Questions on inheritance

[Lost Umber]

40 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Brienne is Selwyn's last remaining child. Does she inherit her father's lands and title?

She is Selwyn's heir so... yes. She going to have to get married to carry on the line and whoever she marries with the Lord of Tarth. 

[marsyao]

4 hours ago, Vaedys Targaryen said:

Well you have to remember that when there is uncertain succession, potential heirs go around vying support from other houses. If Tywin had it made publically known that he did not want Tyrion to inherit, I don't think that a lot of lords would come to support Tyrion, especially if Cersei, who also has claim to Casterly Rock, might have any say in it.

 

1) Tywin had no legal ground to disinherit Tyrion

2) Even no one dare to agains Tywin's will when he was still alive, but what would happened after he died ? Tyrion would certainly raise his banner to calim his birth right, don't you think there would be many noble houses would support Tyrion just for the high reward if Tyrion won ?Don't forget the law and justice would be on Tyrion's side

[Philokles]

1 hour ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Brienne is Selwyn's last remaining child. Does she inherit her father's lands and title?

Yes. That is why Hyle Hunt wants to marry her so badly.

[Lost Umber]

13 minutes ago, marsyao said:

1) Tywin had no legal ground to disinherit Tyrion

2) Even no one dare to agains Tywin's will when he was still alive, but what would happened after he died ? Tyrion would certainly raise his banner to calim his birth right, don't you think there would be many noble houses would support Tyrion just for the high reward if Tyrion won ?Don't forget the law and justice would be on Tyrion's side

1. He doesn't truly need legal ground. The only 'laws' in Westeros are based on precedence and overruled by the sword every time. Besides... Tywin wasn't taking chances. He planned to have Tyrion sent to the Wall or executed. Prior to that, he wasn't shy about putting Tyrion in harms way. He would have pulled a Randyl Tarly on Tyrion sooner or later.

2. You are correct. Tyrion would have as much right to claim his birthright as Viserys or Stannis. He would only need gather the resources to do so. 

[marsyao]

13 minutes ago, Lost Umber said:

1. He doesn't truly need legal ground. The only 'laws' in Westeros are based on precedence and overruled by the sword every time. Besides... Tywin wasn't taking chances. He planned to have Tyrion sent to the Wall or executed. Prior to that, he wasn't shy about putting Tyrion in harms way. He would have pulled a Randyl Tarly on Tyrion sooner or later.

2. You are correct. Tyrion would have as much right to claim his birthright as Viserys or Stannis. He would only need gather the resources to do so. 

Hi, even in the Medieval time, law was applied among peers, then we were talking about before purple wedding, so Tywin would not murder his own son and become a kinslayer, and Tyrion was no Sam, so sending him to the wall without a justified reasson was not an option.

Why would I say many noble houses would support Tyrion's claim after Tywin died ? Because, helping him could expect much more reward than to help th establishment, and noble houses would be afraid, if they allow Tyrion be deny his birthright, it would set a very dangerous precedent, and one day would cause huge chaos in their own house, it was a matter of principal that highborns really cared. 

I am not saying Tywin "could not" disinherit Tyrion and name other people as his heir, but as clever as Tywin was, he ought to know this would cause civil war in the Westland after his pass, even Tryion eventually lost that civil war, this would could well devastated   his own land

[The Hammer of Justice]

And to make things even more complicated, we have Daven Lannister (Cersei's cousin) who was recently appointed "Warden of the West".

The Warden of the West has always been the head of House Lannister and Lord of Casterly Rock. Does that mean Daven is the Lord of CR now? if that is so, then he upjumped A LOT of people in the line of succession

Argh! These inheritance questions always makes my head hurt

[Philokles]

3 minutes ago, The Hammer of Justice said:

And to make things even more complicated, we have Daven Lannister (Cersei's third cousin) who was recently appointed "Warden of the West".

