ohiostate124

So what happens to House Stark?

49 posts in this topic

Seems that Bran is the only one left that can continue the Stark name. I don't really see him having children. What do you all think will happen? Will he get with Meera or will House Stark join the growing list of extinct houses since the series started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sansa will continue house Stark. This has happened in the past with Bael the bard and a Stark daughter, their son continued the Stark line. 

The Lannisters are also descended from a woman. Joffery Lydden married Gerold III Lannister's daughter and took the Lannister name and their children continued the Lannisters line.

I'm guessing that most great families have had a female continue the line at some point due to most of these families being thousands of years old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, our Starks should die out in the male line if Rickon dies in the books, too. Bran cannot have children of his own and he is the last Stark. House Stark will die with him.

Whether children of Sansa's would bear the Stark name if she ended up ruling as Lady of Winterfell would depend on her husband. Even Rhaenyra Targaryen named her sons Velaryon after their (legal) father Laenor Velaryon. If the Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne doesn't give her royal name to her children I don't see how Sansa could do that against the will of her husband.

I guess, if she ended up with a guy of partially humble origins like Harrold Hardyng it could work that way - just as it did with the Lydden-Lannisters in the West. But if Tyrion remained her husband, say, or she married somebody else from a great house then such a man might simply insist that his children bear his noble name, and then we might see Winterfell passing to the Lannisters of Winterfell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She can marry under the condition that her children would be Starks. Also, the traditional ruling/ inheritance chain is obviously not in use in Winterfell anymore, whether we call the reason 'unusual circumstances' or 'screwing the universe rules'.

As for now we have:

a. A Snow being the king of the North (since it's this name he's been appointed under; we don't know what title will he be holding as a Targaryen) and apparently the ruler of Winterfell as well, though the specifics are a bit unclear.

b. The legal Lord Stark just 'not feeling it'.

c. The 'Is Lady Sandra a Bolton or a Lannister?' being considered the Lady Stark.

d. Ice zombies coming, so we have more urging things to sort out.

e. The entire system crumbling anyway, if we just take a look to the matter of royal succession in Westeros during the GoT events.

So they are making their own rules already. It's safe to say that whoever will be in charge of Winterfell/the North after the apocalypse, will just decide as s/he pleases, and since it will be Jon or Sansa - if Sansa wants her children to be Starks, she probably can just decide so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be the same situation that the Mormonts are in. Maege Mormont is the current ruler and her daughter Alysane is of house Mormont and is the heir. Alysane Mormont has two children who are also of house Mormont. 

It's been done in the past and is currently happening in some families so I don't see a problem with either Sansa or Arya continuing the Stark family.


Also to the above I took it that Jon is the king in the north operating out of Winterfell but Winterfell is still owned by the Starks and is currently ruled by Sansa.

Edited by KingMudd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Sansa is the lady of winterfell, it is likely that even the lords of greater houses may want to marry their second sons to Sansa and have their children have the Stark name. Having a grandchild be the lord/lady of winterfell is a pretty nice deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2017 at 4:41 PM, Lord Varys said:

I guess, if she ended up with a guy of partially humble origins like Harrold Hardyng it could work that way

Humble is a relative thing. Unless she ends up marrying King Aegon Targaryen of the Seven Kingdoms or something, becoming the father of the next Lord Paramount of Winterfell is a step up for pretty much anyone in the realm—they're either from a lesser house, or they're a second son, or both.

Of course some men care more about honoring the house they were born into than about the prestige of their children, and that's a perfectly reasonable way to feel. That still comes up even in modern times (e.g., Queen VIctoria's sons used their father's house, but Queen Elizabeth's use their mother's*). But I think the idea that Sansa would marry a man who wants to sire the future of House Stark more than he wants to embiggen House Bumblefuck is pretty plausible.

---

* Of course in modern times the final decision rests with Parliament rather than the two Queens and their husbands, and Britain has a lot more international relations issues to deal with than the North… but that still illustrates that people find both answers reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Humble is a relative thing. Unless she ends up marrying King Aegon Targaryen of the Seven Kingdoms or something, becoming the father of the next Lord Paramount of Winterfell is a step up for pretty much anyone in the realm—they're either from a lesser house, or they're a second son, or both.

