How was there no Dustin succession crisis?

[Zapho]

I've posted a theory on another thread about this question with a couple of quotes from ADWD. The gist is: Lady Dustin acts as ruler for an uncontested Lord Dustin. 

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/145241-lets-speculate-wildly-about-lady-dustin/&do=findComment&comment=8105597

Even if she is officially ruling as Lady, I think it likely that she has a designated heir and the succession is clear. The Hornwood case made it very clear that she would be in deep trouble otherwise, even if she was personally a lot more plucky than Lady Donella.

btw: Having an heir is also very important for male rulers, hence Robb's will and his legitimazation of Jon. And the case of that old coughing Lord Rosby also illustrates that your lands are crow-fodder unless you make sure there is no doubt about who is ruling next.

 

[Zapho]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The issue is solved if the Ryswells are the Dustin heirs by blood. Which would provide a plausible reason why they are content to let her rule Barrowton without "sucking up to Stannis" in protest.

Else Barrowton still has a succession crisis, given that Lady Dustin is too old to have children.

I don't think it has to be a Ryswell, just someone who is generally accepted as heir. The absence of a succession crisis seems evident.

[Faera]

I just presumed there is an heir somewhere in the background who Barbary has named heir when she dies, like a Dustin niece, nephew or cousin who might have just been a baby when her husband died - or perhaps they were waiting for some married female Dustin to have a second son to name and he's still too young.

Either, since there is no known succession crisis, an heir must have been named by Barb. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The issue is solved if the Ryswells are the Dustin heirs by blood. Which would provide a plausible reason why they are content to let her rule Barrowton without "sucking up to Stannis" in protest.

The SSMs you quoted talked about Dustins and Ryswells. If we read it as there being Dustins around in addition to Lady Barbrey Dustin - as you did above - then those would be male-line Dustins who certainly would have stronger claims to Barrowton than Dustin-Ryswells through the female line.

And even if they had very weak claims - they would still jump on the chance to suck up to Stannis if they were still around and wanted to be the Lord of Barrowton in place of Barbrey. Lady Barbrey is the strongest supporter of King Tommen and his new Warden of the North in the North. Anyone trying to topple her would make common cause with Roose's enemies. Yet such people do not come forth - nor are there any leal Dustin followers of Barbrey around at Barrowton. Which means there are simply no Dustins in the male line around. At all.

George could perhaps still invent some feeble old Dustins, too weak to leave their homes, or some who serve in the NW at Eastwatch or the Shadow Tower. But with us being at Barrowton in ADwD and no Dustins aside from Lady Barbrey being there makes it very unlikely that there any of them around.

Just as it seems the Manderlys are down to Lord Wyman, his son and heir Ser Wylis, Wylis' daughters Wynafryd and Wylla (with the former being Wylis' presumptive heir), and his cousin Ser Maron. The Manderly-Hornwoods - Donella and her son Daryn - are all dead. Lord Wyman doesn't seem to have any siblings, nephews, or nieces.

In addition, Lady Barbrey should have been easily pushed aside by her Ryswell brothers and father if they all had the same amount of Dustin blood. If Barbrey and her siblings were the closest first or second cousins of Lord Willam Dustin then Barbrey's eldest brother (or her father) would have been Willam's presumptive heir upon his death.

In addition, Roose Bolton himself would have a claim-by-marriage to Barrowton and the Barrowlands through his late wife, the Lady Bethany Ryswell Bolton, who was Barbrey's older sister. The way things stand, Roose could try to take Barrowton and the Barrowlands from Barbrey and would likely do so if his late wife had had any recent Dustin blood.

The fact that none of this is even mentioned - and instead Barbrey and Roose are very close due to Bethany's marriage to Roose - makes it exceedingly unlikely that Barbrey has any Dustin blood.

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Else Barrowton still has a succession crisis, given that Lady Dustin is too old to have children.