The Warden of the West has always been the head of House Lannister and Lord of Casterly Rock. Does that mean Daven is the Lord of CR now? if that is so, then he upjumped A LOT of people in the line of succession

Argh! These inheritance questions always makes my head hurt

No, Daven is not the Lord of Casterly Rock. Wardenships generally do go with lordships, but, as was shown with Sweetrobin being overlooked for Jaime as Warden of the East in AGOT, they are appointments made entirely at the King's discretion. With Westeros at war, the Wardenships (theoretically) become more important than the honour they are in peacetime, so it becomes more important that a competent commander is given the role. Cersei gave the West to Daven to spite Kevan for refusing to serve as hand. Getting a good general who is not Kevan requires moving a long way down the line of succession, but will not improve Daven's position on it.

[Daena the Defiant]

11 hours ago, Horse of Kent said:

No, Daven is not the Lord of Casterly Rock. Wardenships generally do go with lordships, but, as was shown with Sweetrobin being overlooked for Jaime as Warden of the East in AGOT, they are appointments made entirely at the King's discretion. With Westeros at war, the Wardenships (theoretically) become more important than the honour they are in peacetime, so it becomes more important that a competent commander is given the role. Cersei gave the West to Daven to spite Kevan for refusing to serve as hand. Getting a good general who is not Kevan requires moving a long way down the line of succession, but will not improve Daven's position on it.

Indeed. The Wardenships (Wardencies?) are historically associated with the High Lords of the various areas, but when the Lord Paramount is a child, or even a woman, the position tends to go to a seasoned military male relative. For example, when Jeyne Arryn, the Maid of the Vale, ruled, I highly doubt she was the Warden of the East. If she was married, it probably would have been her husband, but since she was not, it was most likely an Arryn cousin, or perhaps even a prominent male bannerman, like Lord Royce. 

Lady Johanna Lannister ruled Casterly Rock in a regency/dowager capacity - do we know who she had as Warden of the West? 

 

[HaeSuse]

To add on to it all, I had one more question pop up in my head last night. Bastards are, at least sometimes, legitimized. Okay.... so.... if the head of a house legitimizes a bastard.... What is that bastard's new place in the line of succession?

 

For instance.... If Robb legitimized Jon.... Would Robb's place in the line of succession now be wherever his sex/age place him? Or does he fall to the end of the line? Or maybe just the end of the male line? 

 

So their ages (at beginning of series) are:

 

1. Robb - 15 years old (Born 283AL)
2. Jon Snow - 14 years old (Born 283AL)
3. Sansa 11 years old (Born 286AL)
4. Arya - 9 years old (Born 289AL)
5. Brandon - 7 years old (Born 291AL)
6. Rickon - 3 years old (born 295AL)

 

Now, let's say Robb legitimizes Jon. Where is Jon's place? Is he 2nd, right behind Robb? Is he 4th, behind Robb, Bran and Rickon? Or is he 6th, behind all of the "trueborn" children?  Or, even worse, is he only a "last resort" option? Meaning all of the true Stark children have died, AND they had no heirs of their own before dieing?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

45 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

To add on to it all, I had one more question pop up in my head last night. Bastards are, at least sometimes, legitimized. Okay.... so.... if the head of a house legitimizes a bastard.... What is that bastard's new place in the line of succession?

 

For instance.... If Robb legitimized Jon.... Would Robb's place in the line of succession now be wherever his sex/age place him? Or does he fall to the end of the line? Or maybe just the end of the male line? 

 

So their ages (at beginning of series) are:

 

1. Robb - 15 years old (Born 283AL)
2. Jon Snow - 14 years old (Born 283AL)
3. Sansa 11 years old (Born 286AL)
4. Arya - 9 years old (Born 289AL)
5. Brandon - 7 years old (Born 291AL)
6. Rickon - 3 years old (born 295AL)

 

Now, let's say Robb legitimizes Jon. Where is Jon's place? Is he 2nd, right behind Robb? Is he 4th, behind Robb, Bran and Rickon? Or is he 6th, behind all of the "trueborn" children?  Or, even worse, is he only a "last resort" option? Meaning all of the true Stark children have died, AND they had no heirs of their own before dieing?

