Sansa the Stark Savior? I think not.

[Mithras]

But there is precedent for the children of a Lady of a noble house taking on the name of her father's house if said house has no heirs through the male line. it is why we have Harry the Heir in the Vale. His last name is not Arryn but if Sweet Robin was some how to shirk his mortal coil then he would become the Arryn of the Vale in order to keep that line and house going.

Lol. Where do you get this idea? It is wrong. Harry will not take Arryn name if he gets the Vale after SR. Never.

[Lee-Sensei]

Lol. Where do you get this idea? It is wrong. Harry will not take Arryn name if he gets the Vale after SR. Never.

Where did you get the idea that he wouldn't?

[Alayne's Shadow.]

Lol. Where do you get this idea? It is wrong. Harry will not take Arryn name if he gets the Vale after SR. Never.

He will. People are already calling him the Young Falcon for a reason.

[Mithras]

Restoring House Stark =/= Reuniting Ned's (remaning) family members.

House Stark is already restored to Winterfell with the marriage of Bran to the weirwood trees in a spiritual sense.

House Stark will soon have Bran's heir (Rickon) installed to Winterfell too.

Bran is different from all the other young figures because with his access to qazillion bytes of videos, he will be aged mentally. A thousand eyes, a hundred skins, wisdom deep as the roots of ancient trees.

It is Bran who was said to be the true lord of Winterfell in a way Robb could never be in AGoT. It was Brandon the Builder , not Sansa the Builder. It is Bran who is likely to learn the long forgotten mysteries of Winterfell, not Sansa. Bran is already inside Winterfell and I think he is using the powers of old Kings of Winters. I think he summoned that snow storm spiralling out of Winterfell in ADwD.

[Mithras]

Where did you get the idea that he wouldn't?

He will. People are already calling him the Young Falcon for a reason.

Give me one example of such defiance of the father's House which should be a great sin according to the Faith IMO.

I can give you reverse cases like House Volmark, who carries the blood of House Hoare (Harren the Black) but they are not called Hoares.

There is also the House Lannister of Darry. Neither Mariya nor Ami were called Darry's after the death of last male Darry.

[Chebyshov]

This conversation about "Starkness" is just ridiculous, especially given that physical features are being pulled in too. By all accounts, Ned was the black sheep in his family, as Lyanna had a "touch" of wolf-blood, and Brandon even more so, meaning Ned considers the "Stark" trait to be hot-tempered willfulness. Should we say Ned isn't a true Stark and it's his "Flint" blood that tempers him?

Varying personalities and physical appearances doesn't mean a shift in allegiances, or that certain members of the family are somehow unworthy of bearing the name. Sansa is a Stark, and her entire arc has been her strengthening her connection to the north. A forced marriage doesn't change this fact. Auburn hair doesn't change that.

[Le Cygne]

As late as her last chapter as Alayne, she wonders about how she must, even more, be Alayne at all times now that she is desceding the Eyrie, since there are more people at the Gates that could recognize her.

Indeed, she's in fear of her life, for good reason. But as she's going down, she's brave, and she hears a wolf.

[Lee-Sensei]

Give me one example of such defiance of the father's House which should be a great sin according to the Faith IMO.

I can give you reverse cases like House Volmark, who carries the blood of House Hoare (Harren the Black) but they are not called Hoares.

There is also the House Lannister of Darry. Neither Mariya nor Ami were called Darry's after the death of last male Darry.

House Volmark didn't inherit anything. The Starks are descended from the female line. Clearly the man took on the Stark name. There's really no reason to believe Harry wouldn't. House Arryn is simply a greater House.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Give me one example of such defiance of the father's House which should be a great sin according to the Faith IMO.

I can give you reverse cases like House Volmark, who carries the blood of House Hoare (Harren the Black) but they are not called Hoares.

There is also the House Lannister of Darry. Neither Mariya nor Ami were called Darry's after the death of last male Darry.

Here you go:

“An empty hall is a sad one. I had a thought to send my younger son to Lady Donella to foster as her own. Beren is near ten, a likely lad, and her own nephew. He would cheer her, I am certain, and perhaps he would even take the name Hornwood . . .”

“If he were named heir?” suggested Maester Luwin.

“. . . so the House might continue,” finished Leobald. Bran knew what to say. “Thank you for the notion, my lord,” he blurted out before Ser Rodrik could speak. “We will bring the matter to my brother Robb. Oh, and Lady Hornwood.”

Leobald seemed surprised that he had spoken. “I’m grateful, my prince,” he said, but Bran saw pity in his pale blue eyes, mingled perhaps with a little gladness that the cripple was, after all, not his son. For a moment he hated the man.