The fact that we don't know who is going to inherit Barrowton after Lady Barbrey's death doesn't mean that the issue hasn't been settled. It could be that the lordship is going to one of Barbrey's brothers. It could be that this is an open question that simply isn't a crisis because there is nobody there to claim it. Then it would be most likely simply be given to a new lord by the Iron Throne or whoever else rules the North at that point. We see how Harrenhal was given to new families again and again. That could just as well happen to Barrowton as it did to the Wolf's Den or other castles in the Seven Kingdoms.

It could even be given to a younger son of House Starks, following the example of the Greystarks and the Karstarks.

[Lord Varys]

21 minutes ago, Zapho said:

btw: Having an heir is also very important for male rulers, hence Robb's will and his legitimazation of Jon. And the case of that old coughing Lord Rosby also illustrates that your lands are crow-fodder unless you make sure there is no doubt about who is ruling next.

That is not always true. Aegon and his sisters had no heir for seven years of their reign. It didn't cause anyone to rebel or make trouble. The same with Roose. He is no young man but his complete control of his men wasn't shattered when Domeric died.

A king or powerful lord should have heirs but if he doesn't and has a strong personality things can be fine until age really catches up with him. And that simply isn't the case with Lady Barbrey as of yet. It is pretty clear that she is completely in charge of things in her lordship. She is even powerful enough to keep Ramsay out of her town and hall, forcing him to stay with Lord Stout. That isn't the kind of woman who isn't in charge of her place.

17 minutes ago, Faera said:

I just presumed there is an heir somewhere in the background who Barbary has named heir when she dies, like a Dustin niece, nephew or cousin who might have just been a baby when her husband died - or perhaps they were waiting for some married female Dustin to have a second son to name and he's still too young.

Either, since there is no known succession crisis, an heir must have been named by Barb. 

If such children and the parents of such children had been around back when Barbrey took possession of Barrowton said children would be now legally adults. And there is no reason to assume that people wouldn't know that they exist. People also know that Harry the Heir exists, right?

[Free Northman Reborn]

33 minutes ago, Zapho said:

I don't think it has to be a Ryswell, just someone who is generally accepted as heir. The absence of a succession crisis seems evident.

The reason the Ryswell scenario makes sense is because it would explain why this heir (if he or she is an adult) is not contesting Lady Dustin's rule. She may well be the most dominant personality among the Ryswell siblings, or her father's favourite and thus the eldest brother is not pressing his claim, knowing that his children will inherit it in any case after she dies childless.

Another Dustin heir is also possible, one just wonders for how long this individual could remain a minor - given that Lord Dustin has been dead for 15 years now. There certainly is no sense that House Dustin is about to die out, which would be the case if no blood relation to Lord Dustin was left alive. Barbary and the other Ryswells having Dustin blood negates that threat. Martin's quote also seemed to dismiss the idea that House Dustin was facing the prospect of extinction, which would be the case if there were no heirs of Dustin blood left alive.

[Lord Varys]

George has told us that noble bloodlines might die out in the course of the series. The Dustins are a very good candidate for that, the Arryns and Baratheons, too. If Harrold Hardyng and Edric Storm were to die in the course of the series, the Stormlands and the Vale might end up being in new hands at the end of the series. Hands who are pretty much unrelated to the old rulers.

The Boltons and Freys are likely going to die out, too, and even if some relations survive they are likely to lose all their titles and lands, ending in obscurity and poverty. Even the Tullys might die out in the male line. Only Edmure and Brynden remain at this point.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Didna the George also tell us that there were "Starks" around? No such "Starks" were considered suitable for taking Winterfell, so why should we assume that any "Dustins" would be suitable for taking Barrow Hall? 

The Dustin case and the Hornwood cases are possibly distinguishable in that Lady Dustin did not face a challenge to her rule the way Lady Hornwood did from House Bolton. 

[Lord Varys]

32 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Didna the George also tell us that there were "Starks" around? No such "Starks" were considered suitable for taking Winterfell, so why should we assume that any "Dustins" would be suitable for taking Barrow Hall?

He did so. But such Starks have yet to be confirmed to exist in the canon. But we have the Gulltown Arryns as a canonical equivalent. They are not exactly in line to inherit the Eyrie and the Vale.

