Better Claim

[Ser Lepus]

Of all the main leaders of the rebellion, Robert was the one with the closest relation to the royal line. The Arryns have some Targaryen ancestors, I think, and the Tullies maybe too, but Robert had a grandmother who was a Targaryen princess.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Of all the main leaders of the rebellion, Robert was the one with the closest relation to the royal line. The Arryns have some Targaryen ancestors, I think, and the Tullies maybe too, but Robert had a grandmother who was a Targaryen princess.

The Arryn's don't seem to have any Targaryen ancestors, actually. Aemma Arryn seems to have been an only child, and thus Lady Jeyne was either a grandchild of Rodrik Arryn by another (second) marriage of Rodrik, or she descents from a yougner brother, or cousin, of Rodrik.

Jeyne was only a cousin of Rhaenyra, and without siblings for Aemma, Jeyne won't descent from Daella. And Jeyne's heir seems to have come from yet another cousin, as she was followed as ruler of the Eyrie by Lord Joffrey Arryn, "a most unlikely heir"..

The Tully's have no mention of Targaryen blood.. What are you referring to there?

[Ser Lepus]

The Arryn's don't seem to have any Targaryen ancestors, actually. Aemma Arryn seems to have been an only child, and thus Lady Jeyne was either a grandchild of Rodrik Arryn by another (second) marriage of Rodrik, or she descents from a yougner brother, or cousin, of Rodrik.

Jeyne was only a cousin of Rhaenyra, and without siblings for Aemma, Jeyne won't descent from Daella. And Jeyne's heir seems to have come from yet another cousin, as she was followed as ruler of the Eyrie by Lord Joffrey Arryn, "a most unlikely heir"..

You are probably right. I remember that the Arryns intermarried with the Targayrens a few times, but I can't remember if Jon Arryn is descended from any of those marriages.

The Tully's have no mention of Targaryen blood.. What are you referring to there?

All the southern greater houses probably have intermarried with each other since the Conquest, and the Tullies are the Arryns' closest neighbours, so, I thought that, if the Arryns have Targaryen blood, the Tullies had a chance of getting it too through a marriage with the Arryns.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

You are probably right. I remember that the Arryns intermarried with the Targayrens a few times, but I can't remember if Jon Arryn is descended from any of those marriages.

Daella Targaryen married Rodrik Arryn, but as stated, that marriage yielded only one child, and we know what happened to Aemma's kids.

The other two Arryn/Targaryen marriages involved female Arryns (Aemma and Alys) marrying male Targaryens. So Jon Arryn won't descent from that.

A lot of the Great Houses will have some very small drop of Targaryen blood somewhere, as Rhaena Targaryen had six daughters by her Hightower husband, Elaena Targaryen had four children by her Penrose husband, and one by "her Plumm husband", Baela Targaryen had "issue" with Alyn Velaryon, etc. Most of those children (if not all), will have married somewhere.

[The Snark of Winterfell]

Ned had the claim of Conquest, since Ned had actually taken KL (and could thus have claimed the IT for himself upon arriving).

This.. Jamie said Ned could have just sat down and Cersei called it a mistake by him. I don't think Robert wanted it and Ned sure as hell didn't want it either.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Daella Targaryen married Rodrik Arryn, but as stated, that marriage yielded only one child, and we know what happened to Aemma's kids.

In the Jaeharys section when it mentions his children it merely states that Daella died in childbirth while in the Vale section it says "a child of that union" married Viserys. Have I missed another section telling the reader that she was an only child?

[Colonel Green]

In the Jaeharys section when it mentions his children it merely states that Daella died in childbirth while in the Vale section it says "a child of that union" married Viserys. Have I missed another section telling the reader that she was an only child?

