Better Claim

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

The Emmon Frey example is a pretty bad one, tbh. Why would Emmon change his name to claim Riverrun? His claim isn't derived through the Tullys at all. We don't even know if he has the slightest bit of Tully ancestry. If he doesn't, then he can't exactly claim Riverrun through the Tullys (which, again, he isn't doing). Emmon is claiming Riverrun solely because of the Tullys having been attainted by the crown and the Freys being loyalist, especially his branch (in more realistic terms, of course, his claim to Riverrun derives from the fact that his wife is the great aunt of the king, which has nothing to do with Riverrun itself). Lancel at least has a somewhat better claim to Darry having been married to a woman of Darry descent. Still, the way the Lannisters are operating presently seems to have much less to do with how claims and inheritances seem to have been worked out in Westerosi history and more to do with the current generation of Lannisters trying to grab up as much land and power as they can. If such practices had any basis in tradition then Westeros would most likely look quite different.

[Lord Annaly]

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.

Yes some daughters are pushed aside in favour of uncles but some women do inherit in their own name but others only inherit as a holding position until their son can inherit.

In this instance we are talking about a situation where the daughter is the accepted heir but once she married to another lord it seems that she (& her issue) loose her family seat and seem to only inherit their father's title.

Yes the Karstarks can be considered a cadet branch of the Starks because they came into being from a younger son/brother and would have been called House Stark of Karl's Hold for a few generations but gradually morphed into House Karstark.

The same with the Greystarks, they were probably House Stark of the Wolf Den at first until something led to their nickname actually becoming their House Name.

And this is what I am saying...were are all the House Starks of X and Y? All the House Tyrells, Lannister etc?

The Flints have Stark blood through daughters but were always House Flint.

The Fossoways are a good case and it seems that the cadet branch was set up anew...given a keep and some lands just like the Karstarks and Greystarks were when they were Starks.

But none of those fit what we are talking about.....second sons inheriting another seat. Did every single one of them over thousand of years simply change their surname to the name of the maternal grandfather?

If every son-in-law who marries an heiress was to change his name and the name of his children then why is there such a bias against daughters inheriting to prevent a new name inheriting the title.

There are inconsistencies.

[Lord Annaly]

The Emmon Frey example is a pretty bad one, tbh. Why would Emmon change his name to claim Riverrun? His claim isn't derived through the Tullys at all. We don't even know if he has the slightest bit of Tully ancestry. If he doesn't, then he can't exactly claim Riverrun through the Tullys (which, again, he isn't doing). Emmon is claiming Riverrun solely because of the Tullys having been attainted by the crown and the Freys being loyalist, especially his branch (in more realistic terms, of course, his claim to Riverrun derives from the fact that his wife is the great aunt of the king, which has nothing to do with Riverrun itself). Lancel at least has a somewhat better claim to Darry having been married to a woman of Darry descent. Still, the way the Lannisters are operating presently seems to have much less to do with how claims and inheritances seem to have been worked out in Westerosi history and more to do with the current generation of Lannisters trying to grab up as much land and power as they can. If such practices had any basis in tradition then Westeros would most likely look quite different.

My point exactly.

As I said, they are spoils of war and not inheritance.

I used them as examples of how not all new lords automatically assume the name of their title.

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

My point exactly.

As I said, they are spoils of war and not inheritance.

I used them as examples of how not all new lords automatically assume the name of their title.

Right but it seems that what's happening in those circumstances is far from the normal state of affairs in Westeros (and, in fact, far more in line with actual IRL history)

[Lord Annaly]

Right but it seems that what's happening in those circumstances is far from the normal state of affairs in Westeros (and, in fact, far more in line with actual IRL history)

True.

But even within the context of Westeros it is strange there are not more Houses with the same name.

And within the context of what started this off...was Aemma Arryn disinherited because she married someone who became an heir and later a "Lord"?

Some say that her younger sons should have become the next Arryn if they had survived to adulthood and from that would that prince automatically assume the Arryn Name or become Lord X of House Targaryen of the Eyrie?

Does it happen automatically?

If Prince Daemon had managed to get a son on Lady Rhea Royce, could he have inherited as Lord X and be head of House Targaryen of Runestone.

In normal circumstances you would say yes.

But with unbroken line of Houses for thousands of years it would seem that even when a daughter inherits for her son the Family Name continues and the husband's is just a footnote to history.