If such Dustins existed they wouldn't have been considered as potential heirs to Barrowton. Just as the Lannisters of Lannisport weren't exactly in line to inherit Casterly Rock in case all the Lannisters there suddenly died if there was no intermarriage between those two branches of the family in the last thousand years or so.

32 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

The Dustin case and the Hornwood cases are possibly distinguishable in that Lady Dustin did not face a challenge to her rule the way Lady Hornwood did from House Bolton. 

Pretty much that. In addition it also seems to be pretty clear that both Eddard and Robert confirmed her as Lady of Barrowton in her own right after the death of her husband. Succession and inheritances don't happen in a legal vacuum. But when the king speaks and the times are peaceful the issue is usually settled for good.

We don't know whether there was a rival claimant to Barrowton when Lord Willam died. If there was he was obviously passed over by both Eddard and Robert in favor of Lady Barbrey. And right now any such person(s) are either dead, in obscurity, in exile, or at the Wall (not in Castle Black, though).

[Bael's Bastard]

17 hours ago, Ralphis Baratheon said:

Like others have said Barb is one tough old biddy. I think she might have actually told off Ned after the rebellion when he brought a horse back to her instead of her husband's bones. That may have intimidated Ned into basically letting her do what she wanted while he was Warden of the North. 

It seems likely that Ned was largely responsible for her continued status over the last decade and a half. And the Hornwood crisis never would have occurred while Ned was alive and in Winterfell.

[Sourjapes]

I'm very curious about this myself but it is another one of those things where it feels like a waste of time to speculate because we have nothing to work off of. The situation as presented doesn't make much sense but what is presented to us is very brief and vague. We don't have any of the important details.

 

It could be X reason or Y reason or Z reason.

How can you tell? Personally I like the idea best that the Ryswells have a Dustin grandmother and as such each have a claim on title, as others have suggested. Seems the most believable.

[bent branch]

As I have said before on this matter, GRRM has mixed two different types of land management that essentially don't work together. The first type is a land tenure system. Although there have been many different examples of this type of system from all over the world, the most basic explanation for this type of system is that all the land belongs to a central authority that then allows individuals or individual families to take control of that land based upon a mutual agreement. The individual or family can keep control of that land as long as they continue to meet all the requirements as set forth in the initial agreement (the word charter is often used to describe this agreement in English). Once the individual or family can no longer meet their obligations (like the family coming to an end), the land reverts back to the central authority to be given out to someone else. In almost all cases, GRRM has followed this type of land management in the story (the example of Nymeria shouldn't be used because it happened before the conquest and most of the story takes place based upon the rules laid down by the Targaryens post conquest).

The only examples of where he hasn't used this method of land management is with Donella Hornwood and, possibly, Barbrey Dustin. With Donella Hornwood, he used the concept of private property. Private property as a concept really didn't exist until the about the 17th century. Anyway, in the concept of private property, Halys Hornwood owned the property, which then became Donella's. Then the man who married Donella could just have the property. I feel that GRRM used this odd (by the world GRRM has written standards) method to introduce Ramsay so that the reader could see Ramsay was a truly horrible person. If GRRM had made this series of events contingent upon Ramsay's own ignorance, I really wouldn't have any problem with it. But GRRM has written like Ramsay (or any man) could actually gain title to the land in this manner. This creates a lot of confusion and contradiction.

The second example is possibly Barbrey Dustin, however, GRRM still hasn't specified why Barbrey was left in charge of that house, so he still could say that the Ryswells were the next in line to inherit and Ned decided to leave Barbery in the seat because of how badly the Ryswells fought amongst themselves.

[Lion of the West]

Thing is that I think there could have been a succession crisis after Lord Dustin died. But if it was, it was clearly resolved over ten years ago and Lady Dustin was the one to come out on top. Why would anyone bother to make a thing about a situation solved since over ten years?

[Free Northman Reborn]

13 minutes ago, LionoftheWest said:

Thing is that I think there could have been a succession crisis after Lord Dustin died. But if it was, it was clearly resolved over ten years ago and Lady Dustin was the one to come out on top. Why would anyone bother to make a thing about a situation solved since over ten years?

