Plenary powers of Lords Paramount and King.

[Prof. Cecily]

1 hour ago, Graydon Hicks said:

i think joffrey did it to stannis. not that it mattered much, when its in the midst of a rebellion. you dont get to enforce that kind of decree unless you win.

Didn't the Crown assign Winterfell to House Bolton?

 

[Graydon Hicks]

yeah, but they had won that war by that time. robb was dead, cat was dead, bran and rickon were rumoured dead, no one had seen arya, so they could make up what ever they wanted about her circumstances, and sansa married off ends the stark line. official at least. jon was in the NW, which forsakes all ties and rights to inheritance, so that removed him from succession.

[Lord Varys]

10 hours ago, Wolf of The Wall said:

But there is no titles in WoIaF besides King and Knight (lord is not a title it's a type formal addressing with nobility). So granting land and right to build a keep is de facto same with granting titles. Unless is there a upper limit to it such as olny x acres of land a LP can bestow to a knight. And this causes my other question "what is the order of precedence?" GRRM should've add a few more titles imho.

Yeah, that is a huge mistake that confuses things. We can still be certain that men with special additional titles - like the great houses and the Hightowers and perhaps even Manderlys - take precedence before humbler lords. And the four Wardens most likely also take precedence before noblemen of equal rank who are not Wardens, etc. but the whole fact you address a woman like Lady Webber the same way you do Sansa Stark or Margaery Tyrell does not really clarify things.

The classical noble titles could work pretty well in Westeros. Mere lords could have been people like Littlefinger and other so-called petty lords. Above you could have had barons and earls/counts without making it all that clear what privileges those groups had aside from being more powerful. This could have worked especially well with up-jumped and ambitious powerful houses like the Freys. For really powerful freak houses like the Boltons, Manderlys, Yronwoods, Royces, Reynes, etc. there could have been freak titles like viscounts and marquesses.

One could also have made use of the fact that the fortunes of noble rise and decline by having impoverished houses like the Westerlings having a fancy title in spite of the fact that they no longer have sufficient wealth.

The great houses could all be dukes, the Hightowers included, with the Tyrells serving as the grand-dukes of the Reach in the wake of the Conquest.

Another way to deal with the whole thing without a large change in titles after the Conquest would have been to have Aegon declare himself the Emperor of the Seven Kingdoms, with the former kings all keeping their crowns and royal titles. 

7 hours ago, Blue-Eyed Wolf said:

Okay, thanks for pointing that out.  The point being, Tytos still had the means of making knighthood happen.

Sure. George also has confirmed that a king can make knights without himself being a knight. We don't know whether the Conqueror was a knight, for instance (and he knighted his own son Maegor). And Aegon III, Baelor I, Daeron II, and Aerys I might not have been knights, either. Yet either of these kings might have dub some courageous man a knight.

But lords can't do that if they are not knights.

7 hours ago, Blue-Eyed Wolf said:

I agree. Lord Nestor Royce is definitely head of a cadet branch, which implies there was an estate somewhere along the line.  Where they were living before the appointment to the Gates of the Moon we have no clue.  It could have been destroyed or lost somehow due to mismanagement or debts at some point in the past.  Certainly his current position is more prestigious than whatever old one they had.  Perhaps evens the playing field a bit more between him and the Runestone cousins.  Hence his determination to hold on to it by any means necessary, even becoming an accomplice to the likes of LF.  He does have going for him right now is that the IT is a little bit preoccupied with other matters.  His ownership does hinge upon making sure LF is successful in holding his position and making his decrees stick long term.

You raise an interesting point there. We know Benedict Royce, the husband of Jocelyn Stark with whom he had three daughters, was also of the younger branch of House Royce and the man most likely wasn't the immediate ancestor of Nestor. It might be that those Royces from the cadet branch were once more prestigious and wealthy than they are right now. The daughters of the sister of the Lord of Winterfell might have ended up with quite a decent portion of the wealth and lands of their father while the Royce brother, nephew, or cousin - Nestor's ancestor - inherited the title and what was left of the wealth of the family.

