LukeofHouseTargaryen Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 How does the Stark line continue? Jon is a Targaryen, Sansa is a woman (children would not have the name Stark), Arya is also a woman, and Bran can never be lord of anything (creepy). How does the Lannister line continue? Cersei is a woman and Jaime swore an oath to never marry. How does the Targaryen line continue? Dany can't have children. Jon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Remain Unvanquished Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 Is there any reason Bran can't be a lord, assuming he ever leaves Bloodraven's cave? Than there is Rickon on Skagos who could be named Lord and continue the Stark line. Sansa could keep her name or one of her children could take the Stark name. Same with Arya. Jon could also either be legitimized as a Stark or take the Stark name depending on if he leaves the watch and how the R+L=J theory comes out in the books. Cersei will probably keep the Lannsiter name and one of Tommen's future children could take the Lannister name or Mrycella could take it. Then there is Kevan's two surviving children, Genna and her kids and grandkids, and then there is Daven and his sisters. If Dany can't have kids Jon could take the Targaryen named depending on the R+L=J storyline int he books. Than there is also Aegon VI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falcon2909 Posted August 22, 2017 Share Posted August 22, 2017 2 hours ago, LukeofHouseTargaryen said: How does the Stark line continue? Jon is a Targaryen, Sansa is a woman (children would not have the name Stark), Arya is also a woman, and Bran can never be lord of anything (creepy). How does the Lannister line continue? Cersei is a woman and Jaime swore an oath to never marry. How does the Targaryen line continue? Dany can't have children. Jon? Probably in the Stark's case Sansa would continue a matriarchial line until a son is born from her who will be named a Stark. For Lannisters, Jaime forsake those vows. He is free to marry and breed. There are other Lannisters like Reginald Lannister from season 2. Targaryen line is done for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
averde Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 I thought Rickon was possibly being kept around to be the "future" of House Stark but based on the shaggydog theory and events in the show I think that's up in the air. For that reason I think the Starks are the closest family to being extinct with the current generation. Targaryens have a woman and a young man currently claiming to represent the current generation, neither have yet to produce heirs. The Lannisters are as numerous as the freys. You'd need to wipe out Kevan and his children to even make a dent on the main branch, and the ensuing branches are numerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMIFairy Posted August 23, 2017 Share Posted August 23, 2017 On 22.08.2017 at 1:36 AM, LukeofHouseTargaryen said: 1 - How does the Stark line continue? Jon is a Targaryen, Sansa is a woman (children would not have the name Stark), Arya is also a woman, and Bran can never be lord of anything (creepy). 2 - How does the Lannister line continue? Cersei is a woman and Jaime swore an oath to never marry. 3 - How does the Targaryen line continue? Dany can't have children. Jon? 1 - as far as everybody is concerned, the Stark main line is extinct. All six children are KIA or MIA. Robb and Jon are dead like a Norwegian Blue parrot, the younger boys are presumed murdered by Theon, Sansa and Arya are missing. The Starks have been succeeded by the Boltons by right of conquest and/or marriage to fArya - make your pick which matters more. There are at least three cadet branches of the Starks - Karstark and the semi-canon Starks of Barrowton and White Habrour. 2 - Cersei is the current Lady of Casterly Rick, and - after her - legally it should be Myrcella (as Tommen takes KL). But the main legal principle of Westerosi Law is expediency, hence her successor could be somebody else. Myrcella married to a male Lannister cousin would solve the situation pretty nicely. 3 - Jon is DEAD. Not to mention that Jon is a Stark bastard. And is a member of the Nights Watch who foreswore any inheritance. If Dany is barren then fAegon's children - if he is legit or acknowledged as legit, which is as good as being the same thing - could inherit after her - if she leaves anything to inherit, that is. If fAegon is legit, then she is his heir, with boys being above girls on the succession ladder. If fAeon is acknowledged as a fake, then Stannis followed by Shireen are her heirs, as these are her closest relatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xander Baratheon Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 Couldn't Tyrion also be pardoned and another source for future Lannisters? And even if he continued to be a fugitive from the seven kingdoms, he would still have Lannister offspring. However, as it was stated earlier, there are plenty of Lannisters so I'm not worried about their line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMIFairy Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 Tyrion could be the source of Lannister Heirs. If he marries, that is. But he is tainted as a kinslayer so his line is almost certain to be shunted for Lancel's or Tyrek's - these being closest to the main line - or "some other Lannister" who - through a mix of blood ties and fortitious circumstances - ends up with Casterly Rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaak Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 With all issue of Edwyle accounted as dead save for "Arya", precisely which Waynwood descendant is the heir/ess of Jocelyn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckPunch Posted September 18, 2017 Share Posted September 18, 2017 On 8/21/2017 at 6:36 PM, LukeofHouseTargaryen said: How does the Stark line continue? Jon is a Targaryen, Sansa is a woman (children would not have the name Stark), Arya is also a woman, and Bran can never be lord of anything (creepy). How does the Lannister line continue? Cersei is a woman and Jaime swore an oath to never marry. How does the Targaryen line continue? Dany can't have children. Jon? 1- A lesser house can marry Sansa and they use the Stark name. Especially if the lesser house has Stark blood already. See Harry the Heir. 2- There are a lot of Lannisters who can either marry Myrcella or just inherit it on their own through the family. Tywin's great nephew or something. 3- See #1. Velaryon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 On 9/18/2017 at 2:31 PM, ChuckPunch said: 1- A lesser house can marry Sansa and they use the Stark name. Especially if the lesser house has Stark blood already. See Harry the Heir. 2- There are a lot of Lannisters who can either marry Myrcella or just inherit it on their own through the family. Tywin's great nephew or something. 3- See #1. Velaryon? 