[TWOIAF Spoilers] Female claimants to the Iron Throne

[glamourweaver]

Yeah, the only way the North could never have had a female ruler is if, contrary to the rules, they passed over the lawful female claimant whenever that matter actually arose (which is what appears to have happened in the 2nd century AC with Rickon Stark's daughters, either via Lord Cregan's own action or by a coup of their uncles).

There's a difference between RULING and INHERITING. There have probably been Ladies of Winterfell who were first in-line to inherit (their fathers having no surviving sons), but their husbands were the ones who ruled. Tradition might have even passed the Crown of Winter to firstborn sons while their mothers still lived.

[Colonel Green]

There's a difference between RULING and INHERITING.

He was asked if there had ever been a Queen in the North/Lady of Winterfell, and said no. I think that's a fairly straightforward answer.

[Lord_Pepsi_Cupps]

He was asked if there had ever been a Queen in the North/Lady of Winterfell, and said no. I think that's a fairly straightforward answer.

Does that hint anything about Sansa's future? :*(

[Lord Annaly]

Does that hint anything about Sansa's future? :*(

It doesn't affect Sansa since she will no be Queen of the North but Queen of Westeros!

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Does that hint anything about Sansa's future? :*(

That there has never been a ruling Lady of Winterfell, doesn't mean there can never be a ruling Lady of Winterfell ;)

[Lord Varys]

Things should indeed be somewhat different today, since the Stark lineage is about to die out. In such a scenario a daughter should have a pretty strong claim. But since Sansa's ascension would have to mean that Rickon meets an untimely death, I'm not really rooting for that. Not to mention that Sansa could easily be a puppet in such a thing, as 'Lady Arya' is right now...

[Annara Snow]

Things should indeed be somewhat different today, since the Stark lineage is about to die out. In such a scenario a daughter should have a pretty strong claim. But since Sansa's ascension would have to mean that Rickon meets an untimely death, I'm not really rooting for that. Not to mention that Sansa could easily be a puppet in such a thing, as 'Lady Arya' is right now...

A 6-year old boy would even more easily be a puppet in such a thing.

[Annara Snow]

Does that hint anything about Sansa's future? :*(

No, it just says something about the past. There's never been a king of Westeros or the Iron Throne before Aegon the Conqueror, but that didn't stop the Iron Throne from existing.

[KittensRuleBeetsDrool]

Looking at the Stark family tree and all the cousin and uncle-niece marriages, it seems likely that the lack of ruling ladies may be connected to a habit of marrying daughters within the family, to the males of another branch, with the male taking over the power. The Starks may not be that different from the Targaryens.

I agree with this, since looking at the Stark family tree there seem to be a lot of intermarriages. Given the speculation that the Stark bloodline means something special, along the lines of the Targaryens, perhaps the cousin and uncle/niece marriages were meant to consolidate something in the Stark bloodline, along with consolidating the inheritance.

I do not see anything indicating that women can't inherit in their own right, or at least in right of their sons and direct bloodline, in the North. At the end of AFFC, we have Jonella Cerwyn listed as the ruling Lady Cerwyn, and Eddara Tallhart as the Lady of Torrhen's Square. If and when they marry, their husbands would take the Cerwyn and Tallhart names and titles, but their sons would continue as Cerwyns and Tallharts. In other words, no Salic Law (women can't inherit or transmit the title) applies. Likewise, Alys Karstark is acknowledged as her brother's heir over her uncle.

What I think happened with Sansa and Serena, Rickon's daughters, is that their half-uncles married them to secure their claims, much as Cregan Karstark was intending to marry Alys. So the daughters were not outright disinherited, but they married within the family to keep the claim in the family; their husbands did not have to take on the Stark name because they were already Starks. I checked the family tree, and it appears that Sansa had no children, and Serena's sons died young, and her daughters married out into other Northern families. The succession passed to other uncles' children. I also noted that Serena (the elder, I think) was married to a Jon Umber. It doesn't say whether this was before or after she married her half-uncle Jonnel. I surmise there was some anarchy in the Stark family at that time and this was the backstory of the She-Wolves of Winterfell, with various branches of the family jockeying for power. Did Sansa and/or Serena meet bad ends? Was one of them the woman who prayed for a son to avenge her, in Bran's vision?

Cregan Karstark's actions appear to have had precedent in the Stark family, the difference being that Alys was having none of it and had a powerful ally willing to help her.

