roose Bolton and his wife Bethany Ryswell Bolton as well as the other Ryswells might have put pressure on Ned to decide the succession in Barbrey's favor if there were other claimants out there. Ned would not have wanted to antagonize such a mighty coalition and risk a civil war in the North immediately after the Rebellion (something that could have easily happened if the only alternative to Lady Barbrey was some minor lordling descended from Lord Willam's grandfather through the female line.

40 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

But I'm pretty sure there must be nephews, cousins or other distant Dustin relations available to take over the mantle once she dies. Such a powerful seat is not just going to end up going to some Ryswell relation of hers, or some random non-Dustin blooded lordling who she takes a fancy to in her old age.

Just because you like there to be other Dustins doesn't mean there are any other Dustins. If Lady Dustin had an heir - Dustin or otherwise - we would expect him to have been with her, either at Barrowton or Winterfell. If such an heir was a man grown he would also have likely been in command of the Dustin men but no such person is mentioned. That doesn't there is no heir but it makes it less likely.

And if there are no known heirs to Barrowton then it would indeed fall to Lady Barbrey and her last will to decide who should inherit the title and its holdings after her death. She could leave it to the Crown. She could leave it to her Ryswell kin. She could even leave it Roose Bolton by virtue of their kinship through her late sister Bethany.

[Free Northman Reborn]

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But he might have felt he owed her. He might have also known that she had loved Brandon and that Brandon had loved her.

The claims of widows are reasonably strong. They usually hold a castle in their husband's absence and might also be formally and factually in charge of the garrison and the lands. Some second or third cousin with the name but the parentage and bearing of some peasant could easily enough laughed out of the castle in such a scenario.

We also see the power of wives and widows when they take the reins of a lordship or of the government in the name of their minor children. That works because as wives they share in the power of their husbands, be they lords or kings. An outsider may find it hard to overcome that, and some distant relation is always effectively an outsider.

Lady Hornwood was Ramsay's ticket to the lordship of Hornwood. He is the Lord of Hornwood now by right of his late lady wife, who was the former wife of the former Lord Hornwood. A title apparently can pass to another house and bloodline that way, especially if a house is effectively extinct.

Don't overplay it. Yeah, it is an important seat in the North but I don't think the average guy in the Reach or the West does even know where the place is (and certainly not how powerful it is in comparison to other Northern houses they don't care about). The only people in the North they would know down there are the Starks and Manderlys.

An interesting backstory isn't a requirement. There certainly is an explanation why she became the Ruling Lady of Barrowton but it doesn't have to be an interesting one.

There is no requirement for a king or a lord of a clear heir apparent, or name/confirm an heir presumptive during his lifetime but he also can ignore that, not caring who is going to succeed. In troubled times this could lead to unrest and uncertainty in his old age but in peaceful times it might have had no effect whatsoever. Lord Gyles Rosby died without an heir despite the fact that he was sick for quite a long time, yet he still died as the unquestioned Lord Rosby.

Lord Tywin Lannister died without naming or recognizing an heir aside from his eldest son Ser Jaime, who could not inherit Casterly Rock due to his Kingsguard vows. The fact that Tyrion should have been his heir according to custom and law didn't make it so.

Barbrey certainly needed the goodwill of Winterfell and perhaps even of King Robert to get confirmed as Lady of Barrowton. She couldn't have taken the title, town, and castle without their permission. But there is no indication that this was a mere sign of respect. Lady Barbrey is the unquestioned ruler of Barrowton, and there is no hint that anybody is doubting or challenging her authority.

The best explanation is actually both. Ned felt he owed Lady Barbrey some solace and thus gave her Barrowton because there was also no clear Dustin heir with a good claim to be found. And keep in mind that Lord Roose Bolton and his wife Bethany Ryswell Bolton as well as the other Ryswells might have put pressure on Ned to decide the succession in Barbrey's favor if there were other claimants out there. Ned would not have wanted to antagonize such a mighty coalition and risk a civil war in the North immediately after the Rebellion (something that could have easily happened if the only alternative to Lady Barbrey was some minor lordling descended from Lord Willam's grandfather through the female line.