Daella married Rodrik in 80 AC, and died in childbirth in 82 AC (theoretically there's room for another pregnancy there, but there's no reason for the timeline to be that tight if there was supposed to be more than one kid). Aemma has consistently been the only mentioned offpsring of the union. I initially thought there might have been siblings, but at this point, I doubt it.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Daella married Rodrik in 80 AC, and died in childbirth in 82 AC (theoretically there's room for another pregnancy there, but there's no reason for the timeline to be that tight if there was supposed to be more than one kid). Aemma has consistently been the only mentioned offpsring of the union. I initially thought there might have been siblings, but at this point, I doubt it.

I wasn't challenging, I genuinely didn't know.

Would Rhaenyra and her children not have been the heirs of the Vale rather than Jeyne if Aemma was the only child of the Previous heir?

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

I wasn't challenging, I genuinely didn't know.

Would Rhaenyra and her children not have been the heirs of the Vale rather than Jeyne if Aemma was the only child of the Previous heir?

I don't think Aemma would have been married to Viserys in the first place if she were the heir to the Vale. It's still possible though that Aemma had been heir to the Vale and removed herself from succession when she married the heir to the Prince of Dragonstone. I just think that such a scenario wouldn't make much sense, personally. Who knows though, maybe the Targaryens were willing to sacrifice the influence of having kin rule the Vale in favor of consolidating the bloodlines.

Still, Rodrik remarrying and having a son, who was Lady Jeyne's father, makes things pretty tight timeline wise. Jeyne was already Lady of the Vale at the Great Council of 101AC, although in her minority still. This could mean anything from her being an infant to being a teenager. The latter of course would make it impossible for her to be the daughter of a younger brother of Aemma's.

Still, it seems that either Aemma wasn't heir to the Vale or she was and renounced her claim at some point. I don't think there's ever any indication of a Vale succession crisis around that time or Rhaenyra ever being considered as a claimant of the Vale. It seems weird if Jeyne were to inherit without being the proper heir, especially since we know she inherited before reaching adulthood

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

@thelittledragonthatcould, in addition to the explanation that @Colonel Green gave, Aemma is displayed as the only offspring of Daella on the family tree. If there was another child, he/she did not long survive the birth.

Aemma and Viserys married in 93 AC, a year after Baelon had been named heir. As Viserys was Baelons heir, at that moment, Viserys was thus expected in the long run to inherit the Throne without any troubles. So if Aemma had any claim to the Vale, she will gave renounced it in favor for becommig queen.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

@thelittledragonthatcould, in addition to the explanation that @Colonel Green gave, Aemma is displayed as the only offspring of Daella on the family tree. If there was another child, he/she did not long survive the birth.

Aemma and Viserys married in 93 AC, a year after Baelon had been named heir. As Viserys was Baelons heir, at that moment, Viserys was thus expected in the long run to inherit the Throne without any troubles. So if Aemma had any claim to the Vale, she will gave renounced it in favor for becommig queen.

But the Grand Council confirming Viserys does not take place till 101. Aemon, who was the heir, has a daughter. Would it not be tempting fate to give up your claim when her husband could also die leaving either Daemon or some other male Targaryen to inherit and leaving her and her daughter in the same position Aemons wife and daughter were in.

We don't hear of Laenor Velaryon giving up his claim when he is married to Rhaenyra. When Viserys I finally inherited law dictated that Daemon was technically next in line, as the next male, yet his wife Rhea Royce, did not give up her claim either.

Also who would enforce this rule on Aemma. Not Jaehaerys. I really don't think her father, Rodrick, would make it happen as why would he prefer his niece(?) Jeyne to his own daughter.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

But the Grand Council confirming Viserys does not take place till 101. Aemon, who was the heir, has a daughter. Would it not be tempting fate to give up your claim when her husband could also die leaving either Daemon or some other male Targaryen to inherit and leaving her and her daughter in the same position Aemons wife and daughter were in.

We don't hear of Laenor Velaryon giving up his claim when he is married to Rhaenyra. When Viserys I finally inherited law dictated that Daemon was technically next in line, as the next male, yet his wife Rhea Royce, did not give up her claim either.