It depends on the situation. In ASOS, Robb wants to legitimize Jon because he believes that Bran, Rickon and Arya were dead, and only Sansa remains as his heir otherwise, which would mean Winterfell would fall into Lannister hands. As such, by legitimizing Jon and naming him his heir, Robb plans to strengthen Jon's claim over Sansa's claim, and specifically asks his lords to back him up on the decision.

However, what happens when Bran or Rickon show up again? What conditions did Robb specify in his will? What do the lords of his kingdom prefer? Who gathers more support? All those are factors which play a role.

 

Regarding the inheritance issue, Martin had the following to say (bolded emphasize mine) in a So Spake Martin. (This page might also be of interest to you).

Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

A man's eldest son was his heir. After that the next eldest son. Then the next, etc. Daughters were not considered while there was a living son, except in Dorne, where females had equal right of inheritance according to age.

After the sons, most would say that the eldest daughter is next in line. But there might be an argument from the dead man's brothers, say. Does a male sibling or a female child take precedence? Each side has a "claim."

What if there are no childen, only grandchildren and great grandchildren. Is precedence or proximity the more important principle? Do bastards have any rights? What about bastards who have been legitimized, do they go in at the end after the trueborn kids, or according to birth order? What about widows? And what about the will of the deceased? Can a lord disinherit one son, and name a younger son as heir? Or even a bastard?

There are no clear cut answers, either in Westeros or in real medieval history. Things were often decided on a case by case basis. A case might set a precedent for later cases... but as often as not, the precedents conflicted as much as the claims.

In fact, if you look at medieval history, conflicting claims were the cause of three quarters of the wars. The Hundred Years War grew out of a dispute about whether a nephew or a grandson of Philip the Fair had a better claim to the throne of France. The nephew got the decision, because the grandson's claim passed through a daughter (and because he was the king of England too). And that mess was complicated by one of the precedents (the Salic Law) that had been invented a short time before to resolve the dispute after the death of Philip's eldest son, where the claimants were (1) the daughter of Philip's eldest son, who may or may not have been a bastard, her mother having been an adulteress, (2) the unborn child of the eldest son that his secon wife was carrying, sex unknown, and (3) Philip's second son, another Philip. Lawyers for (3) dug up the Salic Law to exclude (1) and possibly (2) if she was a girl, but (2) was a boy so he became king, only he died a week later, and (3) got the throne after all. But then when he died, his own children, all daughters, were excluded on the basis of the law he's dug up, and the throne went to the youngest son instead... and meanwhile (1) had kids, one of whom eventually was the king of Navarre, Charles the Bad, who was such a scumbag in the Hundred Years War in part because he felt =his= claim was better than that of either Philip of Valois or Edward Plantagenet. And you know, it was. Only Navarre did not have an army as big as France or England, so no one took him seriously.

The Wars of the Roses were fought over the issue of whether the Lancastrian claim (deriving from the third son of Edward III in direct male line) or the Yorkist claim (deriving from a combination of Edward's second son, but through a female line, wed to descendants of his fourth son, through the male) was superior. And a whole family of legitimized bastard stock, the Beauforts, played a huge role.

And when Alexander III, King of Scots, rode over a cliff, and Margaret the Maid of Norway died en route back home, and the Scottish lords called on Edward I of England to decide who had the best claim to the throne, something like fourteen or fifteen (I'd need to look up the exact number) "competitors" came forward to present their pedigrees and documents to the court. The decision eventually boiled down to precedence (John Balliol) versus proximity (Bruce) and went to Balliol, but those other thirteen guys all had claims as well. King of Eric of Norway, for instance, based his claim to the throne on his =daughter=, the aforementioned Maid of Norway, who had been the queen however briefly. He seemed to believe that inheritance should run backwards. And hell, if he had been the king of France instead of the king of Norway, maybe it would have.