Just because you like there to be other Dustins doesn't mean there are any other Dustins. If Lady Dustin had an heir - Dustin or otherwise - we would expect him to have been with her, either at Barrowton or Winterfell. If such an heir was a man grown he would also have likely been in command of the Dustin men but no such person is mentioned. That doesn't there is no heir but it makes it less likely.

And if there are no known heirs to Barrowton then it would indeed fall to Lady Barbrey and her last will to decide who should inherit the title and its holdings after her death. She could leave it to the Crown. She could leave it to her Ryswell kin. She could even leave it Roose Bolton by virtue of their kinship through her late sister Bethany.

First things first. House Dustin is one of the more powerful Houses anywhere in Westeros. The fact that some Reach lord might not know much about them says more about the lack of knowledge of said lord than of House Dustin's relative power. A House capable of raising 3000 soldiers at a reasonable estimate (or possibly more), and ruling an area of more than 100,000 square miles, in addition to a town of thousands of people, is a powerful House anywhere in Westeros.

Easily 50% more powerful than House Florent, quite possibly. So no, I am not overplaying it. You are just habitually underplaying the status of anything Northern related, as usual.

Then regarding Lady Dustin's position. It is far more unusual than you pretend. Note Rob's example, where he - and Catelyn herself - were willing to consider House Karstark - who had a common ancestor with the Starks around 1000 years ago (excluding any more recent inter-marriages) - or some distant Waynwood offspring of a Stark daugther of generations past - without ever considering Catelyn as Robb's potential heir. Despite a heir being needed desperately, with no suitable siblings or cousins available.

I'm not sure why you want to underplay the extraordinary nature of Lady Dustin's position. She has no blood relation to House Dustin whatsoever. She seems like a custodian of the House, until her death. But the idea that her closest blood kin - some Ryswell brother - will now be the closest Dustin heir is simply not believable.

The fact is, there WILL be people with Dustin blood, even if it is from a Dustin younger son or daugther going back centuries (see the Karstark example relating to House Stark). It is impossible for it not to exist. And such a person would have a better claim to Barrowton than some Ryswell with zero Dustin blood.

Unless specifically decreed by her liege lord. But there would have to be significant reasons for such a decree. Effectively ending the line of House Dustin - a bloodline which goes back to the Long Night itself - and replacing it with a Ryswell or some other non-blood relative.

[SummerSphinx]

I've wondered about this, too!  

Maybe Barbrey held some extra persuasive power with the Starks because she knew something about a Stark bastard (if she had a child with Brandon, if the child was passed off as her sister Lady Bethany Bolton's, something like that)?

I am not sure I believe my own idea-just exploring it- but this thread wonders if Domeric is really Roose's.

 

[estermonty python]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

First things first. House Dustin is one of the more powerful Houses anywhere in Westeros. The fact that some Reach lord might not know much about them says more about the lack of knowledge of said lord than of House Dustin's relative power. A House capable of raising 3000 soldiers at a reasonable estimate (or possibly more), and ruling an area of more than 100,000 square miles, in addition to a town of thousands of people, is a powerful House anywhere in Westeros.

I'm not arguing (yet), but I think you need to show your work here.  I guess I'll buy that the Dustins deserve a seat at the table with the other houses that owe direct fealty to the Starks: Bolton, Manderly, Karstark, Umber, Glover, Flint, Cerwyn, Hornwood, Tallhart, Reed, Slate, Locke, Ryswell, and Dustin.  I'll buy that they're a cut above some other houses who owe direct fealty to the Starks but don't have much by way of lands and castles of their own: Cassel, Mollen, Poole, etc.  But I don't see any basis to elevate the Dustins above all those houses and above most non-Northern houses.  Maybe you can prove me wrong.

Also, square footage alone means virtually nothing as far as relative power is concerned.  What matters is population, and the North is sparsely populated.  You'd rather rule Manhattan than rule the entire Northern Provinces of Canada, you know?  If you come back with some sort of evidence that they rule more subjects than other Northern houses, I'd buy the argument.  