1. You'd have to look pretty far. For example, Ned's father Rickard was an only child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirArthur Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 Aren't you mixing up show and books ? We have Bran and Rick and Benjen (although problematic) and then Sansa and Arya and a lot of female relatives who married into other houses. And the ghost snow elefant in the room. And why is the Op mixing up the Lord of anything title with heirs. I mean Bran could possibly still have children plus there is no reason why he can't be Lord of winterfell or anything else. 1. Robb named him already Prince of Winterfell. 2. I'm not sure he could even deny on legal reasons. He is a child. He even had to be the posterboy in Winterfell while Robb was on campaign. 3. I'm not even sure he can deny if he is rooted in the north. I mean Bran still can see what's going on in Winterfell and he can communicate ... so again ... even being other places in no reason to not. On 23.8.2017 at 5:08 AM, averde said: I thought Rickon was possibly being kept around to be the "future" of House Stark but based on the shaggydog theory and events in the show I think that's up in the air. For that reason I think the Starks are the closest family to being extinct with the current generation. I so love it when people ignore everything else just because the favourite family has to be special once more. There are a lot of houses short of getting extinct in the male line in the current generation: Targaryen (with Viserys, Aegon), Baratheon, Darry, Tully, Greyjoy (doesn't matter because Kingsmoot), Arryn and many more smaller houses. The Starks have still 2 heirs which is more than most great other houses with the exception of Lannisters or Tyrells have. And Dorne has special rules. I just cannot follow that special extinction logic. This is somehow show only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 No, I'm not. Look at the Stark family tree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 7 minutes ago, SirArthur said: Aren't you mixing up show and books ? We have Bran and Rick and Benjen (although problematic) and then Sansa and Arya and a lot of female relatives who married into other houses. And the ghost snow elefant in the room. And why is the Op mixing up the Lord of anything title with heirs. I mean Bran could possibly still have children plus there is no reason why he can't be Lord of winterfell or anything else. 1. Robb named him already Prince of Winterfell. 2. I'm not sure he could even deny on legal reasons. He is a child. He even had to be the posterboy in Winterfell while Robb was on campaign. 3. I'm not even sure he can deny if he is rooted in the north. I mean Bran still can see what's going on in Winterfell and he can communicate ... so again ... even being other places in no reason to not. I so love it when people ignore everything else just because the favourite family has to be special once more. There are a lot of houses short of getting extinct in the male line in the current generation: Targaryen (with Viserys, Aegon), Baratheon, Darry, Tully, Greyjoy (doesn't matter because Kingsmoot), Arryn and many more smaller houses. The Starks have still 2 heirs which is more than most great other houses with the exception of Lannisters or Tyrells have. And Dorne has special rules. I just cannot follow that special extinction logic. This is somehow show only. We don't know if Bran can have sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirArthur Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 9 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said: We don't know if Bran can have sex. That's what I said. But it doesn't matter. Lord Bran can still arrange a marriage for Arya or Sansa under conditions of female name inheritance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, SirArthur said: That's what I said. But it doesn't matter. Lord Bran can still arrange a marriage for Arya or Sansa under conditions of female name inheritance. Is it legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirArthur Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said: Is it legal? Under salic law a woman can inherit directly if no male heirs are there. Under cognatic male primogeniture the son of a daughter can inherit. concerning the Stark name: I don't know. Westeros is odd in many regards, especially when it comes to name conventions. (rarely family names purely based by location, more like the location as a further specification, e.g. Lannisters of Lannisport. They are not the of Lannisport.) Also surnames were only introduced in the medieval ages. I'm not sure about that but in any case Bran could also adopt his nephew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 6 minutes ago, SirArthur said: Under salic law a woman can inherit directly if no male heirs are there. Under cognatic male primogeniture the son of a daughter can inherit. concerning the Stark name: I don't know. Westeros is odd in many regards, especially when it comes to name conventions. (rarely family names purely based by location, more like the location as a further specification, e.g. Lannisters of Lannisport. They are not the of Lannisport.) Also surnames were only introduced in the medieval ages. I'm not sure about that but in any case Bran could also adopt his nephew. I thought Salic law barred women entirely, i.e. The son of a daughter could not inherit. Take the Hundred Years' War: Philip IV of France has three sons: Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV, and a daughter Isabella, the She-Wolf of France. Charles IV dies in 1328 without issue, ending the direct Capet line. Edward III, son of Isabella, claims the right to rule France as her son. However, the French refuse and uphold the rights of Philip VI, a cousin of Isabella's through Philip IV's brother Charles of Valois. The Avignon papacy decreed that Salic Law bars female line succession in 1340. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirArthur Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 1 minute ago, Angel Eyes said: I thought Salic law barred women entirely, i.e. The son of a daughter could not inherit. It was changed in 570 but only if no son is present. 3 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said: Take the Hundred Years' War: Philip IV of France has three sons: Louis X, Philip V and Charles IV, and a daughter Isabella, the She-Wolf of France. Charles IV dies in 1328 without issue, ending the direct Capet line. Edward III, son of Isabella, claims the right to rule France as her son. However, the French refuse and uphold the rights of Philip VI, a cousin of Isabella's through Philip IV's brother Charles of Valois. The Avignon papacy decreed that Salic Law bars female line succession in 1340. This was explicitly on the issue of the french crown. The wikipedia page sees the issue different than you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angel Eyes Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 Just now, SirArthur said: It was changed in 570 but only if no son is present. This was explicitly on the issue of the french crown. The wikipedia page sees the issue different than you. So Salic law makes an exception for France? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirArthur Posted September 26, 2017 Share Posted September 26, 2017 6 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said: So Salic law makes an exception for France? No, french law makes an exception and later claims the exception on the salic law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.