The medieval world was governed by men, not by laws. You could even make a case that the lords preferred the laws to be vague and contradictory, since that gave them more power. In a tangle like the Hornwood case, ultimately the lord would decide... and if some of the more powerful claimants did not like the decision, it might come down to force of arms.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that inheritance was decided as much by politics as by laws. In Westeros and in medieval Europe both.

[HaeSuse]

Good SSM quote, friend. So, in the case of the Starks, it really comes down to what he wrote (are there any "this is null and void if Bran shows up alive" clauses). AND how his bannermen feel about it all. 

 

My guess is, if Robb didn't include any clauses, and all he did was legitimize Jon Snow, and then Bran/Rickon/Arya/Sansa show back up.... The North will rally behind Bran first and foremost, as the truest, oldest, male heir, not to mention, a symbol of the Lannister evils. However, imho, Bran's arc is NOT leading him to be Lord of Winterfell. He's gonna be a magician, Harry. So.... Sansa will get passed over somewhat, as no one in the North wants a Lannister in Winterfell (assuming the Sansa/Tyrion marriage outlives the books).

 

So, Jon vs Arya for all the marbles? My guess is more lords would back Jon in that debate. Especially if his true parentage gets out, and he is R+L. And, Arya probably won't want the role, either. She has gone too far, methinks, to become a "Lady of Winterfell".

[a black swan]

1 minute ago, HaeSuse said:

Good SSM quote, friend. So, in the case of the Starks, it really comes down to what he wrote (are there any "this is null and void if Bran shows up alive" clauses). AND how his bannermen feel about it all. 

 

My guess is, if Robb didn't include any clauses, and all he did was legitimize Jon Snow, and then Bran/Rickon/Arya/Sansa show back up.... The North will rally behind Bran first and foremost, as the truest, oldest, male heir, not to mention, a symbol of the Lannister evils. However, imho, Bran's arc is NOT leading him to be Lord of Winterfell. He's gonna be a magician, Harry. So.... Sansa will get passed over somewhat, as no one in the North wants a Lannister in Winterfell (assuming the Sansa/Tyrion marriage outlives the books).

 

So, Jon vs Arya for all the marbles? My guess is more lords would back Jon in that debate. Especially if his true parentage gets out, and he is R+L. And, Arya probably won't want the role, either. She has gone too far, methinks, to become a "Lady of Winterfell".

Too far gone. In what way?

[Lost Umber]

28 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

Good SSM quote, friend. So, in the case of the Starks, it really comes down to what he wrote (are there any "this is null and void if Bran shows up alive" clauses). AND how his bannermen feel about it all. 

 

My guess is, if Robb didn't include any clauses, and all he did was legitimize Jon Snow, and then Bran/Rickon/Arya/Sansa show back up.... The North will rally behind Bran first and foremost, as the truest, oldest, male heir, not to mention, a symbol of the Lannister evils. However, imho, Bran's arc is NOT leading him to be Lord of Winterfell. He's gonna be a magician, Harry. So.... Sansa will get passed over somewhat, as no one in the North wants a Lannister in Winterfell (assuming the Sansa/Tyrion marriage outlives the books).

 

So, Jon vs Arya for all the marbles? My guess is more lords would back Jon in that debate. Especially if his true parentage gets out, and he is R+L. And, Arya probably won't want the role, either. She has gone too far, methinks, to become a "Lady of Winterfell".

I believe only a King can legitimize a bastard so there becomes the question of whether Robb was a king or just a rebel. If he named Jon in his will, it doesn't mean that Bran,Rickon Sansa, and Arya don't have stronger claims. Or even Benjen...

it would come down to politics, and failing that... swords. 

[HaeSuse]

53 minutes ago, DutchArya said:

Too far gone. In what way?

In every way you could think to list. For instance, let's name some things that make for a good Lord/Lady. Or even just for a workable/passable Lord/Lady.