Wrt Tyrion as "Lord Protector of Winterfell:" Remember that Sansa was underage at the time (12!). I think this is why he would be Lord Protector - if Sansa was of age he'd be Lord without the Protector. Lollys Stokeworth was mentally disabled and perhaps incapable of ruling. I doubt if every husband of an heiress was Lord Protector.

[Colonel Green]

Wrt Tyrion as "Lord Protector of Winterfell:" Remember that Sansa was underage at the time (12!). I think this is why he would be Lord Protector - if Sansa was of age he'd be Lord without the Protector. Lollys Stokeworth was mentally disabled and perhaps incapable of ruling. I doubt if every husband of an heiress was Lord Protector.

Rhaenyra was an adult and she named Daemon as Lord Protector. I don't think it's an automatic title, but it's a way to give recognition to the ruling lady's consort.

[Annara Snow]

The Lord Protector job is not the same as being the king/a lord. It merely means that you are in charge of the military/manly stuff, not necessarily everything. While Prince Daemon serves as Lord Protector of the Realm, he is still subservient to Queen Rhaenyra, while Littlefinger serves as Lord Protector of the Vale, he is still answerable to Lady Lysa (who could have dismissed him), and so forth.

This talk of PotR made me go back and search for the mentions of the expression... Here's something a little bit odd: in AGOT, when Joffrey is announced after Robert's death, he's called of King of.... and Protector of the Realm. Then Ned tries to assume regency as "Hand of the King and Protector of the Realm", but Cersei ousts him. The next time we're in the throne room with Sansa, Joffrey and Cersei are announced, and while he's just announced as "King of...", and Cersei is "Queen Regent and Protector of the Realm". But when Ned makes his "confession" before being beheaded, he says that Joffrey is the one true king etc. and "Protector of the Realm". But in all later instances and in ACOK, ASOS and AFFC appendixes, Cersei is the one with the title Protector of the Realm.

[ser naes yennet]

isn't all of this pretty much moot? all the efforts to establish some sort of legitimacy for the Baratheon line, since his 3 "heirs" or children, are actually of Lannister-Lannister parentage. so unless the twincest is proven and publically acknowledged, and the throne goes to Stannis, or his line, it's just basiclly window dressing, since Robert was the only true Baratheon on the throne.

and i was wondering about an above post, saying that if Tommen dies, the Lannister and Tyrell would crown and back Myrcella. why would Tyrell go for this? wouldn't Myrcella come back betrothed to a Martell? why would Tyrell go for this? or would the betrothal be broken due to Arrienne's plan to crown her, so the Tyrell's would try to marry Myrcella to Garlan, Loras, or Garth? that seem the only way for them to be behind this.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

isn't all of this pretty much moot? all the efforts to establish some sort of legitimacy for the Baratheon line, since his 3 "heirs" or children, are actually of Lannister-Lannister parentage. so unless the twincest is proven and publically acknowledged, and the throne goes to Stannis, or his line, it's just basiclly window dressing, since Robert was the only true Baratheon on the throne.

and i was wondering about an above post, saying that if Tommen dies, the Lannister and Tyrell would crown and back Myrcella. why would Tyrell go for this? wouldn't Myrcella come back betrothed to a Martell? why would Tyrell go for this? or would the betrothal be broken due to Arrienne's plan to crown her, so the Tyrell's would try to marry Myrcella to Garlan, Loras, or Garth? that seem the only way for them to be behind this.

The epilogue seems rather clear that Myrcella's betrothal is considered to be over, at least in the eyed of the Tyrells.. IIRC, Mace was speaking about finding a better match for her..

[Lord Annaly]

The epilogue seems rather clear that Myrcella's betrothal is considered to be over, at least in the eyed of the Tyrells.. IIRC, Mace was speaking about finding a better match for her..

Yeah Mace wants to break the betrothal (the age old hatred between Reachmen and Dornish) but Kevan was not keen on the idea in case it would inflame the Dornish and maybe even cause them to join with JonCon.

With Kevan dead and the future of Cersei and her influence unknown, Hand of the King, Mr Tyrell could go ahead and try to break the promise.

And of course there is the prophecy of the golden crowns & shrouds which is believed to mean that Myrcella will be crowned and will die as queen.

How that all comes about is open to so many variables.

[C.T. Phipps]

I think the system of laws goes like this:

Sons before Daughters
Daughters before Brothers
Brothers before Sisters

But I think by the time it gets to 3#, everyone is going to be in a free-for-all.

Hell, in 2#, it's very likely they'd have gone with Brothers anyway as they almost went with Renly anyway.