Well, it could still be a house of equal rank, could it not? And then the man would tell the woman how it goes, as since wives are sworn to obey their (lord) husbands in this society. Sansa might be the Lady of Winterfell but if her husband does want his children by her to bear his name they will bear his name. And he certainly would also want to instill the wish in his sons that his name is a name they can be proud to bear, whatever it is.

That would certainly be if Sansa ended up with a Lannister or Arryn but also, I think, with a second tier house of some standing.

16 minutes ago, falcotron said:

* Of course in modern times the final decision rests with Parliament rather than the two Queens and their husbands, and Britain has a lot more international relations issues to deal with than the North… but that still illustrates that people find both answers reasonable.

Actually, no. It was Queen Elizabeth II who ruled on the names of her own descendants. It was proper procedure for a woman to take the name of the house of the husband, both with Albert and Victoria and later with Philip and Elizabeth. He wanted his children to be Mountbattens but the Queen Dowager Mary was against that, and in addition the British were not exactly happy with Lizzy's German consort anyway. They had already changed the name to Windsor (also by royal decree) during the Great War.

In Westeros some ruling ladies - like Arwyn Oakheart and Anya Waynwood - did pass their name to their children but since Rhaenyra did not with Laenor's sons we can't say that's a given. Especially in light that we have no clue whether both those women actually had married (distant) Waynwood or Oakheart cousins. Could very well be.

In the end the final decision there would most likely come upon Sansa's death. If her son or daughter decided she would want to be known as Lord/Lady X Stark then this most likely could work if the Iron Throne agreed with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, it could still be a house of equal rank, could it not?

If he's a second son of a house of equal rank, it's still a big step up.

If he's an actual Lord Paramount, then that's a different story, but cases like that look incredibly rare in Westeros, as opposed to blindingly common in real-life Europe, which implies that they have strong traditions to prevent that whenever possible. Obviously Littlefinger thought he had a way around that, and maybe Sansa learned enough from him that she could work out a way to get everyone to accept her marrying Sweetrobin, but if we're now imagining Sansa the greatest player in Westeros, can you imagine Sweetrobin demanding she obey him without question? 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, no. It was Queen Elizabeth II who ruled on the names of her own descendants.

Yes, but her 1960 Letters Patent only had force by the Titles Act 1927, and Parliament could have overridden her if they'd wanted to pass a new Act. They obviously wouldn't do so without very good reason—which is why I put it in a footnote.

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In Westeros some ruling ladies - like Arwyn Oakheart and Anya Waynwood - did pass their name to their children but since Rhaenyra did not with Laenor's sons we can't say that's a given.

That's exactly my point: As I said, both answers are reasonable. So we can't say that it's a given that the Stark line is over, and we can't say that it's a given that it isn't over; all we can say is that it probably depends on who Sansa marries and what they decide (and whether they can sell it to their vassals, and whether the crown approves it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must always be a Stark in Winterfell.

Any kid(s) inheriting Winterfell will be named Stark, no matter their parents.

 

Besides, on the Show, let's look at surviving males of the Houses Paramount ... there's Jaime Lannister, Tyrion Lannister, Theon Greyjoy, Robyn Arryn, Edmure Tully, Jon Snow/Stark/Aegon Targaryen, and Gendry Waters (unacknowledged bastard Baratheon).

Jaime Lannister - dead man walking - no way he marries Sansa or Arya, much less has kids with them.

Tyrion Lannister - maybe, possibly, something with Sansa, but unlikely, and he's interested in the Rock, anyways. Assuming Arya doesn't assassinate him on account of being a Lannister.

Theon Greyjoy - he's been castrated. Also, probably going to die in the process of saving his sister and/or killing Euron.

Robyn Arryn - he's got the Vale, is supposedly weak and sickly (I think), but he's also probably somewhat mentally unstable and a pushover.

Edmure Tully - already married. Albeit to a Frey. Also, possibly locked up in a dungeon somewhere. Totally not happening.

Gendry Waters (unacknowledged bastard Baratheon) - although it's known to people who could push a legitimization decree. He'd go for Storm's End, not Winterfell. Also, per the books, he effectively rejected Arya, turning her against him, so I'm leaning towards "not happening".

Jon Snow/Stark/Aegon Targaryen - not likely in the show to marry and have kids with Sansa or Arya, but if he did, they'd be named Stark.

 

Basically, in the Show, there aren't that many males of the top-tier of nobility, or bastards thereof, still alive. Thus, in all likelihood, anyone who Sansa or Arya marry and/or have children with will be of lower social rank.