If those cadet branch Royces only split up a couple of generations ago they might not have yet the time to acquire a decent lordship of the same sort many of the long-lived noble family lines have.

7 hours ago, Blue-Eyed Wolf said:

I agree having your own treasurer is a big deal, but what unique features of Dornish law are real thorns in the side of the other 6 kingdoms?  The highlight of Dornish law is that females and males are generally considered equal.  That's certainly not something done elsewhere, but it doesn't appear to be something anyone gets riled up about.  They don't really have a bastard prejudice culturally, but bastards don't have inheritance rights there either.  I might be wrong, I just don't recall anything specific.

We know the Martells have the privilege to decide how much taxes they owe to the Iron Throne without oversight from KL. Vice versa, this implies that the other great houses don't have that privilege. Now, we don't see many royal officials anywhere in the series but considering the economical situation of Westeros most revenues in coin would come in from the large cities and the many market towns in the Riverlands, the Reach, and the West.

It is hardly surprising that we see no tax collectors running around in the North even the great lords seem to be getting most of their taxes, rents in kind, not in coin. But there would have been some of those in White Harbor. And we know Littlefinger once worked in Gulltown in a similar capacity.

As to what Dornish laws still being applicable in Dorne means in practice we don't know. But it could be significant in a number of ways. The laws which were unified by Jaehaerys I wouldn't be applicable in Dorne at all. This could even mean that the supreme judge in Dorne is still the Prince(ss) of Dorne, not the King on the Iron Throne. That would mean that nobody accused of a crime in Dorne or having some sort of legal issue with a Dornishman can't petition the Iron Throne. He would have to go to the Prince(ss) of Dorne.

[TMIFairy]

I will chip in my views on "only a King can make new Lords".

There are three levels of "non-smallfolk", let us call them "nobles" for simplicity:

- Great Lords, the heads of the constituent kingdoms

- Lords,

- Knights and Masters (here GRRM realy, really should had introduced some sort of other term than "knight" - gentry? esquire?)

Each has its powers, in descending order.
Inside each class the prestige and wealth leads to its own pecking order. Lord Hightower has much more prestrige than Lord Frey. But "legally" all lords are equal, same as all knights//masters.

A Great Lord, like Lannister, can grant lands and ennoble a smallfolk like the 1st Clegane and make him a knight/master. But he cannot make Clegane a lord. Clegane, when dealing justice in his estates, has to call upon the lord to which he is sworn to met out capital punishment.

The way I see things is that post-Conquest the legal fiction is that "all power flows from the King", and the Kings granted Great Lords and lords the right to pits and gallows. But GLs and Ls are not empowered to pass these rights along. They can exert certain powers but cannot grant such themselves. 

I hope my rambling makes any sense.

An offshot of the the "Dornish Law applies in Dorne" principle could be the "gender blind primogeniture" used there, for instance.

As to coinage - maybe only the Crown can mint gold coins, while silver can be minted by Great Lords and copper by lords?

 

 

[Universal Sword Donor]

8 hours ago, Prof. Cecily said:

Has House Stark been stripped of its titles?

Or any other House in the course of the books?

House Stark hasn't because fArya and Sansa were or are under throne influence and power.

But yes:

"...bring the king's justice to the false knight Gregor Clegane, and to all those who shared in his crimes. I denounce him, and attaint him, and strip him of all rank and titles, of all lands and incomes and holdings, and do sentence him to death. May the gods take pity on his soul."

----------------

From a drooping sleeve, heavy with gilded scrollwork, he drew a parchment, unrolled it, and began to read a long list of names, commanding each in the name of king and council to present themselves and swear their fealty to Joffrey. Failing that, they would be adjudged traitors, their lands and titles forfeit to the throne.

The names he read made Sansa hold her breath. Lord Stannis Baratheon, his lady wife, his daughter. Lord Renly Baratheon. Both Lord Royces and their sons. Ser Loras Tyrell. Lord Mace Tyrell, his brothers, uncles, sons. The red priest, Thoros of Myr. Lord Beric Dondarrion. Lady Lysa Arryn and her son, the little Lord Robert. Lord Hoster Tully, his brother Ser Brynden, his son Ser Edmure. Lord Jason Mallister. Lord Bryce Caron of the Marches. Lord Tytos Blackwood. Lord Walder Frey and his heir Ser Stevron. Lord Karyl Vance. Lord Jonos Bracken. Lady Shella Whent. Doran Martell, Prince of Dorne, and all his sons.