Also who would enforce this rule on Aemma. Not Jaehaerys. I really don't think her father, Rodrick, would make it happen as why would he prefer his niece(?) Jeyne to his own daughter.

Viserys himself was not named heir until 101 AC, that is true. But as Baelons eldest son, Viserys was always Baelon's heir, and Baelon himself was named heir to the throne in 92 AC. Thus, it was expected that Baelon would inherit the throne, in which case no one would make trouble about Viserys inheriting the throne after him. Which would make Aemma the Queen of the Seven Kingdoms.

Would Rodrik allow his line ruling over the Eyrie to be discontinued, if that meant that his line would continue on the Iron Throne? It wouldn't be the strangest thing. Mariah Martell was originally the heiress to Dorne, yet gave up her position as heir to become the eventual Queen of the Seven Kingdoms. After all, Daeron II was not the most logical heir, if you only look at a family tree, but studying the actual situation, would have made him heir to the Iron Throne, as Baelor I had no children (nor was he ever going to have), which would lead to his uncle Viserys II most likely inheriting (Daena made a claim, but she was little known and held little power, so Viserys was crowned instead). Viserys' heir was Aegon, and Aegons heir Daeron, Mariah's husband.

Arianne Martell was supposed to give up her position as heiress to Dorne as well, for becoming Queen.

So it isn't Rodrik preferring Jeyne over Aemma as ruler of the Vale. See it more as Rodrik trying to get his daughter to go up one more level.. After all, your grandson inheriting the Iron Throne is an accomplishment bigger than your grandson inheriting the Vale.

When Daemon married Rhea Royce, Viserys already had a child, and it was expected he would have more. And, in addition, Daemon and Rhea seemed to dispise one another. Daemon tried to get the marriage undone in 103 AC, so it wouldn´t be strange if Rhea was aware of those feeling of Daemon. Why would she give up her seat, as when Daemon inherits, he´ll set her aside and she´ll end up with nothing?

[Lord Annaly]

As Rhaenys points out, there are many examples of when an heir marries to another heir that one of them abdicates as we have no example (until the current) of multiple titles falling on a single heir.

It would seem that in Westeros that once someone is heir to something they do not inherit a second title.

We do not see too many heirs marrying each other, generally it seems that the heiress marry the second son and the heirs marry the eldest daughter who is not the heir.

When they do (as in Rhaenys example above) they seem to abdicate one.

Also before the Dance kicked off the proposed peace treaty by Aegon II to Rhaenyra was that she could keep Dragonstone in perpetuity and it would pass to her eldest, Jacerys and that her second would inherit Driftmark. Now at the time Jacerys was already the heir to Driftmark yet as soon as he was made to be the heir to Dragonstone it would seem that he did not get to be heir to two domains and so the second went to the next son.

Also in the Hornwood inheritance, when Leobald Tallhart proposes his son as the nephew of Lord Halys would change his name if he was sanctioned as heir to Hornwood by Winterfell he proposes his second son and not his eldest and heir....(tho that is strange since Leobald is not a title holder himself and so you would think that he would propose his eldest and so give his own line a lordly title.)

But even with this possible tradition you would think that even tho Aemma or her eldest would not inherit the Vale that one of her subsequent children would (& take up the Arryn Name thereby continuing the Line and the Name)

Only now do we have two lords holding multiple titles and domains....

King Tommen is King, Lord of Storms End, Lord of Dragonstone and Heir to Casterly Rock.

And Lord Ramsay Bolton is Lord of Hornwood, Lord of Winterfell and Heir to the Dreadfort.

[Ser Lepus]

As Rhaenys points out, there are many examples of when an heir marries to another heir that one of them abdicates as we have no example (until the current) of multiple titles falling on a single heir.

It would seem that in Westeros that once someone is heir to something they do not inherit a second title.

GRRM said that a person can inherit two fiefdoms, but it's unusual to fuse them into a single domain and they usually are split among different children. So, if say Arianne Martell were to marry with Edmure Tully, one of their children would become heir to Sunspear and another to Riverrun.

