Small Questions v. 10098

[The Creeping Knight]

He did not call himself Bronn of the Blackwater before the battle, just Bronn.

Here is the first mention:

A Storm of Swords 04 Tyrion I

The Battle of the Blackwater happened in the previous book A Clash of Kings.

I didn't say he called himself it before the battle itself. I meant he called himself after the battle, but before he was actually knighted which I'm assuming happened days or even weeks after.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Not what I was asking.

Thanks to the two who answered. Bronn is a Hedge Knight following the Blackwater? I assume he doesn't have any lands until he's betrothed to the Stokeworths?

Bronn is a knight. However, he presumably entered into the service of House Stokeworth when he wed Lollys, akin to a sworn sword with deeper ties of matrimony involved. After offing Balman and after Falyse disappeared, and after Tanda died, Lollys became Lady of Stokeworth, making Bronn the de facto lord of Stokeworth.

[Lost Melnibonean]

I think Bronn is more of a Sell Sword...I don't think he has been knighted.

ETA: IIRC, a Hedge Knight is a full knight who doesn't have any lands nor has pledged long term loyalty to any one noble house. A Hedge Knight is similar to a sell sword in that there is not a specific house/entity they are pledged to; however a knight should be trustworthy...as all knights should be. Should being the key word. A Sell Sword has the reputation of being devious and a cheat (for the most part).

Bronn was knighted and he assumed the title Ser Bronn of the Blackwater.

[Balerion the one eared cat]

What exactly is a Hedge Knight?

Mind if I hijack this question? I have a few questions about knighthood!

So a hedge knight is someone who's been knighted, but has no lands or men to follow him (other than a squire, I guess).

Next up is a household knight, who again, holds no lands or men, but is sworn to serve a specific lord. Same as a sworn sword, I assume?

Then a landed knight, who has lands/maybe a keep or castle, etc.

Are there any higher order of knights after this? Other than Faith Militant/Kingsguard, because they're specific orders of knights. Have I missed any denominations of being a knight?

Also, any knight can knight someone. A lord can only dub someone if he himself is a knight. A king can knight someone - does the king have to be knighted himself? Or does he get to dub people because he's the king, whether he himself is a knight or not? So, for example, could Baelor the Blessed have knighted someone (as far as I know he himself was not a knight)?

Is it the norm for a person being knighted to have been a squire first? I know Bronn wasn't, but is that a relatively regular occurence, or is it unusual for someone who has never served as a squire to be knighted?

Finally, what does "earn his spurs" mean? It comes up a lot, and I initially assumed it simply meant being knighted, but then realised they usually talk about being knighted and earning spurs as separate things, and earning spurs seems to have something to do with tourneys. So is earning your spurs simply riding in/proving yourself in a tourney?

Which brings me to my last question... what do you actually have to do to become a knight? Is it just if you prove yourself well in battle? Or if you ride well at a tourney? Entirely based on the knight-er 's discretion on whether you've earned it?

Sorry for the torrent of questions, it's just something I've found interesting on a reread of ADWD where Barristan is talking about the boys he's training.

[Lost Melnibonean]

If all the heirs in a house die will the cadet branch of that house be the new lords ? For example will Lannister of Lannisport get Casterly if the main branch dies out.

Little wars are fought over such claims and overlords help to decide such disputes. Even when lines of succession are relatively clear dynastic struggles can follow.

[aryagonnakill#2]

Balerion the one eared cat, so far as has been described in TWOIAF there is no order of knighthood above a landed knight, we have even been told that certain landed knights have more power than some small lords. However a knight does not have certain powers that a lord does.

Earn his spurs means that a squire actually did something to earn his knighthood, as opposed to Harry to heir who is referred to as an "upjumped" squire because he did not really earn his knighthood, he won a "rigged" tournament. Rigged as in only people worse than him were allowed to compete.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Mind if I hijack this question? I have a few questions about knighthood!

So a hedge knight is someone who's been knighted, but has no lands or men to follow him (other than a squire, I guess).

Next up is a household knight, who again, holds no lands or men, but is sworn to serve a specific lord. Same as a sworn sword, I assume?

Then a landed knight, who has lands/maybe a keep or castle, etc.

Are there any higher order of knights after this? Other than Faith Militant/Kingsguard, because they're specific orders of knights. Have I missed any denominations of being a knight?

Also, any knight can knight someone. A lord can only dub someone if he himself is a knight. A king can knight someone - does the king have to be knighted himself? Or does he get to dub people because he's the king, whether he himself is a knight or not? So, for example, could Baelor the Blessed have knighted someone (as far as I know he himself was not a knight)?

Is it the norm for a person being knighted to have been a squire first? I know Bronn wasn't, but is that a relatively regular occurence, or is it unusual for someone who has never served as a squire to be knighted?

Finally, what does "earn his spurs" mean? It comes up a lot, and I initially assumed it simply meant being knighted, but then realised they usually talk about being knighted and earning spurs as separate things, and earning spurs seems to have something to do with tourneys. So is earning your spurs simply riding in/proving yourself in a tourney?

