Sansa the Stark Savior? I think not.

[David Selig]

Where does it say that there is a price to pay for inheriting something which is his by right of blood and that price is changing his name?

It's common sense. Names have power. A man born with the name of a minor House will have it much easier if he adopts a name with illustrious history and mystique behind it.

[Colonel Green]

Where does it say that there is a price to pay for inheriting something which is his by right of blood and that price is changing his name?

He doesn't have to do it, most likely, but it would almost certainly be expected of him, and he would be stupid not to.

The Westerosi feudal system is built on names in equal import to blood (indeed, arguably the name is more important). The Arryns are one of the oldest dynasties in Westeros, and the most secure; heck, the whole region is named after them. The Hardyngs are a third-tier noble house at best. The political and historical value of the two surnames are not remotely comparable -- there's every reason for him to claim the Arryn legacy and the security the name brings.

[Pod The Impaler]

To the OP: No, I do not think it will be Sansa either. She can still certainly help her family out, but I doubt it would be primarily her, led by her, or only her.

[Mithras]

Beyond stupid? We are given a clear example in the Hornwood case. We are led to believe that one of the reasons why Robert was so paranoid about Targaryens being alive was because he ruled as a Baratheon, not a Targaryen, which would be the more normal thing if the royal family was destroyed- that claim through his paternal grandmother was merely a shaky legitimisation of Robert taking the throne by Conquest.

I disagree with Lee Sensei about many things, but (s)he has already pointed out the obvious examples of when this is not followed, namely the Durrandons being replaced by the Baratheons, and the Starks by the Boltons (as temporary as that may prove to be), with a marriage in those case being used to justify the replacement of those Houses.

Your mistake seems to be that you believe that this is medieval Europe. It is not. It is Westeros, where Martin dictates what is and is not feudal. In Martin's world, families and dynasties rule for millennia- the Starks are the oldest Great House at 8000, but the Lannisters and Arryns are not too far behind. We have been told that succession is passed from a man or woman to his children, with daughters coming before brothers. You are telling us that the succession has never gone through females, ever before? In Martin's world, there is a clear tradition of ensuring that names survive, unless you are attempting to replace or destroy that House, which we have seen has almost never happened- even House Mudd has people in the timeline of the novels who claim the name. The few that have are held up as cautionary tales for the other House- the pride of Argilac the Arrogant is mentioned, as is the foolishness of Harren Hoare in causing their Houses to be destroyed.

I struggle to comprehend why you refuse to accept what is clearly accepted within the world of aSoIaF itself, with the exceptions being remarked on quite deliberately by characters within the story itself.

The difference between Hornwood inheritance and Harry is that there is no immediate heir in Hornwood case. There are several claims probably through distant female line connections and Beren is one of them. There is also the bastard son of the late Lord Hornwood. In such a case, taking the Hornwood name is just a move to have an upper hand against other claims.

Harry is the immediate heir of SR and he already has a noble surname. I don't think changing the surname is expected from Harry. He is supposed to found House Hardyng of the Eyrie. Coldmoat once belonged to Osgreys and it still has the chequy lion of Osgreys. But it is ruled by House Webber now. In the case of Orys and Ramsay, who are both legitimized bastards, their children from the daughter of the last lord-monarch didnot get previous names because names are not important, blood is. So, technically, The Starks are not extinct or replaced. They continue in the female line through House Bolton of Winterfell. Why not the same thing is not supposed to happen with House Hardyng of the Eyrie?

[Mithras]

It's common sense. Names have power. A man born with the name of a minor House will have it much easier if he adopts a name with illustrious history and mystique behind it.

He already has that power as the immediate heir of SR. Lady Waynwood and Bronze Yohn adore the boy.

He doesn't have to do it, most likely, but it would almost certainly be expected of him, and he would be stupid not to.

The Westerosi feudal system is built on names in equal import to blood (indeed, arguably the name is more important). The Arryns are one of the oldest dynasties in Westeros, and the most secure; heck, the whole region is named after them. The Hardyngs are a third-tier noble house at best. The political and historical value of the two surnames are not remotely comparable -- there's every reason for him to claim the Arryn legacy and the security the name brings.

No, it is not expected from him because changing the name is a move to eliminate other contenders to the chair and Harry is recognized as the immediate heir of SR without any competitor. Many important lords back him. He does not have to change his name to get the thing that belongs to him already and has the power to claim it as well.

[Colonel Green]

No, it is not expected from him because changing the name is a move to eliminate other contenders to the chair and Harry is recognized as the immediate heir of SR without any competitor. Many important lords back him. He does not have to change his name to get the thing that belongs to him already and has the power to claim it as well.

People expect to have an Arryn in the Eyrie.

Coldmoat once belonged to Osgreys and it still has the chequy lion of Osgreys. But it is ruled by House Webber now. In the case of Orys and Ramsay, who are both legitimized bastards, their children from the daughter of the last lord-monarch didnot get previous names because names are not important, blood is. So, technically, The Starks are not extinct or replaced. They continue in the female line through House Bolton of Winterfell. Why not the same thing is not supposed to happen with House Hardyng of the Eyrie?

You're comparing totally different situations, and it's bizarre you don't see the difference. The Baratheons and the Boltons conquered the old houses and took the daughters to eliminate rival claimants; they had no interest in becoming Durrandons or Starks (and they don't have any claim on the name anyway; to do so would indicate that the real locus of power is their wives, which would be dangerous).

Harry is of the Arryn bloodline, and would (most likely) be assuming the position as an acknowledged heir. He would have a claim on dynastic continuance, and it would be absurd not to exercise it.

He already has that power as the immediate heir of SR. Lady Waynwood and Bronze Yohn adore the boy.

Er, because he's an Arryn. And such sentiments may be fleeting. Who's to say how the lords will feel in twenty years, or about his son or grandson? The Arryn name is continuity, and it carries with it symbolism absent from other houses. That's why noble houses have survived for thousands of years in this universe.

Even in our world, there are examples of that. The Windsors, obviously, but even going back to days with far less in the way of gender equality, the Romanovs and the Habsburgs continued to use those names even after going extinct in the male line (all Russian emperors after Elizabeth of Russia were patrilineally members of the House of Oldenburg; all King-Emperors of Austria-Hungary after Maria Theresa were members of the House of Lorraine; and in neither case did they actually use that title, though "Habsburg-Lorraine" was sometimes employed).