Of course the current lord could name a different child his heir (for example, Doran naming Quentyn his heir after the hypothetical marriage of Arianne and Edmure Tully), but taking the right of inheritance from the first son (or first child, in Dorne) doesn't seem easy and can provoke troubles later; Arianne thought that Doran didn't want her to marry a powerful lord or heir like Renly, Edmure or Wyllas Tyrell because that would make it harder, not easier, to take Dorne from her.

It seems that heirs or heiresses only renounce their rights if they get a bigger prize in exchange (for example, Arianne marrying Viserys and becoming queen of Westeros).

[Lord Annaly]

GRRM said that a person can inherit two fiefdoms, but it's unusual to fuse them into a single domain and they usually are split among different children. So, if say Arianne Martell were to marry with Edmure Tully, one of their children would become heir to Sunspear and another to Riverrun.

Of course the current lord could name a different child his heir (for example, Doran naming Quentyn his heir after the hypothetical marriage of Arianne and Edmure Tully), but taking the right of inheritance from the first son (or first child, in Dorne) doesn't seem easy and can provoke troubles later; Arianne thought that Doran didn't want her to marry a powerful lord or heir like Renly, Edmure or Wyllas Tyrell because that would make it harder, not easier, to take Dorne from her.

It seems that heirs or heiresses only renounce their rights if they get a bigger prize in exchange (for example, Arianne marrying Viserys and becoming queen of Westeros).

Of course it can happen but if it were common we should have more cadet Houses around, more Starks of X and Y for example, as I said it does seem that the marriage of heirs to each other is not common.

We always speculate that the second title would go to a second son but we do not seem to have to many examples for it to be a regular occurrence.

With large families such as the Lannisters or the Freys we are now only seeing them as lords of multiple seats, Lannister of Darry, Lannister of Hayford, Frey of Riverrun, Tyrell of Brightwater Keep and the Baratheons of Storm End and Dragonstone and they only came to exist due to the spoils of war rather than inheritance of surplus titles.

It may be possible for two titles to go to one person but the evidence seems to point to a tradition of avoiding it by careful matches and abdication.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

Of course it can happen but if it were common we should have more cadet Houses around, more Starks of X and Y for example, as I said it does seem that the marriage of heirs to each other is not common.

Why would there be more cadet branches? Surely the children will just have the names of the lordship they are likely to inherit.

[Lord Annaly]

Why would there be more cadet branches? Surely the children will just have the names of the lordship they are likely to inherit.

Not always.

If Sansa had married Willas Tyrell and their first son inherited Highgarden and their second son had inherited Winterfell it is possible that son would be Lord Eddard Tyrell of Winterfell.

Or if Tommen's second son inherited Casterly Rock he may be Lord Tywin Baratheon of Casterly Rock and his third son may be Lord Robert Bartheon of Storms End.

All would be cadet Houses of the main House.

Just as Riverrun is now a cadet house of The Crossings with Lord Frey of Riverrun.

As Lord Lancel Lannister of Castle Darry did not change his name to Lancel Darry.

Just as in history it was Lord Karl Stark of Karl's Keep. The Karls Keep Starks probably did not morph into Karstark for many generations so we had a cadet house of Starks in Karls Keep.

Sometimes it would make sense for the lord to change his surname to the maternal surname but not always.

Let's say that Catelyn was Hoster's heir and Bran inherited Riverrun he could have ruled as Lord Stark of Riverrun and so we have another Stark House.

We have so few families with multiple titles that it shows that very few heirs marry heirs and if they did where are the second son descendants.

Over the few thousand years there would be lords who would want their family name kept by their second son when he would inherit his mother's family seat that we should see more Lannister's as lords, more Starks as lords, more Baratheons are lords etc.

Every single second son who inherited his mother's title an hardly have taken on her maiden name in all those millennia of possible inheritances.

[Colonel Green]

All would be cadet Houses of the main House.

Just as Riverrun is now a cadet house of The Crossings with Lord Frey of Riverrun.