Maester Luwin liked him better, though. “Beren Tallhart may well be our best answer,” he told them when Leobald had gone. “By blood he is half Hornwood. If he takes his uncle’s name . . .”

So clearly it is an option. And it isn't discussed in a "hey guys, I just had a brilliant revolutionary idea!" fashion, but rather like one of usual options in such situations, where heirs are scarce.

Now, in return, would you please provide a quote indicating that "it would be a great sin according to the Faith"?

[Mithras]

House Volmark didn't inherit anything. The Starks are descended from the female line. Clearly the man took on the Stark name. There's really no reason to believe Harry wouldn't. House Arryn is simply a greater House.

The Starks are descended from the female line according to the story of a Bard which is full of inconsistencies.

Harry already has a surname. It is the Arryn blood that makes him the heir, not a surname. There is no known examples of a man changing his surname because it is absurd and against everything I know about feudalism.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Again, people need to find me some actual quote where they found "Sansa Lannister" being used or any actual proof that author or anyone in-universe consider Sansa a Lannister. From her name not being listed in House Lannister to the undeniable fact that "Sansa Lannister" is a coin of the FANS, not something you can find in the books. On other hand, I can easily quote numerous occasions after Sansa's marriage when she is named a Stark. So, to argue that she is a Lannister is to actually go where author never did. Because no one can say that Sansa is a Lannister based on what is in the books.

I am sorry, but the rest of the post is generally some genetic rant that is out of place for this series. Simply put, there is bo "Starkness gene" some people think runs in Stark gene pool. More fhan that, people seem generally unable to define what Starkness/Northerness is and as such, I tend to reject the notion of someone not being it.

Well, Stannis called her "Lady Lannister", and we all know that according to GRRM, Stannis is the closest thing to a hero in the story.

[Lee-Sensei]

The Starks are descended from the female line according to the story of a Bard which is full of inconsistencies.

Harry already has a surname. It is the Arryn blood that makes him the heir, not a surname. There is no known examples of a man changing his surname because it is absurd and against everything I know about feudalism.

Bronn Stokeworth and Dorne.

[David Selig]

Please explain how the Starks, Lannisters, Arryns, etc, remained in power under the same name for millenia if it's not possible for a woman to carry the family name after marriage and the inheritance law is "daughter before uncle". There was never a case of a lord with daughters only? That's astronomically unlikely.

[SacredOrderOfGreenMen]

1) I never said other wise.

2) If you have to back half a century for this, then sure. The point is that there's no proof that the Northerners are more loyal than then southerners.

3) I'm not even touching this one. There's no proof that they're loyal Starks.

4) All of the time. My In-Laws are my family. The Bolton's, Ryswells and Dustins are relatives. The Starks are what to them, again? The Starks have no familial ties with those Houses. Someone doesn't actually become an ex-in-Law unless theirs a divorce.

5) In your opinion. There's no proof of it. It's a bit strange that you're pointing out that the Ryswells and Dustins have no reason to be loyal to Roose despite their familial ties, and yet they'd be loyal to the Starks. If they go against Roose, I doubt it'll be out of loyalty to the Starks anyways.

6) Let's agree to disagree, because until I se some proof of it, I won't believe it.

What I'm saying is, declaring for Bolton was entirely convenience for Ryswell and Dustin. They're not even in-laws. They're ex-in-laws and Lady Dustin hates Ramsay, for killing Domeric, as well for just generally being a psychopath.

When you read into the text, it's clear that the Dustins and Ryswells won't fight for Roose when push really comes to shove. Tell me, when you fight for an in-law you believed had killed your nephew against all the other houses of the North?

I'm really just paraphrasing the textual quotes from the GNC (like the one where Roose tells Ramsay that she suspects him of killing Domeric, her nephew, and Ramsay responds by saying that he knows that Lady Dustin hates him). I can provide book quotes if you want.

Do you remember in the text Lady Dustin professing any particular loyalty or love for the Boltons? I don't. It's not there.

The proof is all there: Lady Barabary's trip with Theon into the crypts, the fact that Boltons killed her nephew, the fact that the Ryswells and Dustins were not invited to join the RW conspiracy. I'm not saying that in their heart of hearts they're praying with fervent passion for a Stark return, but when it comes right down to it they feel little loyalty to the Boltons either. They have no stake with the Boltons that makes dying for them in a war with the rest of the North worth it.

The proof is there, if you want to accept it.

[KINGpanther]

Bran is the prince of winterfell, an unless Robb's will turns up and Jon survives the series, he's the heir. He is also magically gifted.

Even if this happened I think Jon would step aside for Bran.

