Small Questions v. 10100

[Jon Fossoway]

I am clearly missing something here, but I will ask anyway. Why did Ned bring only 6 companions to the Tower of Joy? Wh not 15, or 100?

[RumHam]

I am clearly missing something here, but I will ask anyway. Why did Ned bring only 6 companions to the Tower of Joy? Wh not 15, or 100?

The most common theory is that he was trying to be discreet. If he had brought an army then word of whatever he found there would have spread.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

The throne did not exist before the Targaryen dynasty.

Catelyn II, Clash

What I meant was, it seems they choose to continue the old dynasty, and not start a new one.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Why was Lannister honor so disparaged on both sides of the Narrow Sea? Was it just the events of Sack of King's Landing?

[grufolo]

http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Chapters_Table_of_contents#A_Game_of_Thrones

Does anyone know if a collated version of the chapter summaries exist? One that has them all in one document so they can be read in sequence without going forth and back in pages?

[Victarion Dondarrion]

I thought the targaryen law was that the IT couldn't pass to a woman? Has that been un-done officially? That's why everyone was saying dany had no claim. The IT can't pass to a woman or through a woman to her children. That makes Stannis the heir.

i also thought that the law of the seven kingdoms is that inheritance (and kingship) passes down through the male line. only in dorne females can inherit (and having myrcella under his control - that is one of doran martell's cards to the iron throne).

but stannis.. nevermind that he's a traitor, but isn't there some law that inheritance cannot go up a generation, but only down? i mean can an uncle be the heir of his nephew when there are no sons or younger brothers? should it then be a distant cousin on the baratheon side or something? (like in the case of robert arryn and harry the heir)

:bang:

[Winter Rose Crown]

Barristan obviously knew something about rhaegars relationship with lyanna because he said that rhaegar loved his lady lyanna. If they were married, wouldn't she have been princess lyanna? Barristan fought on the trident with rhaegar, seems like he would have had plenty of opportunity for it to come up. "3 of the KGs are guarding my wife and unborn child that's why they're not here." or "sorry this is my first battle, I've been on my honeymoon." Or "I know this battle is because I abducted/raped lyanna - - that isn't true, we are married."

maybe they weren't married. Maybe Jon is a bastard.

[Avlonnic]

Barristan obviously knew something about rhaegars relationship with lyanna because he said that rhaegar loved his lady lyanna. If they were married, wouldn't she have been princess lyanna? Barristan fought on the trident with rhaegar, seems like he would have had plenty of opportunity for it to come up. "3 of the KGs are guarding my wife and unborn child that's why they're not here." or "sorry this is my first battle, I've been on my honeymoon." Or "I know this battle is because I abducted/raped lyanna - - that isn't true, we are married."

maybe they weren't married. Maybe Jon is a bastard.

Barristan says that he was not among those in the inner circle of the kingsguard in whom Rhaegar confided...like Arthur was.

[Winter Rose Crown]

Barristan says that he was not among those in the inner circle of the kingsguard in whom Rhaegar confided...like Arthur was.

that doesn't mean he wouldn't have told him about his wife. I mean, the crown prince's wife is something the KG should know about.

Anyway, I'm not saying they weren't in love. Just maybe they didn't get married.

[Avlonnic]

i also thought that the law of the seven kingdoms is that inheritance (and kingship) passes down through the male line. only in dorne females can inherit (and having myrcella under his control - that is one of doran martell's cards to the iron throne).

but stannis.. nevermind that he's a traitor, but isn't there some law that inheritance cannot go up a generation, but only down? i mean can an uncle be the heir of his nephew when there are no sons or younger brothers? should it then be a distant cousin on the baratheon side or something? (like in the case of robert arryn and harry the heir)

:bang:

In Westeros, most commonly the trueborn children come before anyone else in line for inheritance and then in order of birth. In all but Dorne, however, the sons come before the daughters regardless of age. If there are no sons, daughters can inherit and continue the line through their children - sometimes, with great houses, males marrying the female heir will take their last name so as to continue the line. There are numerous examples in the books and short stories of women in those circumstances...Starks, Karstarks, Hayfords, the Red Widow of Coldmoat, and so on. Even Stannis ensures that the knight he sends to Braavos knows that Shireen is his heir and is to ascend the throne if Stannis dies.

In Dorne, children come in order of birth regardless of male/female.

There are exceptions, of course, where an heir is not considered appropriate and shipped off to the Citadel or the Wall (Sam Tarly). If there are no trueborn heirs, a designated relative (brother, cousin, nephew, aunt, etc.) may inherit - or (rarely) a legitimized bastard.

In Dorne, all children come in order of birth.

The Targaryens followed the Westerosi inheritance rules for the most part, but because the throne itself was involved, sometimes a council was convened to determine which claimant should take the throne - especially if there were multiple claimants or underage heirs involved. But this didn't happen often.

[Winter Rose Crown]

In Westeros, most commonly the trueborn children come before anyone else in line for inheritance and then in order of birth. In all but Dorne, however, the sons come before the daughters regardless of age. If there are no sons, daughters can inherit and continue the line through their children - sometimes, with great houses, males marrying the female heir will take their last name so as to continue the line. There are numerous examples in the books and short stories of women in those circumstances...Starks, Karstarks, Hayfords, the Red Widow of Coldmoat, and so on. Even Stannis ensures that the knight he sends to Braavos knows that Shireen is his heir and is to ascend the throne if Stannis dies.

In Dorne, children come in order of birth regardless of male/female.

There are exceptions, of course, where an heir is not considered appropriate and shipped off to the Citadel or the Wall (Sam Tarly). If there are no trueborn heirs, a designated relative (brother, cousin, nephew, aunt, etc.) may inherit - or (rarely) a legitimized bastard.