I find it strange that there has not been more proud lords like Tywin who have pride in their Name and would not pass it on to their sons. Imagine if Tywin was a second son who inherited his mother's seat, I bet he would not become Lord Tywin Marbrand but would insist on being Lord Tywin Lannister of Ashemark.

This is my original point...where are all these type of cadet Houses if second sons have inherited the surplus titles?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

If Prince Daemon had managed to get a son on Lady Rhea Royce, could he have inherited as Lord X and be head of House Targaryen of Runestone.

And that would have been stupid as starting a brand new House annoys the smallfolk and the Vassals under the Royces and leaves room for other Royces to challenge. Name recognition means a lot, as are the ties between the Royces and their subjects.

The Houses rule is built on stability, changing Names every other generation threatens that and increases the likelihood of civil war in that domain.

I find it strange that there has not been more proud lords like Tywin who have pride in their Name and would not pass it on to their sons. Imagine if Tywin was a second son who inherited his mother's seat, I bet he would not become Lord Tywin Marbrand but would insist on being Lord Tywin Lannister of Ashemark.

Because the people of the lands are equally as proud. A Lannister could insist on being a Lannister ruling the Marbrand lands but that angers all the other Marbrands, remember that many Landed Knights, the people a Lord depends on, will have deep connections to the Marbrands they are not going to have the same loyalty to an outsider House.

We see this in the North when the Karstarks and Bolton men are firstly loyal to their own Lords(as their fathers and grandfathers were before them) rather than the Starks.

[Colonel Green]

I find it strange that there has not been more proud lords like Tywin who have pride in their Name and would not pass it on to their sons. Imagine if Tywin was a second son who inherited his mother's seat, I bet he would not become Lord Tywin Marbrand but would insist on being Lord Tywin Lannister of Ashemark.

This is my original point...where are all these type of cadet Houses if second sons have inherited the surplus titles?

The point being that there is a strong tradition of maintaining house names, so those cadet houses don't exist. Moreover, the principle of name maintenance is mutually beneficial, as you never know when a similar thing might happen to your own house.

As for the Tywin scenario, second son inheritance is not automatic. A second son who refused to change his name could easily find himself passed over in favour of another son or cousin who would.

[Ser Lepus]

Yes some daughters are pushed aside in favour of uncles but some women do inherit in their own name but others only inherit as a holding position until their son can inherit.

In this instance we are talking about a situation where the daughter is the accepted heir but once she married to another lord it seems that she (& her issue) loose her family seat and seem to only inherit their father's title.

But, if she chooses to keep her father's fiefdom and pass it down to one of her children, who is going to force her to do otherwise? Having a powerful husband makes her actually better equiped to defend her rights. And I doubt either she or her husband would willingly renounce her rights; like Ser Dontos Hollard said, even if a man owns a bag of gold, he isn't going to pass the opportunity to grab a second one.

Yes the Karstarks can be considered a cadet branch of the Starks because they came into being from a younger son/brother and would have been called House Stark of Karl's Hold for a few generations but gradually morphed into House Karstark.

The same with the Greystarks, they were probably House Stark of the Wolf Den at first until something led to their nickname actually becoming their House Name.

And this is what I am saying...were are all the House Starks of X and Y? All the House Tyrells, Lannister etc?

We have an example of a Tyrell getting a seat of his own and creating a lordly junior branch of the family: Lord Garland Tyrell of Brightwater Keep, Lancel Lannister got Darry, and Emmon Frey got Riverrun.

My point was, cadet branches do exist. Lords won't pass the chance of getting a second seat and giving it to a son, grandson or even a nephew.

The Flints have Stark blood through daughters but were always House Flint.

Yeah, I know. What I meant is that the Flints have spawned a number of secondary branches, and at least two of those have their own seats. Those could have been received from their lieges, or could have been gotten through marriages with heiresses.

The Fossoways are a good case and it seems that the cadet branch was set up anew...given a keep and some lands just like the Karstarks and Greystarks were when they were Starks.

We don't know that. The Green Fossoways could have gotten their seat through marriage.

But none of those fit what we are talking about.....second sons inheriting another seat. Did every single one of them over thousand of years simply change their surname to the name of the maternal grandfather?

Well, it happens sometimes. As I said, the current Lannisters are descended from a Lydden who married a Lannister heiress and changed his name.

If every son-in-law who marries an heiress was to change his name and the name of his children then why is there such a bias against daughters inheriting to prevent a new name inheriting the title.

There are inconsistencies.