[Mithras]

So clearly it is an option. And it isn't discussed in a "hey guys, I just had a brilliant revolutionary idea!" fashion, but rather like one of usual options in such situations, where heirs are scarce.

Now, in return, would you please provide a quote indicating that "it would be a great sin according to the Faith"?

Beren is the nephew of the last Lord. Harry is far more removed from the Arryns than him and he already has a noble surname.

Bronn Stokeworth and Dorne.

Bronn does not have a surname. He has to found a new House for himself. Dornish laws apply in Dorne.

Please explain how the Starks, Lannisters, Arryns, etc, remained in power under the same name for millenia if it's not possible for a woman to carry the family name after marriage and the inheritance law is "daughter before uncle". There was never a case of a lord with daughters only? That's astronomically unlikely.

Because this is fantasy and GRRM's genetics does not work as in the real life.

[Lee-Sensei]

What I'm saying is, declaring for Bolton was entirely convenience for Ryswell and Dustin. They're not even in-laws. They're ex-in-laws and Lady Dustin hates Ramsay, for killing Domeric, as well for just generally being a psychopath.

When you read into the text, it's clear that the Dustins and Ryswells won't fight for Roose when push really comes to shove. Tell me, when you fight for an in-law you believed had killed your nephew against all the other houses of the North?

I'm really just paraphrasing the textual quotes from the GNC (like the one where Roose tells Ramsay that she suspects him of killing Domeric, her nephew, and Ramsay responds by saying that he knows that Lady Dustin hates him). I can provide book quotes if you want.

Do you remember in the text Lady Dustin professing any particular loyalty or love for the Boltons? I don't. It's not there.

The proof is all there: Lady Barabary's trip with Theon into the crypts, the fact that Boltons killed her nephew, the fact that the Ryswells and Dustins were not invited to join the RW conspiracy. I'm not saying that in their heart of hearts they're praying with fervent passion for a Stark return, but when it comes right down to it they feel little loyalty to the Boltons either. They have no stake with the Boltons that makes dying for them in a war with the rest of the North worth it.

The proof is there, if you want to accept it.

1) Again, they're still in-laws unless there was a divorce and as far as we know, there wasn't one. Lady Dustin also hates Ned who isn't a relative of hers in any sense of the word.

2) Sure, they'd probably break ties with the Boltons if they knew they were going to lose, but that's getting away from the original point. The Dustins and the Ryswells aren't Stark loyalists.

3) I don't need it. I've read the GNC theories. I just don't believe them when it comes to the Ryswells and Dustins. I think it's only natural for there to be a few disloyal upper tier bannermen in all Kingdoms.

4) Do you remember the text having Lady Dustin professing any love or loyalty to the Starks? I don't. In fact she says she hates the Starks and wants to feed Ned's bones to her dogs.

5) I don't, but loyalty to the Boltons or not... they aren't friends of the Starks. That much is clear.

[Lee-Sensei]

Beren is the nephew of the last Lord. Harry is far more removed from the Arryns than him and he already has a noble surname.

Bronn does not have a surname. He has to found a new House for himself. Dornish laws apply in Dorne.

Because this is fantasy and GRRM's genetics does not work as in the real life.

It's not about genetics. It only stands to reason that Harry would take on the Arryn name to rule the Vale. Afterwards, what ever children he had could take on the Arryn and Hardyng name respectively. It would be like Sansa and Tyrion having a kid and seating him in Winterfell as a Lannister.

[Mithras]

It's not about genetics. It only stands to reason that Harry would take on the Arryn name to rule the Vale. Afterwards, what ever children he had could take on the Arryn and Hardyng name respectively. It would be like Sansa and Tyrion having a kid and seating him in Winterfell as a Lannister.

That does not make sense because Harry already has a noble name and he apprarently has the support of some important Vale Lords, which can make his inheritance of the seat of Arryn very smooth should SR dies. Blood matters, not surnames.

[Luddsthirdmorph]

Well if we look at the actual family tree of the Starks - the new one, clearly daughters DO NOT inherit, since William's sons inherit before the daughters of Rodrik the wanderer who seems to be older. There was probably some tension so that Lyara married Rickard, resolving the dilemma.

As to the taking of surnames the issue is the relative pride of the houses. Sansa is married to a Lannister which is a proud house so no child by Tyrion would be named Stark. If however she married a bastard, or someone from a much lower house, then the male might choose to take on the name Stark. So Hyle Hunt who proposed to Brienne would take her name, because his is very low ranking.

In the case of Harry Harding it is a bit unclear. Harding is an old proud name and I suspect he would not become an Arryn.