As Lord Lancel Lannister of Castle Darry did not change his name to Lancel Darry.

Just as in history it was Lord Karl Stark of Karl's Keep. The Karls Keep Starks probably did not morph into Karstark for many generations so we had a cadet house of Starks in Karls Keep.

Sometimes it would make sense for the lord to change his surname to the maternal surname but not always.

Let's say that Catelyn was Hoster's heir and Bran inherited Riverrun he could have ruled as Lord Stark of Riverrun and so we have another Stark House.

Your list of examples all involve cases where a completely new family just assumed control over the house. It would make no sense for them to change their names.

Sure, they could keep their original surnames, but that they haven't simply speaks to the social custom around preserving house names that predominates in Westeros.

[Ser Lepus]

Of course it can happen but if it were common we should have more cadet Houses around, more Starks of X and Y for example, as I said it does seem that the marriage of heirs to each other is not common.

We always speculate that the second title would go to a second son but we do not seem to have to many examples for it to be a regular occurrence.

With large families such as the Lannisters or the Freys we are now only seeing them as lords of multiple seats, Lannister of Darry, Lannister of Hayford, Frey of Riverrun, Tyrell of Brightwater Keep and the Baratheons of Storm End and Dragonstone and they only came to exist due to the spoils of war rather than inheritance of surplus titles.

It may be possible for two titles to go to one person but the evidence seems to point to a tradition of avoiding it by careful matches and abdication.

You have to take into account that it's unusual for women to inherit. Lords usually will keep having children, taking a second wife if they become widowers, until they have a male heir.

In Dorne, where the oldest child, male or female, always inherit, heiresses keep their family names after marrying.

We know that even outside of Dorne sometimes, when a man from a different family married a heiress, their descendants would change the family name (for example the current Lannisters are in fact a cadet branch of the Lyddens of Deep Den; they are descended from Ser Joffery Lydden, who married a Lannister heiress).

But we do have cadet branches: The Karstarks in the North, several Flint branches, the red and green Fossoways...etc. The reason there aren't more of those probably is that GRRM thinks that its cooler to have many different houses with different names.

[Lord Annaly]

Your list of examples all involve cases where a completely new family just assumed control over the house. It would make no sense for them to change their names.

Sure, they could keep their original surnames, but that they haven't simply speaks to the social custom around preserving house names that predominates in Westeros.

I am not sure what you are saying,

I agree that it would make no sense for them to change their names on taking over a new seat.

And the examples in that quote shows they did keep their original surnames. As I said, neither Lancel or Emmon changed their names.

Maybe they are not the best examples as I said they are the results of the spoils of war and not inheritance.

I agree that there seems to be a strong imperative to keep the Brand Name especially when with a large ancient honourable House and the assumption of the old Name helps smooth over any grumbles if the new lord comes from a slightly off tangent way.

And I think it makes good political sense to go with the PR of taking the established Name. As I think Harry Hardyng should do rather than have House Hardyng as the new ruling House. But he could if he felt pride in his father's Name and wants to elevate it.

But the fact that some of the Names have had continuous rule unchanged in millennia seems to show that there hasd to have been some cases of new lords who were not born with family name.

Or else everytime it was to happen they family choose an uncle over a daughter simply to keep the Name.

We have the example of how Harry's aunt, daughter of Alys Waynwood, was Jon's real heir after Elbert but they chose distant cousin Ser Denys as her husband so that her children would have the Arryn name.

And yet another example also of sidelining a female from her inheritance in her own name.

If Bael the Bard story is true it would seem that House Stark also allowed his bastard (?) assume the Stark name when he later became lord.

But in general if second son of House X inherits his mother's House Y would every one of them drop X as their name assume Y?

Surely some arrogant ones out there kept their birth name and the House ceases to be House Smith and is now House Murphy....and therefore we now have House Murphy of Castle A and House Murphy of Castle B.

Two brothers ruling two different Houses with the one surname.

But in Westeros we do not seem to get that any more.