Col Cinders

I think the scroll...

104 posts in this topic

On 8/14/2017 at 5:21 PM, Eddard Scissorhands said:

If I remember correctly this was before Arya arrived at Winterfell, and apparently LF had no knowledge that she was on the way. So at the time he wasn't looking for that particular scroll for this particular scheme he's playing. Was he hoping to randomly find something, anything he could use to cause chaos? Or was he looking for something specific?

I believe, at the time, he wanted the secret letter that Aunt Lysa sent. Just my opinion at least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Col Cinders said:

Does your theory hold if you consider that the Karstarks are simply Starks who live in Karhold?  Seems that with a large extended family that there should be a male cousin somewhere when the dice roll all daughters.

Who do you think has the better right to Winterfell - Sansa Stark or Harrion Karstark? It's incredibly clear what the Westerosi think of that. It's daughter/sister of the last lord/king, not his fifteenth cousin five times removed. They may not care for the idea of female rulers very much, but they clearly don't follow the salic law either.

If you look at real life dynasties, most of them daughtered out at some point. In some cases the children of the heiress became members of a new dynasty, in others they carried on her family name. There's no reason why the Starks should be any different.

6 hours ago, Frances Bean Corbray said:

They don't have to be.

Men marrying into the Stark family would've have adopted the Stark name because it's more prestigious and they'd be making a social climb.

Particularly in The North, where the Stark name is magic (figuratively) in terms of ruling the north so it would be politically expedient for the Stark in-law to take his wife's name.  Doubly so for their inheriting child.  Imagine, if you would, that Sansa had gotten pregnant during her (mercifully brief) marriage to Ramsay.  Let's say that kid was a boy and ended up inheriting Wintefell.  Do you think he'd choose to go by Stark, or Bolton?  He can rightly claim either, but if I were going to be Lord of Winterfell, or King In The North, I know which name I'd use.

Real world aristocrats' full names are of a quite cumbersome length because every marriage alliance through the generations produced another surname worth claiming and so they've got like six or so "middle" names and can rotate them around based on what family tie is most advantageous to advertise.  They even tend to do that with their first names (ex: Prince Charles has declared his intent to rule as "George VII" when he inherits the throne, because George is one of like 17 middle names he has and he wants to pay the tribute to his grandfather.  Also Charles has been a somewhat unlucky name for English/British monarchs.)

 

Well, that was the point of my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17.8.2017 at 0:45 AM, lojzelote said:

But, back to my earlier point, I simply find it unlikely that the Starks are an unbroken male line... even if they have lasted only a thousand years, not the unbelievable eight millennia, at some point they should have daughtered out. We can see with the current generation how easy is to lose all male heirs. So, if no woman has ever ruled the North, what other explanation is there than that it were their husbands and sons that were preferred?

Sure, that most likely did happen at more than one occasion. And there is also always the possibility of some cousins inheriting when the main line really gave out completely (which it most likely did at more than one occasion - I mean we are talking about thousands of years here), cousins both through the male and female line. And if some born Locke, Ryder, or Glover, etc. wanted to name himself Stark because his great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather had been a King of Winter, so be it. It is not that there were any institutions who could stop him doing something like that.

And from the family tree we know that there were times when the Starks were much more numerous, actually marrying uncles to nieces to prevent succession struggles (or win them), so that - and normal cousin marriage - would have taken place all the time to ensure that Winterfell and the North remained in the family.

It is a very interesting question to ask how many of those women marrying into House Stark were Stark cousins through the female line. The uncle-niece matches and the Rickard-Lyarra match is clear. But Lynara Stark is an unknown relation of Lord Cregan's, and we have no idea how many Karstarks, Manderlys, Umbers, Lockes, etc. we find in the family tree have a Stark woman as a mother, grandmother, or great-grandmother. Considering how many daughters the Starks produced throughout the years it is very likely that they are all very much interrelated.

And that should allow many a claimant to come forth should the main line indeed die out in peace times. And if Harrold Hardyng ends up calling himself 'Arryn' should be become Lord Harrold of the Vale then such cousins most likely also ended up calling themselves 'Stark' in the past under similar circumstances.

On 17.8.2017 at 0:45 AM, lojzelote said:

We have no idea how much - if at all - has Northern mentality changed in regards to female succession. Acceptance of ruling ladies does not automatically equal acceptance of ruling queens, and the Starks in the North have been regarded as kings in pretty much all but name even before Robb's crowning.

Long story short, Sansa or Arya might be pretty quick to nope out out of any such arrangement that the North may have in store for them.

Well, their position would even be worse. They are both still minors, so they would basically don't rule anything even if they were seen as heirs - as they are - since their guardians and (grown-up) husbands would decide all that for them even if everyone agreed that they should take complete control of their lordship and assets upon their sixteenth nameday (which certainly isn't a given).

The idea of a Queen in the North is most definitely completely unlikely. Nobody would stand for that. But a Ruling Lady of Winterfell seems rather likely, at least nominally. The Stark name is magical (we see this with 'Arya' and Ramsay in ADwD) and this should go even more so for a real Arya and Sansa. And considering that power has to be consolidated they would not really use them only as stand-in puppets until any sons are born, but rather as the real nominal ruler until their deaths. After all, such sons would be children, too, and a Stark lady would most likely be preferable to a Stark lord infant or toddler. Female rule doesn't make a house look strong but it is better than a boy lord. Especially in trying times.

However, in our setting Sansa and Arya would most likely return to Winterfell with strength (Sansa) and determination/ruthlessness (Arya). They could not easily be pushed aside, never mind the established custom.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 11:19 PM, Col Cinders said:

I just had a "holy shit!" moment reading your post.

Arya is acting like a child.  Emphasis on acting.

The argument and friction between the two sisters is part of their drawing him out!

Of course I don't know this.  But I think you are on the right track.

ha! called it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now