Which brings me to my last question... what do you actually have to do to become a knight? Is it just if you prove yourself well in battle? Or if you ride well at a tourney? Entirely based on the knight-er 's discretion on whether you've earned it?

Sorry for the torrent of questions, it's just something I've found interesting on a reread of ADWD where Barristan is talking about the boys he's training.

"earning spurs" is "being knighted", done because of a special performance in a tourney.. Or a special performance elsewhere, like Jaime.

The Kings who we know knighted others, as far as I can recall at the moment, were all knighted themselves. So I don't think we know.. I would guess that only a knight can make a knight... if only because nobles that aren't good in fighting are usually knighted either way, so future kings would have been so especially.

You don't have to have been a squire to become a knight.. But most were, as being a squire means training, and the training you need to become good in fighting. There are those who have not been a squire, like Bronn, as you say, but that will usually be the smallfolk and peasants.. though that won't mean they didn't have any practice.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Mind if I hijack this question? I have a few questions about knighthood!

So a hedge knight is someone who's been knighted, but has no lands or men to follow him (other than a squire, I guess). Yes

Next up is a household knight, who again, holds no lands or men, but is sworn to serve a specific lord. Same as a sworn sword, I assume? Yes

Then a landed knight, who has lands/maybe a keep or castle, etc. Yes

Are there any higher order of knights after this? Other than Faith Militant/Kingsguard, because they're specific orders of knights. Have I missed any denominations of being a knight? No, the fraternal orders of knights would be akin to sworn swords, but their prestige, especially of a knight of the Kingsguard, would be quite high.

Also, any knight can knight someone. A lord can only dub someone if he himself is a knight. A king can knight someone - does the king have to be knighted himself? Or does he get to dub people because he's the king, whether he himself is a knight or not? So, for example, could Baelor the Blessed have knighted someone (as far as I know he himself was not a knight)? I don't know but I suspect the king would have to be a knight.

Is it the norm for a person being knighted to have been a squire first? I know Bronn wasn't, but is that a relatively regular occurence, or is it unusual for someone who has never served as a squire to be knighted? Serving as a squire is necessary only in gaining the necessary experience and connections but I don't believe itvis a necessary prerequisite.

Finally, what does "earn his spurs" mean? It comes up a lot, and I initially assumed it simply meant being knighted, but then realised they usually talk about being knighted and earning spurs as separate things, and earning spurs seems to have something to do with tourneys. So is earning your spurs simply riding in/proving yourself in a tourney? I'm pretty sure it means becoming a knight. Ifvyou disagree pleaspoint out examples.

Which brings me to my last question... what do you actually have to do to become a knight? Is it just if you prove yourself well in battle? Or if you ride well at a tourney? Entirely based on the knight-er 's discretion on whether you've earned it? A knighthood can be granted on the battlefield. Riding well at tourney would help, but I think one's social standing and connections are as important if not more so than one's skill at arms.

Sorry for the torrent of questions, it's just something I've found interesting on a reread of ADWD where Barristan is talking about the boys he's training.

[RumHam]

Martin apparently said any king can make a knight:

To settle an old debate on EZBoard, any king can make a knight but any lord cannot. That lord must be a knight as well. So Baelor I could make knights but Eddard could not. George said the more important thing for kings is making lords. The problem is giving lands.

http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/1624

[Roddy Darwin]

I'm not sure if i am wording this question right but hopefully you understand what i mean. Which of the Great Houses have untouched "pure" dynasties with the male lines (if any)?

For instance:

Baratheons have the blood of the Durrandons in them but it's through the female line.

The Lannisters were first men but an Andal married a Lannister princess and took the name and i guess sigil just like Orys Baratheon

I think a Wildling king knocked up a Stark princess and the son eventually became Lord of Winterfell and killed his father/wildling king

The Martells don't count for this because of their succession laws

So that leaves the Tyrells, Arryns, Tully and Greyjoy. I don't know about them except that the Arryns lose it if Sweet Robin dies and Harry takes over (if they still had it to begin with).

.

Just to add to what has been said by the others:

You forget the greatest of them all... House Targaryen! If you accept that Aenys I was Aegon's son, and that there is no instance of a king's mother cheating on their father that we haven't heard any hearsay about, Jon pretty much has the same Y chromosome as Aegon the Conqueror.

(If they have Y chromosomes in Planetos, and disregarding mutations and all that other weird genetic stuff that happens like when a bit of another chromosome is copied or something - does that even happen on X/Y chromosomes?! Gods genetics are weird. But I digress, sorry.)

Regardless of who Daeron II's dad was, both candidates were sons of a direct descendant of Aegon I through the male line.

Aegon III is often thought of as Rhaenyra's son, but he was also Daemon's son, and Viserys I's grandson - he was the (unbroken yadda yadda) heir through Daemon, even if you consider Rhaenyra's claim was never valid.

Also, you dismiss the Baratheons because they "only" descend from the Durrandons through the female line - but then, shouldn't we not even consider Tyrells at all, as they were hardly a "great house" before the Conquest?