In Dorne, all children come in order of birth.

The Targaryens followed the Westerosi inheritance rules for the most part, but because the throne itself was involved, sometimes a council was convened to determine which claimant should take the throne - especially if there were multiple claimants or underage heirs involved. But this didn't happen often.

No, that's not entirely true. The females can only claim the IT if there are no males in the entire line. Stannis's grandmother was a targaryen, that makes him a male claimant in that line. Even if Aegon is fake, Stannis still has a claim before Dany.

[The Wolves]

No, that's not entirely true. The females can only claim the IT if there are no males in the entire line. Stannis's grandmother was a targaryen, that makes him a male claimant in that line. Even if Aegon is fake, Stannis still has a claim before Dany.

I don't get this. So say the Targs were still in power are you saying that Stannis would still come before Dany because Stannis is not a Targaryen?

[mystickristoff]

Why does Joffrey have both stag and lion for his banner instead of just stag?

[Bluetiger]

Why does Joffrey have both stag and lion for his banner instead of just stag?

It's his personal sigil... like Robb's or Bloodraven's or Jon's...

[mystickristoff]

Personal sigil... so not officially the king's sigil?

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

No, that's not entirely true. The females can only claim the IT if there are no males in the entire line. Stannis's grandmother was a targaryen, that makes him a male claimant in that line. Even if Aegon is fake, Stannis still has a claim before Dany.

Prety sure this isn't actually true. There was an old quote from GRRM about how inheritance excluded women after the Dance of the Dragons, but since the World Book came out, it seems pretty clear that there's no "law" as such. Viserys II taking the throne over his nieces seems to be based largely on support rather than any sort of "law". Take the Great Council of 233 that gave the throne to Aegon V. Although Vaella was dismissed quickly as a claimant to the throne, she was still considered (and if the lords had felt that she may have been a capable queen rather than "simple minded" she might not have been dismissed that quickly either). If there were some law that women could not claim the throne unless there were no male relations, then Vaella would have never been considered as a claimant.

The World Book also tells us that after the Great Council of 101, many considered there to be strong precedent that not only could women not claim the throne, but that her male descendants could not claim it through her either. Therefore, if this precedent were really so strong (and so long lasting, which seems to be the case among some lords, but far from a consensus judging by how big of a deal the Dance of the Dragons was), then it would exclude Stannis just as much as it would Daenerys.

Regardless, all of this is academic. Neither Stannis nor Daenerys currently hold the throne or are either going to be granted it unless they win it through conquest or some sort of Great Council is convened. In either case, their respective claims only matter in as much as they are able to win supporters (to an extent, this is always the case though).

[SonofMag]

Dear fellow forummers,

I can't make the search function work, and I'm sure this has been both asked and answered, so apologies in advance. But it's really bugging me. Given that there's always a reason behind their attacks, why in GoT do the direwolves turn on Tyrion even though he presents no threat (immediate or in the future as far as we know) to any of the Stark children?

[The Red Widow of Coldmoat]

Maybe you should reassess your idea that Tyrion isn't a threat to the Starks. His family goes to war with them, with him holding a position of some authority. He also ends up marrying one of them against her will, and part of his reason for doing so is to claim their ancestral home for his own. Most directly, though, the direwolves being hostile to Tyrion (especially in Winterfell) most likely just serves as foreshadowing of the war between the Starks and Lannisters that was about to break out.

[Knight Of Winter]

Dear fellow forummers,

I can't make the search function work, and I'm sure this has been both asked and answered, so apologies in advance. But it's really bugging me. Given that there's always a reason behind their attacks, why in GoT do the direwolves turn on Tyrion even though he presents no threat (immediate or in the future as far as we know) to any of the Stark children?

Welcome to the forums :cheers:

Seacrh function is usually disabled during the time that HBO airs. It helps to deal with much increased traffic. As for direwolves turining hostile towards Tyrion, there are 2 different opinions about it:

1) direwolves were channeling their masters' emotions. By the time of Tyrion's arrival, Catelyn received the letter from Lysa accusing Lannisters of Jon Arryn's murder. Catelyn (and the rest of the Starks) believed that letter and, in addition, suspected Lannisters of trying to murder Bran. So, Strarks were pretty antagonistic towards Lannisters at that point in time, and direwolves simply channeled it into aggressive behaviour towards Tyrion.

2) Direwolves have some magical/future-seeing property that let them know Tyrion will be one of Starks' main enemies in future (and indeed he was, as acting Hand of the King). They sensed it and thus were hostile to Tyrion.

Personally, I believe that 1) makes much more sense, but as I said, people have 2 different opinions here.

[SonofMag]

Welcome to the forums :cheers:

Seacrh function is usually disabled during the time that HBO airs. It helps to deal with much increased traffic. As for direwolves turining hostile towards Tyrion, there are 2 different opinions about it:

1) direwolves were channeling their masters' emotions. By the time of Tyrion's arrival, Catelyn received the letter from Lysa accusing Lannisters of Jon Arryn's murder. Catelyn (and the rest of the Starks) believed that letter and, in addition, suspected Lannisters of trying to murder Bran. So, Strarks were pretty antagonistic towards Lannisters at that point in time, and direwolves simply channeled it into aggressive behaviour towards Tyrion.

2) Direwolves have some magical/future-seeing property that let them know Tyrion will be one of Starks' main enemies in future (and indeed he was, as acting Hand of the King). They sensed it and thus were hostile to Tyrion.

Personally, I believe that 1) makes much more sense, but as I said, people have 2 different opinions here.

Oooh thank you, thank you! I'm a longtime lurker. I agree that 1) seems to make more sense, but it seems odd that although Robb is hostile, Bran is not, and Rickon wouldn't know to be so, yet all three wolves attack. It just really stood out on the re-read.