Worst case scenario, the current She-wolves of Winterfell do what the She-Bears of Bear Island do. Have kids, give them the Stark name and say they're legitimate and anyone wishing to protest or argue the point can go jump off the Wall.

It may also be technically possible that Bran could still have children, although it would doubtless be ... extremely awkward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2017 at 6:14 PM, ohiostate124 said:

Seems that Bran is the only one left that can continue the Stark name. I don't really see him having children. What do you all think will happen? Will he get with Meera or will House Stark join the growing list of extinct houses since the series started.

seeing how easily and fast their house got destroyed, you wonder how the hell were they one of the oldest houses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3.9.2017 at 4:26 AM, falcotron said:

If he's a second son of a house of equal rank, it's still a big step up.

Not really sure about that. A Lannister or Tyrell is a still a Lannister or Tyrell, never mind the birth order.

And would be a man. And a man rules his wife in this world. She may have the name and the breeding but he is going to call the shots. That's what's going to happen in nine of ten cases. Only exceptional women would be able to retain the power they inherited.

And assuming Sansa ends up with an experienced and grown-up man that's not likely to happen. She is technically still a minor and will remain a minor throughout the remainder of the books, which means that whoever ends up being at her side should have no trouble at all to make and complete a power grab long before she can actually rule her lands in her own right.

Sure, if the man saw an advantage in naming his children 'Stark' this could happen. But I doubt Sansa could force the issue if her husband was hellbent to have them bear his name.

On 3.9.2017 at 4:26 AM, falcotron said:

If he's an actual Lord Paramount, then that's a different story, but cases like that look incredibly rare in Westeros, as opposed to blindingly common in real-life Europe, which implies that they have strong traditions to prevent that whenever possible. Obviously Littlefinger thought he had a way around that, and maybe Sansa learned enough from him that she could work out a way to get everyone to accept her marrying Sweetrobin, but if we're now imagining Sansa the greatest player in Westeros, can you imagine Sweetrobin demanding she obey him without question? 

Well, assuming Sansa does not poison Lord Robert he certainly could grow into a man who is not exactly easily controlled. Sansa could dominate him for the remainder of his childhood and youth, most likely, but eventually the boy would grow into a man. And his name is Arryn, one of the noblest and most prestigious name of Andal nobility. He would give that name to his children.

Perhaps they would reach a compromise, and give one of their sons the Vale and another the North, and allowing the latter to bear the Stark name after Sansa's death? But I doubt they would raise any of their children as Starks. They would be Arryns.

On 3.9.2017 at 4:26 AM, falcotron said:

That's exactly my point: As I said, both answers are reasonable. So we can't say that it's a given that the Stark line is over, and we can't say that it's a given that it isn't over; all we can say is that it probably depends on who Sansa marries and what they decide (and whether they can sell it to their vassals, and whether the crown approves it).

Well, we can still say that the Starks are going to die out in the male line. Whether Sansa's sons and daughters are Starks in the same sense as the children of male Starks would be has everyone decide for themselves. I don't see much of a difference there. It's just naming conventions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not really sure about that. A Lannister or Tyrell is a still a Lannister or Tyrell, never mind the birth order.

Sure, but given the choice between being a Lannister with no land or title to inherit, or a Stark who can hand it off to your heirs, a lot of men would choose the latter. Sure, not all men would, but Sansa would choose one who would. In fact, any lady ruling in her own right, or any lord with only a daughter for an heir, would do the same thing.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And would be a man. And a man rules his wife in this world. She may have the name and the breeding but he is going to call the shots. That's what's going to happen in nine of ten cases. Only exceptional women would be able to retain the power they inherited.

You can see multiple examples of exactly that happening in the books. And even in the show, it's pretty obvious that nobody on Bear Isle is going to let Lyanna Mormont's husband change their house name any more than any of the past men who married into the family did.

As for Sansa, we don't know how she's going to turn out, but her whole arc is about her becoming a powerful player in her own right. A tragic failure where she loses Winterfell entirely could be a solid ending, or just maybe a sidetrack to becoming an Olenna type who doesn't give a damn about who's officially in charge as long as she can get what she wants behind the scenes and everybody knows it—but otherwise, the only other reasonable ending is for her to be the kind of woman who calls the shots.