* Granted only the Tullys and Carons lose their holdings

------

Both House Connington and House Merryweather had theirs taken (later restored).

------

House Florent lost their lands and titles to Garlan and his branch of the Tyrells.

The Darklyns and Hollards are in there too

[Daena the Defiant]

On 6/19/2017 at 9:34 PM, Blue-Eyed Wolf said:

 He does have an example of a specialized title like the Lord of Dragonstone that goes to the crown prince under the Targaryens.  Very much like the Prince of Wales is the title of the heir apparent in England.

Actually,the Targyen crown prince was the _Prince_ of Dragonstone.  I always wonder if there was another courtesy title Prince of Summerhall (for the second son a la Duke of York), or that was just a poetic name for one specific dude.

FWIW, the special title for the heir was mirrored by King Robb and heir, Brandon, Prince of Winterfell.

[Daena the Defiant]

On 6/20/2017 at 11:04 AM, Universal Sword Donor said:

Doran Martell, Prince of Dorne, and all his sons.

I've always noted this as a mistake on GRRM's part. Doran's public heir was his daughter, as everyone knew (those wacky Dornish)  and even if you think that they were summoning Doran, Quentyn and Tristayne two sons would not be referred to as 'all his sons' - you would say 'both his sons.'

 

 

[Jaak]

On 20.6.2017 at 0:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that is a huge mistake that confuses things.

Confuses things for us readers, but the people in story will make do... as they do with the High Septons being nameless. And it´s not a mistake.

On 20.6.2017 at 0:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

The classical noble titles could work pretty well in Westeros. Mere lords could have been people like Littlefinger and other so-called petty lords. Above you could have had barons and earls/counts without making it all that clear what privileges those groups had aside from being more powerful. This could have worked especially well with up-jumped and ambitious powerful houses like the Freys. For really powerful freak houses like the Boltons, Manderlys, Yronwoods, Royces, Reynes, etc. there could have been freak titles like viscounts and marquesses.

One could also have made use of the fact that the fortunes of noble rise and decline by having impoverished houses like the Westerlings having a fancy title in spite of the fact that they no longer have sufficient wealth.

The great houses could all be dukes, the Hightowers included, with the Tyrells serving as the grand-dukes of the Reach in the wake of the Conquest.

England has had the full panoply, Baron through Marquess to Duke, only since 1442 or so.

Before 1337, the ranks were Knight, Baron and Earl. No others.

And in Poland, every noble was just Pan. No titles - legally, all nobles were emphatically equal.

Westeros with 2 titles - Knight and Lord - makes sense.

On 20.6.2017 at 0:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

Another way to deal with the whole thing without a large change in titles after the Conquest would have been to have Aegon declare himself the Emperor of the Seven Kingdoms, with the former kings all keeping their crowns and royal titles. 

But what Aegon actually did made perfect sense. The King of Vale was symbolically cut down by making him a mere Lord, equally to Lord of Sheepshit.

A deserved fate. For there had been an alternative.

Robar Royce created the title "High King". Which meant that his allies might bend to High King and still be called King.

Whereas Ser Artys Arryn made himself just King. Meaning that his allies, like former Kings of Fingers and Gulltown, had to stoop to being mere Lords.

The other Kingdoms did the same.

And Dornish, themselves using a title Prince, did worse. While most of the Houses they defeated got to survive, Nymeria sent six Kings to Wall in golden chains. At least the Kings who bent the knee to Aegon got to keep their homes and wives.

On 20.6.2017 at 0:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

Sure. George also has confirmed that a king can make knights without himself being a knight. We don't know whether the Conqueror was a knight, for instance (and he knighted his own son Maegor). And Aegon III, Baelor I, Daeron II, and Aerys I might not have been knights, either. Yet either of these kings might have dub some courageous man a knight.