• Patience: Maybe I'm underestimating Arya here. But I don't see Patience to be a virtue she has any of. Maybe she's gaining it, every time she recites her list, but doesn't cross someone off it. However, it seems to me that, the instant she feels she's capable of truly getting down to the business of "The List", she will do nothing else. Also, I don't see her as being wise enough, yet, to realize that by BEING Lady Stark of Winterfell, she could finish the list with ease. She doesn't want to kill them politically. She wants to MURDER them. Becoming Lady of Winterfell throws a wrench in the works.
• Honor: She has lost all concern over "honor". Do you think for a second she would NOT murder someone on her list, because it violated Guest Right? etc. An honorless Lord/Lady doesn't last long, usually.
• Compassion: She has very little left. Of course, a Lord/Lady can get by without it, if they have lots of other Lordly Ladyly traits. Arya clearly does not. A compassionless leader needs to make up for that lack in lots of other areas. Can Arya?
• Motive: Does Arya give a damn that House Stark is teetering on the brink of extinction? I don't think so. Not at all. Her inner dialogue betrays no sense of Family/House concerns. She is mad her FATHER was killed, not that the LORD OF WINTERFELL was killed. She'd be just as mad if she was a commoner. Whereas, Ned wasn't just mad that his friend Robert had been duped by Cersei... he was furious that the entire kingdom, the realm, was being duped. That Stannis was being robbed of his right. If Robert hadn't even known Ned from a hole in the ground, Ned would still be infuriated that the rightful king was raising incest bastards as his own, unbeknownst to him. By comparison, Arya couldn't care less about the realm, the king(s), the houses, the lines of succession.
• Romance: To keep a solid claim on Winterfell, she'd almost certainly have to marry someone from a prominent house. Would she even remotely consider such a thing? Can you name a single member of a prominent house who you would think, "ah yes, Arya could marry him"? I mean, I'm still rooting for Arya/Gendry making a House Starkatheon. But, really? How likely?
• Knowledge: She has none. She remembers what she remembers of the houses and families and history. But she was NINE years old when the poop hit the fan. How much does ANY 9 year old really understand? And at that point, she basically dropped out of the "Westeros University of Royal Families" and signed up at the local Community College to learn to be an assassin.  I just can't see her sitting in a chair, surrounded by advisers, Maesters, etc, talking to the common folk about how the bad weather affected their crops. Not only does she have no knowledge of this stuff, she also just doesn't care. Can you imagine what your brain would be like, if you had dropped out of school in the 3rd grade to start a criminal enterprise?
• The Chains that Bind: This is more along the lines of explicitly what I meant by "too far gone". Members of royal families in Westeros are all bound by the chains of tradition and family and honor. They know their places. They expect their rewards. They marry strategically. They game, scheme, con and reap the rewards (be they good or bad). Arya has precisely zero of those chains in her spirit/psyche. And, to fill that hole, she has plugged in vengeance, piety, righteousness, anger and zeal. Before the books, she was against the whole idea of Lords and Ladys and marriages, and political intrigue. By the end of aDwD, she is so far gone from that mindset that she barely resembles the little girl practicing archery in the cold north. I think that the only way she takes Winterfell for her own, is if her list has had every single name crossed off of it, AND none of her siblings is around to take it for themselves.

 

 

Edit question: Ask it the other way. In what ways do you think the Arya character has shown an ability or desire to lead as Lady Stark? In what ways do you think the text has supported this?

[HaeSuse]

26 minutes ago, Lost Umber said:

I believe only a King can legitimize a bastard so there becomes the question of whether Robb was a king or just a rebel. If he named Jon in his will, it doesn't mean that Bran,Rickon Sansa, and Arya don't have stronger claims. Or even Benjen...

it would come down to politics, and failing that... swords. 