And meanwhile, if the story ends up with the Starks recovering Winterfell and keeping it via Sansa, the whole point of doing that is to have the Starks keep it, so it's even less likely GRRM or D&D are going to have her or her heirs take a new name.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, assuming Sansa does not poison Lord Robert he certainly could grow into a man who is not exactly easily controlled. Sansa could dominate him for the remainder of his childhood and youth, most likely, but eventually the boy would grow into a man. And his name is Arryn, one of the noblest and most prestigious name of Andal nobility. He would give that name to his children.

Perhaps they would reach a compromise, and give one of their sons the Vale and another the North, and allowing the latter to bear the Stark name after Sansa's death? But I doubt they would raise any of their children as Starks. They would be Arryns.

I find it hard to imagine Sweetrobin growing up into a manly Arryn type. It's not impossible, but there's no reason to expect it, either in-universe or for storytelling reasons.

But anyway, as I've explained earlier, I'm pretty sure they would have to reach exactly such a compromise to divide the realms—probably before any sensible monarch would let them marry. Nobody in the story has two separate titles, and there aren't even any families that control two titles without one of them being immediately split off as an independent cadet branch.

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, we can still say that the Starks are going to die out in the male line. Whether Sansa's sons and daughters are Starks in the same sense as the children of male Starks would be has everyone decide for themselves. I don't see much of a difference there. It's just naming conventions.

If it really makes no difference, there's no reason to insist that it would it would make so much difference to a man that no man would allow Sansa to name their kids Starks.

But it really does make a difference. In-universe, it's easier to rule the North as a Stark—they have a millennia-long tradition of a Stark in Winterfell, and they just rose up in revolt twice in a few years over it. Out-of-universe, readers have been led to want a Stark ruling again—you can either give them that, or deny it to them, but there's no narrative reason to give them an Arryn and say "but it's ok, because the kids are kind of Starks even though they aren't".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the issue of 'she would need to obey her husband so let's hope he is humble' would come into play. 

Neither Sansa, nor her family or advisors, would agree to any marriage unless the male agrees to their children being named Starks prior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, falcotron said:

Sure, but given the choice between being a Lannister with no land or title to inherit, or a Stark who can hand it off to your heirs, a lot of men would choose the latter. Sure, not all men would, but Sansa would choose one who would. In fact, any lady ruling in her own right, or any lord with only a daughter for an heir, would do the same thing.

That would necessitate that Sansa marries while she is already installed and accepted as Lady of Winterfell and ruling in her own right. Which is not likely to happen in the books.

And we actually don't know if people are free to give the names they want to their children. It seems that they inherit the names of their fathers. That's the overall rule outside Dorne. There could be special permission if a new lord inherits but that does usually not happen upon birth.

9 hours ago, falcotron said:

You can see multiple examples of exactly that happening in the books. And even in the show, it's pretty obvious that nobody on Bear Isle is going to let Lyanna Mormont's husband change their house name any more than any of the past men who married into the family did.

The Mormonts are different. Their women are trained at arms.

9 hours ago, falcotron said:

As for Sansa, we don't know how she's going to turn out, but her whole arc is about her becoming a powerful player in her own right. A tragic failure where she loses Winterfell entirely could be a solid ending, or just maybe a sidetrack to becoming an Olenna type who doesn't give a damn about who's officially in charge as long as she can get what she wants behind the scenes and everybody knows it—but otherwise, the only other reasonable ending is for her to be the kind of woman who calls the shots.

Sure, and I'm pretty sure she will rule Winterfell effectively even if not technically considering that she should still be a minor by the end of the story in the books. In the show it would be different. But that tells us nothing about the names of her children.

9 hours ago, falcotron said:

And meanwhile, if the story ends up with the Starks recovering Winterfell and keeping it via Sansa, the whole point of doing that is to have the Starks keep it, so it's even less likely GRRM or D&D are going to have her or her heirs take a new name.

Assuming we see any such heirs in either books or show. Which we may not. Then this is going to be an open question.

9 hours ago, falcotron said:

I find it hard to imagine Sweetrobin growing up into a manly Arryn type. It's not impossible, but there's no reason to expect it, either in-universe or for storytelling reasons.

Oh, I did not mean 'manly Arryn type'. I meant self-involved, spoiled, controlling, and demanding. Lord Robert is a prick already, and should he live to adulthood he is not suddenly going to get modest or nice.