11 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Easily 50% more powerful than House Florent, quite possibly.

The power of a house depends on more than the sheer volume of cannon fodder they can throw at the other side.  The Florents have successfully wed into all of the most powerful families in the Reach, along with the Baratheon family.  The Dustins have wed into the Ryswells (decent) and the Boltons (very good).  The North also has a general lack of wealth, and the Reach has an abundance, so if we are making wild conjectures, I'll go out on a limb and hypothesize that the Florents have a good deal more gold than the Dustins.

Let's not forget that Lysa Arryn is ruing the Vale, despite being from the Riverlands.  True, she is essentially acting as Regent for her son, but still, the whole Vale accepts her rule without question.  Sybelle Glover is the Lady of Deepwood Motte despite the fact that she's a Locke, and she's not even married to the Lord of Deepwood Motte, she's married to his brother (both of whom are "missing").  Lady Whent ruled Harrenhall despite no husband or heirs, though I admit its ambiguous whether she was a Whent by birth, by marriage, or both.

But I really think this is a whole lot of nothing.  It's fun to argue on message boards about who technically has the best claim on paper.  But GRRM keeps pounding us over the head and we keep not getting it: the one who rules is the one with proximity to power, not necessarily the one with the best claim on paper.  Barbrey has power, more power than anyone who would challenge her, and as a result no one is going to question her status at Barrowton, and I can pretty much guarantee it won't be an issue until she dies, at which point there will be a land dispute that the Ryswells will probably win.  

[Free Northman Reborn]

This makes me wonder what would have happened, assuming the War of the Five Kings had ended with a truce, had Catelyn survived and made it back to Winterfell, but all her children had died.

Sure, she would have ruled Winterfell in the aftermath - and perhaps until her death - but who would have been the heir? Definitely not Edmure, for example. No, it would have been some Karstark, or this Waynwood distant descendant of a Stark daughter from previous generations.

The same principle applies to the Dustins.

[Free Northman Reborn]

53 minutes ago, estermonty python said:

I'm not arguing (yet), but I think you need to show your work here.  I guess I'll buy that the Dustins deserve a seat at the table with the other houses that owe direct fealty to the Starks: Bolton, Manderly, Karstark, Umber, Glover, Flint, Cerwyn, Hornwood, Tallhart, Reed, Slate, Locke, Ryswell, and Dustin.  I'll buy that they're a cut above some other houses who owe direct fealty to the Starks but don't have much by way of lands and castles of their own: Cassel, Mollen, Poole, etc.  But I don't see any basis to elevate the Dustins above all those houses and above most non-Northern houses.  Maybe you can prove me wrong.

Also, square footage alone means virtually nothing as far as relative power is concerned.  What matters is population, and the North is sparsely populated.  You'd rather rule Manhattan than rule the entire Northern Provinces of Canada, you know?  If you come back with some sort of evidence that they rule more subjects than other Northern houses, I'd buy the argument.  

The power of a house depends on more than the sheer volume of cannon fodder they can throw at the other side.  The Florents have successfully wed into all of the most powerful families in the Reach, along with the Baratheon family.  The Dustins have wed into the Ryswells (decent) and the Boltons (very good).  The North also has a general lack of wealth, and the Reach has an abundance, so if we are making wild conjectures, I'll go out on a limb and hypothesize that the Florents have a good deal more gold than the Dustins.

Let's not forget that Lysa Arryn is ruing the Vale, despite being from the Riverlands.  True, she is essentially acting as Regent for her son, but still, the whole Vale accepts her rule without question.  Sybelle Glover is the Lady of Deepwood Motte despite the fact that she's a Locke, and she's not even married to the Lord of Deepwood Motte, she's married to his brother (both of whom are "missing").  Lady Whent ruled Harrenhall despite no husband or heirs, though I admit its ambiguous whether she was a Whent by birth, by marriage, or both.