I just think it unlikely that there would not be a plan in place for the succession to the 2nd largest settlement in the North after Lady Dustin dies. Anyway, we all come with our preconceived preferences and ideas. To me, the question in the quote from Martin focused specifically on whether House Dustin and Ryswell should be marked as extinct or not, and his response was almost surprised and flippant that they were in no danger of extinction as there are still "DustinS and RyswellS", not the plurals, in the North, and maybe even in Robb's army.

If House Dustin was really down to one old widow who cannot have children, and who isn't even a Dustin by blood, I don't think that fits with the tone of his answer.

[Stormking902]

The Dustin and Hornwood situation is a bit odd especially since Halys Hornwoods bastard son Larence Snow is ward at deepwood motte and is supported by Bran Stark as becoming new lord of Hornwood because Bran sees a lot of Jon Snow in him. How can Ramsey claim Hornwood when the blood son of the old lord of Hornwood lives ? We are told bastard do have a claim so why would someone with NO Hornwood blood at all get it over Halys Hornwood bastard ? Who is a boy of thirteen and can obviously still have kids where Lady Hornwood is to old to do so. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 minutes ago, Stormking902 said:

The Dustin and Hornwood situation is a bit odd especially since Halys Hornwoods bastard son Larence Snow is ward at deepwood motte and is supported by Bran Stark as becoming new lord of Hornwood because Bran sees a lot of Jon Snow in him. How can Ramsey claim Hornwood when the blood son of the old lord of Hornwood lives ? We are told bastard do have a claim so why would someone with NO Hornwood blood at all get it over Halys Hornwood bastard ? Who is a boy of thirteen and can obviously still have kids where Lady Hornwood is to old to do so. 

Because in this case might made right. Ramsay just took it, and would have been dealt with once the Starks got back to Winterfell, if they had not been usurped.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Because in this case might made right. Ramsay just took it, and would have been dealt with once the Starks got back to Winterfell, if they had not been usurped.

That is not everything. Donella Hornwood has a claim-by-marriage, and Ramsay has transferred this claim to House Bolton by marrying her. The Boltons have a claim to Hornwood now, too. Whether it is stronger than the claim of an acknowledged bastard or Hornwood descendants through the female line is up to debate.

Robb would most likely not have ruled in favor of the Bolton-Hornwood claim, but he certainly could have if he had wanted to. Those things are far from clear. If they were, then there would have been a clear heir to Hornwood after the deaths of Lord Halys and his son and heir, Daryn. But there wasn't.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

That is not everything. Donella Hornwood has a claim-by-marriage, and Ramsay has transferred this claim to House Bolton by marrying her. The Boltons have a claim to Hornwood now, too. Whether it is stronger than the claim of an acknowledged bastard or Hornwood descendants through the female line is up to debate.

Robb would most likely not have ruled in favor of the Bolton-Hornwood claim, but he certainly could have if he had wanted to. Those things are far from clear. If they were, then there would have been a clear heir to Hornwood after the deaths of Lord Halys and his son and heir, Daryn. But there wasn't.

 

So Spake Martin:

 

The Hornwood Inheritance and the Whents

Question:

Maia asks about the Hornwood inheritance, given that Lord Hornwood's sister is not being considered for the lordship but her son is and so is one of his bastards. Given that we have seen female heads of houses (Mormont, Whent, and other examples listed), this doesn't seem to make sense. Moreover, how could Lord Hornwood's wife or a future husband of herself be considered a legitimate holder of her lands over Lord Hornwood's blood relatives. Also, Maia asked about Lady Whent being called the "last of her line" given that a female Whent is listed as married to a Frey, but GRRM did not answer that one.]

Answer:

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.

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.

End Quote

I think that makes it pretty clear. Widows have a claim of sorts, but it is way down the rankings list. And would need powerful political support to succeed. And in the case of Ramsay and the Hornwood inheritence, well, as I said, he took it by force, and would have been unseated by force just as quickly, if the Starks returned to the North.