It seems that men who marry heiresses only change their name if its necessary for political reasons. Ser Joffery Lydden, for example, had to appease the powerful Lannister bannermen and the cousins of his Lannister wife, so he changed his surname to Lannister. Lancel didn't have to do the same because his family was in a position of power, so Kevan made him do a lesser form of appeasement, quartering his arms with those of House Darry.

My point is, since daughters can inherit and pass their rights down to their own children, why would a lord whose daughter marry a lord or heir disinherit her and give his seat to some cousin? As a father and lord, demanding that one of his grandsons take his surname would be a much more satisfactory solution.

[Lord Annaly]

But, if she chooses to keep her father's fiefdom and pass it down to one of her children, who is going to force her to do otherwise? Having a powerful husband makes her actually better equiped to defend her rights. And I doubt either she or her husband would willingly renounce her rights; like Ser Dontos Hollard said, even if a man owns a bag of gold, he isn't going to pass the opportunity to grab a second one. We have an example of a Tyrell getting a seat of his own and creating a lordly junior branch of the family: Lord Garland Tyrell of Brightwater Keep, Lancel Lannister got Darry, and Emmon Frey got Riverrun.My point was, cadet branches do exist. Lords won't pass the chance of getting a second seat and giving it to a son, grandson or even a nephew. Yeah, I know. What I meant is that the Flints have spawned a number of secondary branches, and at least two of those have their own seats. Those could have been received from their lieges, or could have been gotten through marriages with heiresses. We don't know that. The Green Fossoways could have gotten their seat through marriage. Well, it happens sometimes. As I said, the current Lannisters are descended from a Lydden who married a Lannister heiresses and changed his name. It seems that men who marry heiresses only change their name if its necessary for political reasons. Ser Joffery Lydden, for example, had to appease the powerful Lannister bannermen and the cousins of his Lannister wife, so he changed his surname to Lannister. Lancel didn't have to do the same because his family was in a position of power, so Kevan made him do a lesser form of appeasement, quartering his arms with those of House Darry.My point is, since daughters can inherit and pass their rights down to their own children, why would a lord whose daughte marry a lord or heir disinherit her and give his seat to some cousin? As a father and lord, demanding that one of his grandsons take his surname would be a much more satisfactory solution.

I am not going to answer all these individually as I have made these exact same points myself already in other posts. Everything you say I have said already in response to others.

I find that I am constantly repeating myself to different posters because they only seem to read or respond to just one post that I have made.

I know there are oh so many examples of oh so many different cases of inheritances and while citing one to either bolster or rebutt one person just ends up with someone rebutting that without acknowledging that their point was already made in one of my previous posts!!

I'm dizzy from going around in circles responding to individual posts that already have been answered!

Sorry Lepus but this is not a rant directed at you! You just drew the lucky short straw!!

In having a discussion on second sons and making a point within that narrow context someone will pipe in with a point about some other aspect of inheritance and then everything get jumbled back into a mix of all the different variances of succession, from females, to cadet houses, to cadet branches, to keeping the Name, and any one of those are used to rebutt one of ther other but missing that it was only within a narrow field of one possible case!!

Apologies!!

[belladeuil]

Robert Baratheon had the better claim because while both Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon could claim the Iron Throne by right of conquest, Robert Baratheon also had a claim to the Iron Throne by right of descent which, as far as we know, Ned Stark doesn't.

[belladeuil]

Although Andal law states that a daughter has a stronger claim than a brother, an uncle may inherit over his older brother's daughter if he is strong enough to set her aside and she is not strong enough to stop him. I am not sure if Harry Hardyng has to take the Arryn name but I believe he would alienate a lot of people by creating House Hardyng of the Eyrie rather than continuing House Arryn of the Eyrie and a cousin who would continue House Arryn of the Eyrie would be very attractive to many of Lord Harry Hardyng's dissenting bannermen. People are/will be loyal to Lord Harry not because he is a Hardyng but because they see him as an Arryn and if he refuses to take the Arryn name after inheriting the Eyrie, he will lose a lot of support and loyalty. Family names are very important to the Westerosi and it seems the custom for husbands and children of an heiress to take her name.

[Lord Annaly]

It would be interested to see what would happen if Tommen inherited Casterly Rock from his mother whilst also being king.

If he was 16 (a man) and no children what does he do with his name...

He would be King Tommen I Baratheon but he can hardly change his name to Lannister so he would be Tommen Baratheon, Lord of Casterly Rock.