Had one more thought. I'm sure it's been bandied about before, but I haven't seen it, so here goes:

 

Assuming the following:

• Jon's true parentage is R+L
• R+L actually got MARRIED before J was born
• The Lords and Ladies of Westeros somehow find this out, and believe it to be true
• Rhaenys and Aegon were actually both convincingly and brutally murdered (no Young Griff spirited away crap)

 

Isn't the conclusion that Jon is then the legitimate heir to the Targaryen House and the Iron Throne?  He doesn't even need Robb to legitimize him. He would've been born a trueborn son to the rightful heir to the Targaryen family, and all those ahead of him in the order of succession are dead. His claim would be truer than Danys. Truer than Joff/Tommens. Truer than Stannis/Renly. Certainly truer than Balon/Euron. It would also put him directly behind BenJen in the ranks for the Stark house.

 

Right? Could Jon be crowned King of the Realms, without even having tried to sit the throne? Especially if he is involved in saving the realm from the Others? And if the Targs are renowned for craziness, then wouldn't Stark blood be the best around in trying to stabilize the family line?  Is this how some people are theorizing and end to the series? How would Dany react to finding out that there is actually ANOTHER, trueborn, legitimate Targ out there, with a truer claim than she has? She has banked so much on being the rightful heir, what would she do if she found out she wans't the rightful heir? Try to marry that guy? Kill him? Battle it out for who wins?

[The Hoare]

5 minutes ago, HaeSuse said:

 

Assuming the following:

• Jon's true parentage is R+L
• R+L actually got MARRIED before J was born

Elia Martell was still alive by the time and divorce doesn't seen to exist in Westeros.

 

Some targaryens of the pasta were polygamous, but I believe Rhaegar would need permission of the King, and hardly any lord would easily accept it.

[HaeSuse]

16 minutes ago, The Hoare said:

Elia Martell was still alive by the time and divorce doesn't seen to exist in Westeros.

 

Some targaryens of the pasta were polygamous, but I believe Rhaegar would need permission of the King, and hardly any lord would easily accept it.

 

Good point.

[Philokles]

1 hour ago, HaeSuse said:

In every way you could think to list. For instance, let's name some things that make for a good Lord/Lady. Or even just for a workable/passable Lord/Lady.

• Patience: Maybe I'm underestimating Arya here. But I don't see Patience to be a virtue she has any of. Maybe she's gaining it, every time she recites her list, but doesn't cross someone off it. However, it seems to me that, the instant she feels she's capable of truly getting down to the business of "The List", she will do nothing else. Also, I don't see her as being wise enough, yet, to realize that by BEING Lady Stark of Winterfell, she could finish the list with ease. She doesn't want to kill them politically. She wants to MURDER them. Becoming Lady of Winterfell throws a wrench in the works.

Pre-Harrenhal yes, but she had to suppress her hot-headedness to survive and it has not returned since. For someone in such a rash hurry to finish off her list, it is surely a little strange that she is yet to go out of her way to track these people down. The Tickler and... 

Spoiler

Raff

both came to her, rather than her going to them. 

 

1 hour ago, HaeSuse said:

• Compassion: She has very little left. Of course, a Lord/Lady can get by without it, if they have lots of other Lordly Ladyly traits. Arya clearly does not. A compassionless leader needs to make up for that lack in lots of other areas. Can Arya?

This is not true at all. To take a random example, she saves Sam from a couple of Bravos for no personal gain in AFFC. Most of those on her list are there for the crimes they have committed against others.

 

1 hour ago, HaeSuse said:

• Motive: Does Arya give a damn that House Stark is teetering on the brink of extinction? I don't think so. Not at all. Her inner dialogue betrays no sense of Family/House concerns. She is mad her FATHER was killed, not that the LORD OF WINTERFELL was killed. She'd be just as mad if she was a commoner. Whereas, Ned wasn't just mad that his friend Robert had been duped by Cersei... he was furious that the entire kingdom, the realm, was being duped. That Stannis was being robbed of his right. If Robert hadn't even known Ned from a hole in the ground, Ned would still be infuriated that the rightful king was raising incest bastards as his own, unbeknownst to him. By comparison, Arya couldn't care less about the realm, the king(s), the houses, the lines of succession.