Does High Septon claim the right to make knights, in the name of Warrior?

 

[Graydon Hicks]

16 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Does High Septon claim the right to make knights, in the name of Warrior?

maybe, the custom of knighthood seems to be a primarily andal thing, and its rituals seem to be more in tune with the faith of the seven, which is why there are so few knights in the North compared to the rest of the realm. i know that there are some up there, but not nearly as great a ratio for its population size compared to south of the neck.

now, how many of those northern knights follow the old gods, im not sure. could be that most of the northern knights were knighted in the field, which is a valid tradition in our own world. you perform a suitably valorous act in battle, like save a lords life, or storm a catle on your own, that kind of thing, then the lord or knight who witnessed it, or was saved, or whatever, knights you in the field. i think thats how jorah mormont got knighted during the greyjoy rebellion.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Confuses things for us readers, but the people in story will make do... as they do with the High Septons being nameless. And it´s not a mistake.

It is in a world with as complex a feudal hierarchy as the Seven Kingdoms. They are not, gods be good, as small or insignificant as early medieval England or Poland.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

England has had the full panoply, Baron through Marquess to Duke, only since 1442 or so.

Before 1337, the ranks were Knight, Baron and Earl. No others.

And in Poland, every noble was just Pan. No titles - legally, all nobles were emphatically equal.

But the nobles in the Seven Kingdoms are emphatically not equal.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Westeros with 2 titles - Knight and Lord - makes sense.

Not really. Neither in the Seven Kingdoms of old and certainly not during the Targaryen reign. Those people all care about their rank and status, and being all lords would mean there is essentially no difference reflected in the styling or address between a man like Tywin and a man like Littlefinger. This doesn't make any sense.

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

But what Aegon actually did made perfect sense. The King of Vale was symbolically cut down by making him a mere Lord, equally to Lord of Sheepshit.

So why do the Arryns then still rule over the lords of sheepshit?

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

Does High Septon claim the right to make knights, in the name of Warrior?

Why should he do something like that in the name of the Warrior only? The High Septon speaks for all the Seven and part of the proper ritual to become a knight is to stand vigil in a sept and be anointed by a septon with the seven oils. If there is somebody who most definitely can make a knight it would be the High Septon. And back in the early days of the Andals any septon might have been able to make a knight. It seems that the original origin of knighthood goes back to the zealous Andal warriors who invaded Westeros. They motivation was apparently largely religious.

[Jaak]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is in a world with as complex a feudal hierarchy as the Seven Kingdoms. They are not, gods be good, as small or insignificant as early medieval England or Poland.

It was the late medieval Poland that stretched from Baltic Sea to Black Sea, and insisted on no titles.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not really. Neither in the Seven Kingdoms of old and certainly not during the Targaryen reign. Those people all care about their rank and status, and being all lords would mean there is essentially no difference reflected in the styling or address between a man like Tywin and a man like Littlefinger. This doesn't make any sense.

So why do the Arryns then still rule over the lords of sheepshit?

That´s a part of the compromise offered already by Arryns. Royces of Runestone are allowed to actually rule over Coldwaters and Tolletts, but Royces are not allowed to call themselves High King of Vale, nor Bronze King, just Lord like Lord Coldwater or Lord Tollett

[TMIFairy]

10 hours ago, Jaak said:

It was the late medieval Poland that stretched from Baltic Sea to Black Sea, and insisted on no titles.

Oh, how I hate this "sea to sea" lie!

1 - it was the Lithuanian Grand Duchy which reached from sea to sea - with 50 kilometres of sand dunes on the Baltic and 200 of likewise empty coast on the Black Sea; and with several hundred miles of empty steppe between said undeveloped coast and any permanent settlements to the north ...

2 - for a few decades the Kingdom of Poland had Moldavia as vassal - which gives it a very weak claim to stretch from "sea to sea" - again to a stretch of Black Sea coast with no ports.

The lack of titles was by accident - fragmentation into tiny principalities with shifting borders.

The insistence on lack of titles is, IIRC - the XVIth century and onwards, the Modern Era, not Medieval Ages.