I know the option is always there that his second son in the future would inherit Casterly Rock as a Lannister but in the meantime the Lord of Casterly Rock would be a Baratheon.

[thelittledragonthatcould]

It would be interested to see what would happen if Tommen inherited Casterly Rock from his mother whilst also being king.

If he was 16 (a man) and no children what does he do with his name...

He would be King Tommen I Baratheon but he can hardly change his name to Lannister so he would be Tommen Baratheon, Lord of Casterly Rock.

I know the option is always there that his second son in the future would inherit Casterly Rock as a Lannister but in the meantime the Lord of Casterly Rock would be a Baratheon.

Kings don't use last names, he'd simply be Tommen the First.

[Lord Annaly]

Kings don't use last names, he'd simply be Tommen the First.

Well whether they use their surname they are referred to by their House name.

In the official record of the Kingsguard, the White Book, both the last Targaryen king and the first Baratheon king are given their full name.

.

Ser Jaime of House Lannister. Firstborn son of Lord Tywin and Lady Joanna of Casterly Rock.

Served against the Kingswood Brotherhood as squire to Lord Sumner Crakehall. Knighted in his

15th year by Ser Arthur Dayne of the Kingsguard, for valor in the field. Chosen for the

Kingsguard in his 15th year by King Aerys II Targaryen. During the Sack of King’s Landing,

slew King Aerys II at the foot of the Iron Throne. Thereafter known as the “Kingslayer.”

Pardoned for his crime by King Robert I Baratheon.

So in the unlikely event of King Tommen Baratheon of inheriting Casterly Rock, he would be a Baratheon Lord of the Rock.

[belladeuil]

Assuming Tommen Baratheon does outlive his mother, I am not sure if he will inherit Casterly Rock. It is very possible for Cersei Lannister to nominate an heir that is not her son and to have it accepted. If he does inherit Casterly Rock however, it is likely that he will give it to his sister Myrcella or one of his future children with Margaery Tyrell or some Lannister relation.

[Lord Annaly]

Assuming Tommen Baratheon does outlive his mother, I am not sure if he will inherit Casterly Rock. It is very possible for Cersei Lannister to nominate an heir that is not her son and to have it accepted. If he does inherit Casterly Rock however, it is likely that he will give it to his sister Myrcella or one of his future children with Margaery Tyrell or some Lannister relation.

Can you imagine Cersei denying her son his inheritance? Not bloody likely!! :)

It would be interested to see what would happen if Tommen inherited Casterly Rock from his mother whilst also being king.

If he was 16 (a man) and no children what does he do with his name...

He would be King Tommen I Baratheon but he can hardly change his name to Lannister so he would be Tommen Baratheon, Lord of Casterly Rock.

I know the option is always there that his second son in the future would inherit Casterly Rock as a Lannister but in the meantime the Lord of Casterly Rock would be a Baratheon.

As you see above, I have already said that the most likely option would be Tommen passing it on to a child of his own who then could assume the Lannister Name but there is the possibility of a period where he out lives his mother and does not have a spare son who would not be the crown prince who could be invested as Lord Lannister.

Obviously neither Cersei or Tommen will survive long enough for this to happen as the prophecy implies she will out live her children.

The point was more an example of the complexities of possible name change when inheriting a title in Westeros.

It would have been a singular case where it couldn't happen because it would affect the monarchy.

It is all academic.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Wouldn't the Iron Throne's claim of conquest belong to Tywin, not Ned?

[Orbulas B. Harding]

I think Ned, Jon Arryn and Tywin all wisely concluded (for their own reasons) that the weight of the crown was too great a burden. For Jon and Tywin I think it was just a keen insight into the nature of power, with both of them (Tywin ate the very least) believing that they could weild as much power and influence from their places behind the throne than they could as a glorified figure-head.

As for Ned, he just didn't want it, he never seemed to have any intention to rule. His Lordship of Winterfell alone seem to be a nearly overwhelming burden to him and he was petrified by the idea of becoming Hand.

[Colonel Green]

Tywin didn't claim the throne because nobody else would have recognized him as king. I'm sure he'd have taken it if he thought he could get away with it; his goal was to ingratiate himself with the victors.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Tywin didn't claim the throne because nobody else would have recognized him as king. I'm sure he'd have taken it if he thought he could get away with it; his goal was to ingratiate himself with the victors.

Right, it's just that someone said on page 1 that Ned had the "claim of conquest" since he led the rebel forces into the city and was the first to see the throne. But that's not true - Tywin was there long before