She cares less about the South, but greatly about the North and its people - shown by all the times she talks about the 'wolves' being her 'pack'. As far as she knows House Stark is all gone, except for Jon on the wall who she cannot reach. As a result she heads to the HoBaW having nowhere else to go.

 

1 hour ago, HaeSuse said:

• Romance: To keep a solid claim on Winterfell, she'd almost certainly have to marry someone from a prominent house. Would she even remotely consider such a thing? Can you name a single member of a prominent house who you would think, "ah yes, Arya could marry him"? I mean, I'm still rooting for Arya/Gendry making a House Starkatheon. But, really? How likely?

I doubt many Westerosi men would like to be constantly ordered around by their wife, no.

 

1 hour ago, HaeSuse said:

• Knowledge: She has none. She remembers what she remembers of the houses and families and history. But she was NINE years old when the poop hit the fan. How much does ANY 9 year old really understand? And at that point, she basically dropped out of the "Westeros University of Royal Families" and signed up at the local Community College to learn to be an assassin.  I just can't see her sitting in a chair, surrounded by advisers, Maesters, etc, talking to the common folk about how the bad weather affected their crops. Not only does she have no knowledge of this stuff, she also just doesn't care. Can you imagine what your brain would be like, if you had dropped out of school in the 3rd grade to start a criminal enterprise?

Of all the Stark kids, Arya listened the most to Ned's lessons on how to be a lord even though, unlike Jon, Bran and Robb, she had no need to. For example:

Whenever her father had condemned a man to death, he did the deed himself with Ice, his greatsword. "If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look him in the face and hear his last words," she'd heard him tell Robb and Jon once. (Arya VII, ASOS)

As for wanting to sit around making other people's lives better, that is basically what she wanted from her future:

Arya cocked her head to one side. "Can I be a king's councillor and build castles and become the High Septon?" (Ned V, AGOT)

 

1 hour ago, HaeSuse said:

• The Chains that Bind: This is more along the lines of explicitly what I meant by "too far gone". Members of royal families in Westeros are all bound by the chains of tradition and family and honor. They know their places. They expect their rewards. They marry strategically. They game, scheme, con and reap the rewards (be they good or bad). Arya has precisely zero of those chains in her spirit/psyche. And, to fill that hole, she has plugged in vengeance, piety, righteousness, anger and zeal. Before the books, she was against the whole idea of Lords and Ladys and marriages, and political intrigue. By the end of aDwD, she is so far gone from that mindset that she barely resembles the little girl practicing archery in the cold north. I think that the only way she takes Winterfell for her own, is if her list has had every single name crossed off of it, AND none of her siblings is around to take it for themselves.

I think this gets to the root of where you are going wrong with Arya. This is a show invention and your understanding of her character seems mainly based on that butchering of her character.

[Lost Melnibonean]

My understanding is that the general rules are that only one heir takes, heirs stand in order of their birth, sons stand before daughters, daughters stand before uncles, and uncles stand before aunts. You have to work your way down an entire line before you move laterally to younger sons and daughters or back up to uncles and aunts. However, with so much at stake, a good maester, some strong swords, some fat bribes, and good relations with the overlord might be needed to enforce the proper heir's rights, cause you have to assume other potential heirs and claimants will use such assets to take it from the proper heir. 

[HaeSuse]

15 hours ago, Horse of Kent said:

I think this gets to the root of where you are going wrong with Arya. This is a show invention and your understanding of her character seems mainly based on that butchering of her character.

 

While I disagree with most of what you are inferring, this is just plain wrong. I've seen a couple of episodes of the show. My understanding of Arya is from my reading of the books. The last time I read AFFC was in 2005 or 2006, and I read ADWD right when it came out. So maybe my memory is muddled, but it's not because of the show.