But I really think this is a whole lot of nothing.  It's fun to argue on message boards about who technically has the best claim on paper.  But GRRM keeps pounding us over the head and we keep not getting it: the one who rules is the one with proximity to power, not necessarily the one with the best claim on paper.  Barbrey has power, more power than anyone who would challenge her, and as a result no one is going to question her status at Barrowton, and I can pretty much guarantee it won't be an issue until she dies, at which point there will be a land dispute that the Ryswells will probably win.  

OK, I'll bite.

Firstly to deal quickly with your last point. The examples of ruling ladies mentioned rule in their children's stead until they come of age. Lysa Arryn would have no claim to the Vale if Sweetrobin died. Same with Lady Glover.

Now, in the absence of other, close heirs, or maybe even in their presence, I can easily see a widowed Lady ruling her House until her death or "retirement" (forcibly or not), but that is very different to becoming the heir herself, like some are suggesting Lady Dustin has become. I highly doubt that this is the case. She rules Barrowton. She is the Lady of Barrowton. But she is not likely to be the heir to Barrowton. And if she is, then it would have been the result of a rather significant deviation from the norm, which would have a larger back story than what we currently know.

As for your first question. We have lots of justification for placing the Dustins as at least the third most powerful vassal House in the North. This has all been hashed over many times, but to list a few reasons in brief:

1. They rule the second largest and second most populous settlement in the North (the largest for 7000 years until White Harbor was built).

2. They rule the largest territory of any Northern lord.

3. Their territory is on the southern edge of the North, thus located in a much warmer climate than other, proven powerful Houses like the Boltons, Karstarks and Umbers.

Since the Karstarks from a smaller territory, located 500 miles further north, and with no settlement even close to Barrowton in population, can raise 2750 men, it is very reasonable to give House Dustin at least 3000 men. And it could be significantly more, for all we know. Note that Barrowton is much larger than the Twins, for example, and one would think that the size of a region's capital would be in relation to the size of its total population, given that its size would be a result of the region's general economic activity. And in the North, it is logical that for a city or town to exist, you need an even larger rural population to support it than in the South, because of the lower productivity of the land. Hence, more peasants are needed to produce the units of food surplus required to support one townsman than would be needed to support the same townsman in the South.

In short, 3000 men or more are not unrealistic for the strength of House Dustin. Neither is an estimate of 4000 men. On a par with House Frey, perhaps- the most powerful House in the Riverlands.

As for wealth vs manpower. Well, given that only 1% of a region's population is raised to war, it is wealth and logistics, not population numbers, that determine military manpower. Hence, there is a rather strong correlation between being able to raise a large military, and the wealth of your region. Sure, it will not correlate perfectly, as some Houses may squander wealth on lavish lifestyles rather than on reserving it for military endeavours, but you cannot raise an army of thousands without having the economic means to support it. So the one goes hand in hand with the other.

In short, I think there is a strong case for House Dustin to be in the upper tier of vassal Houses in all of Westeros.

[Free Northman Reborn]

What would make for a decent explanation, would be if the Ryswells and Dustins have had many intermarriages in the past - which seems inevitable, given that they are two neighbouring regions with shared strategic interests. Hence, for all we know Rodrik Ryswell's wife was a Dustin, or maybe his mother. If Lady Dustin had Dustin blood from a previous generation, then that would make her position far more justifiable. It could be that she in fact married her cousin.

And would make any of her Ryswell brothers a much stronger potential heir to Barrowton, for example. I note that Rodrik Ryswell's wife is shown as unknown in the Wiki. So that is certainly a possibility that is still open.

[Tyrek Lannister]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The fact is, there WILL be people with Dustin blood, even if it is from a Dustin younger son or daugther going back centuries (see the Karstark example relating to House Stark). It is impossible for it not to exist. And such a person would have a better claim to Barrowton than some Ryswell with zero Dustin blood.

Unless specifically decreed by her liege lord. But there would have to be significant reasons for such a decree. Effectively ending the line of House Dustin - a bloodline which goes back to the Long Night itself - and replacing it with a Ryswell or some other non-blood relative.

I agree, it's hard to imagine that such an old and strong house would have no people left having Dustin blood. I guess it will be a matter of tracing the closest relatives and in the end someone taking up the Dustin name.