9 hours ago, falcotron said:

But anyway, as I've explained earlier, I'm pretty sure they would have to reach exactly such a compromise to divide the realms—probably before any sensible monarch would let them marry. Nobody in the story has two separate titles, and there aren't even any families that control two titles without one of them being immediately split off as an independent cadet branch.

Again, they could marry before Sansa actually is Lady of Winterfell, just as she was trying to marry Willas and she is trying to marry Harry right now. Then nothing is going to regulate this kind of thing.

9 hours ago, falcotron said:

If it really makes no difference, there's no reason to insist that it would it would make so much difference to a man that no man would allow Sansa to name their kids Starks.

It should make a difference to any man who grew up in this patriarchal society. The son of a man who has a family or house name usually bears the name of his father. That's how things are.

9 hours ago, falcotron said:

But it really does make a difference. In-universe, it's easier to rule the North as a Stark—they have a millennia-long tradition of a Stark in Winterfell, and they just rose up in revolt twice in a few years over it. Out-of-universe, readers have been led to want a Stark ruling again—you can either give them that, or deny it to them, but there's no narrative reason to give them an Arryn and say "but it's ok, because the kids are kind of Starks even though they aren't".

Well, Sansa Stark would be the Lady of Winterfell for decades to come, presumably. Surely the North could grow accustomed to the fact that her son or daughter would not bear the name Stark? It would be a peaceful transition and change, not a usurpation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2017 at 10:59 PM, Lord Varys said:

Well, it could still be a house of equal rank, could it not? And then the man would tell the woman how it goes, as since wives are sworn to obey their (lord) husbands in this society. Sansa might be the Lady of Winterfell but if her husband does want his children by her to bear his name they will bear his name. And he certainly would also want to instill the wish in his sons that his name is a name they can be proud to bear, whatever it is.

Not inherently true, no.  Daemon Targaryen, a prince of the realm with a firebreathing dragon, doesn't appear to have been running Runestone when he was married to its ruling lady, to the point where they feuded so much that he ended up leaving and staying away until she was dead, at which point he belatedly tried to claim the place.

Sansa and/or Arya are both strong-willed and, as the actual blood house of the North, have the power in the relationship.  Moreover, the issue of what the children would be called would be dealt with before any marriage occurred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about House Karstark?

If Sansa were to marry, say, Harrion, that would seem a pretty neat way to continue the Stark line. I think there's a reason the Karstarks exist.

Otherwise, if Jon is legitimised, the Stark name was already continued through a woman - Lyanna. It's just no one realised that's what was happening at the time. I wonder if it's possible to legitimise a bastard based on the mother's name when the father's is equally prestigious or greater. I suppose it just takes enough people to say it's fine and it is.

Edited by Ser Petyr Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Not inherently true, no.  Daemon Targaryen, a prince of the realm with a firebreathing dragon, doesn't appear to have been running Runestone when he was married to its ruling lady, to the point where they feuded so much that he ended up leaving and staying away until she was dead, at which point he belatedly tried to claim the place.

Yeah, but that only shows that Daemon was a moron who failed to win the support and love of the bannermen of House Royce. He was a Targaryen prince. It shouldn't have been that difficult had he but tried.

20 minutes ago, Colonel Green said:

Sansa and/or Arya are both strong-willed and, as the actual blood house of the North, have the power in the relationship.  Moreover, the issue of what the children would be called would be dealt with before any marriage occurred.

As I've said already - there is no reason to believe that any such marriage has to take place while Sansa/Arya are already installed as Lady of Winterfell. The impression we get with Tyrion-Sansa is that their children most definitely would have been Lannisters.

And there is actually no reason why any man should submit to his wife and allow her to prevent him from giving his name to his children. It might be that a son of Sansa's ends up taking the Stark name upon her death, but that would then him changing his name to Stark. Younger children have no need to be named Stark.

But there is also the chance that a son of Sansa and her husband would actually love and respect his father to humiliate him and his paternal ancestors by taking the name of his mother. Especially if said father was from a prominent noble house in his own right.

It is very unconventional in Westeros to go by the name of your mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Petyr Parker said:

We know his legs don't work, but do we really know that?

It is mentioned in the books by Ned and the actual real world consequence of a broken spine. Not to mention the fact that Bran is most likely never going to marry even if he did survive the series. Or leave that cave in one piece.

Edited by Lord Varys

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