 

Lard Varys - as to having the same form of address for Lord Tywin Lannister and Lord Petyr Baelish - that is IMO purely the effect of GRRM's cutting corners in world building.

In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, where all nobles were all "equal", nevertheless the forms of address towards a bloke who owned estates the size of Belgium, or three villages, or his boots, were all different. I can't quote them top of my head as these went out of use in the early XIXth century.

But GRRM IMO missed out on introducing and consequently using a "lord" and "master" distinction from Book I onwards. Sansa would have no problems in addressing Sandor then - it would be "Master Clegane" or - if that was reserved to the head of the House - Master Sandor.

GRRM either did not think of this or did not bother - I agree that he has enough things to keep track off. Nevertheless e.g. having Robb be addressed as "Lord Robb" and Jon as "Master Jon" would had been a nice touch in my eyes. Now that I am overthinking this, that is

[Graydon Hicks]

you know, its actually kind of interesting that there is no variation in the titles of nobility beyond knight and lord. you'd think there would be a little in the way of differences, like calling bealish a baron, or whatever is very low on the noble totem pole, while the boltons be something along the lines of an earldom. im little lost on variety of titles and how they compare to each other, but wouldnt it make it easier to determine the actual ranking of someone like the umbers of last hearth compared to the blackwoods of raventree, or the royces of runestone. even if the titles were regional or cultural specific, like the first men have thanes or jarls, while the andals have counts and dukes, i dont know. what do yall think?

[TMIFairy]

8 minutes ago, Graydon Hicks said:

what do yall think?

Like I wrote in my edited response above - GRRM simplified, maybe oversimplified things.

Maybe his (over)simplification was correct - besides the people here (who all lack a life ;)) - who cares that both Tywin and Petyr get to be called "Lord"?

 

[Graydon Hicks]

1 minute ago, TMIFairy said:

Like I wrote in my edited response above - GRRM simplified, maybe oversimplified things.

Maybe his (over)simplification was correct - besides the people here (who all lack a life ;)) - who cares that both Tywin and Petyr get to be called "Lord"?

 

call it my since of comparison. i never feel completely firm on political or military positions without knowing the exact ranking to compare against each other. it helps to determine just how someone like tywin might consider someone like bealish. is he a fellow peer of the realm, or is he simply an upstart barely more attention worthy than a peasant?

[TMIFairy]

Free your mind!

All Men (and some say that Women too) are equal!

 

[Graydon Hicks]

58 minutes ago, TMIFairy said:

Free your mind!

All Men (and some say that Women too) are equal!

 

hark, blasphemy! tho doth preach anarchy and chaos!

[Lord Varys]

If a kingdom/land is cut into different chunks of various sizes then it makes somewhat sense to make all those feudal landowners be equal in rank. They would be, in the sense that they were all (sort of) subservient to the king, and only the king.

Now, this isn't the case in Westeros. In Westeros, the great lords of the Realm are the only lords who only have one liege lord in the king. All the others have other lordly liege lords as well as responsibilities to the king.

And it is not very realistic that those differences wouldn't be reflected in titles.

[Jaak]

Ireland used to have 100 to 150 Kings.

The maesters did use terms like "ri buiden", "ri tuath", "ruiri", "ri ruirech", "ri cuicid"... but did the contemporaries use the titles consistently?

While England always had a minimum of 2 lordly titles ("baron" and "earl") and expanded it to 5 between 1337 and 1442 or so, there also was a tradition of "peerage" - when the votes were counted in House of Lords, they counted men, not titles, and therefore a holder of multiple dukedoms has an equal vote to a holder of a single barony.

[TMIFairy]

56 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Now, this isn't the case in Westeros. In Westeros, the great lords of the Realm are the only lords who only have one liege lord in the king. All the others have other lordly liege lords as well as responsibilities to the king.

And it is not very realistic that those differences wouldn't be reflected in titles.

No, not realistic. But that's what GRRM gave us

I believe I read somewhere that GRRM expressed regret at not splitting the nobility further. I'd bet good money on that - with hindsight - he'd change more than one thing in the first book.