Small Questions v. 10105

[Nittanian]

2 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

LV has mentioned a female ruler of a kingdom in the Reach (not sure if the manner of her succession is indicated). Are there others we know of?

Here's the excerpt from the Gardener section:

Quote

The centuries that followed the Andal conquest were to prove less peaceful. The Gardeners who succeeded to the Oakenseat included strong men and weak, clever men and fools, and once even a woman, but few had the wisdom and cunning of the Three Sage Kings, so the golden peace of Garth Goldenhand did not come again. In that long epoch between the assimilation of the Andals and the coming of the dragons, the Kings of the Reach warred constantly with their neighbors in a perpetual struggle for land, power, and glory. The Kings of the Rock, the Storm Kings, the many quarrelsome kings of Dorne, and the Kings of the Rivers and Hills could all be counted amongst their foes (and ofttimes amongst their allies as well.)

 

[Bael's Bastard]

Just now, Nittanian said:

Here's the excerpt from the Gardener section:

 

Thanks, @Nittanian!

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, Nittanian said:

Here's the excerpt from the Gardener section.

Since you gave the full quote in context I'd like to point out that it might be interesting/important to note that the Gardener Queen Regnant ruled after the Andals had arrived in the Reach. That could indeed be a hint that the Andals were more positive towards female inheritance in principle than the First Men were.

I'd be inclined to believe that this Gardener queen was a unique exception, possibly a less successful version of Elizabeth I who was able to remain in power because she never married and thus had no heirs of her own body. The Oakenseat would then have passed to some (distant) Gardener cousin upon her death.

If the Gardener queen had been married to some Gardener cousin upon her ascension one would expect her consort to rule by right of his wife, just as Ser Joffrey Lydden did when the throne of the Rock passed to him through his Lannister wife.

And @Bael's Bastard:

I actually expected there to have been a couple of queens regnant in all the Andal kingdoms prior to the publication of TWoIaF, especially in the Reach, the Vale, the Riverlands, the West, and the Stormlands. The Arryns are supposed to be of very noble Andal stock, suggesting that a king who only had daughters should have been able to have one as his successor. The Lannisters have a huge castle, a wealthy city, and the gold to see such a thing through, too, and the Durrandons should have produced as many hotheaded and determined daughters as they had sons of the temperament of the Laughing Storm and Robert. Surely such a woman could have beaten the Stormlords into line.

Yet as far as we know only the Reach had a Queen Regnant. There are none mentioned in the other kingdoms. This doesn't necessarily mean that there were none, though. George only confirmed that there were no ruling queens in the North. Such Arryn, Lannister, or Durrandon queens could have existed. But if they did it is really odd that none of them were mentioned. And George really had the opportunity to make Alyssa Arryn a Queen Regnant of the Vale. Now we know when she might not have lived but we still have no idea who she was or why all her male kin died.

And thinking about the Lannisters - I really think George dropped the ball there. It should have been the Casterlys, and then some other Lann-something house Lann originally created, followed then by an Andal house which took over after the original line died out (or was extinguished during some battle during the Andal conquest) who was also descended from Lann through the female line.

[Bael's Bastard]

I think the phrasing "and once even a woman" lends credence to the idea that she was a unique exception. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there were others like her in other kingdoms over the millennia, but the implication of the information we have thus far seems to indicate that they were exceptions, and that it was not at all common for daughters to succeed to the thrones of First Men or Andal kingdoms in their own right. So I think the impression we may get from statements in the books about daughters coming before brothers did not actually apply to First Men and Andal kingdoms, or at least should not be understood to mean that daughters succeeded to First Men or Andal thrones as rulers in their own right. There seems to be a huge absence of any such thing in the books and companion books we have to work with.

[Lord Varys]

@Bael's Bastard

Indeed, the 'a daughter comes before an uncle' has to be seen as a rule that (more or less) should apply only to the lordly level, but not to the royal level. It didn't apply to the Andal and First Men kingdoms before the Conquest, and it didn't apply to the Iron Throne (in no small part due to the overwhelming lordly resistance to the idea of a King Laenor Velaryon in 101 AC mostly coming from very strong Andal regions like the West and the Reach).

But we can reasonably guess that Jaehaerys I's unification of laws also included that no the daughter of a lord had a better claim to his title and lands than his younger brothers. How many major precedents we have for actual female inheritance occurring we don't know yet but Jeyne Arryn certainly would have been one such precedent. Another could be Garmund Hightower's eldest daughter by Rhaena Targaryen if it turned out that Garmund was also the eldest son of Lord Ormund and his successor as Lord of Oldtown.

In fact, that could explain why the Citadel is actually so much in favor of female inheritance on the daughter vs. uncle issue as it is when the succession of Balon Greyjoy is discussed after Euron's coup. If Oldtown was once ruled by a woman who was the daughter of a Lord of Oldtown who also happened to have younger brothers (and we know that Ormund had multiple sons) then this would very much be a prominent and deciding precedent for the maesters on the question of female inheritance on the lordly level.

And with Cerelle Lannister we also have a major precedent in the West, and despite the fact that she didn't live long it seems as if everybody accepted her claim. And the ruling ladies we meet in the main series also seem to be more or less in charge of their lands, especially Lady Oakheart, Lady Waynwood, and Lady Dustin (although the latter is a dowager lady).

[Lord Corlys Velaryon]

Not to say, slither my own Sea Snake, but I've been saying this for ages on r/asoiaf: (unfortunately) there's never* been a (known) successful Queen Regnant (not a case like say Marla Sunderland, who I think was used as a puppet by her brother besides) for any of the First Men or Andal/mixed royal dynasties, petty or great. And so, such surely played greatly into 92AC & 101AC precedents (& to a lesser degree that of 48AC) for the Targaryen dynasty ruling all of the Seven Kingdoms. The First Men royals practice essentially Salic Law, the Andals do the same to continue that tradition to not displease their FM vassals, & the Targs keep it going (particularly with how much of a clusterfuck the Dance was & how Rhaenyra did so much to hurt her cause, & so that of her female descendants).

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'd be inclined to believe that this Gardener queen was a unique exception, possibly a less successful version of Elizabeth I who was able to remain in power because she never married and thus had no heirs of her own body. The Oakenseat would then have passed to some (distant) Gardener cousin upon her death.

If the Gardener queen had been married to some Gardener cousin upon her ascension one would expect her consort to rule by right of his wife, just as Ser Joffrey Lydden did when the throne of the Rock passed to him through his Lannister wife.

Agreed, it was presumably the same sort of thing for Jeyne Arryn, the Maiden of the Vale. After seeing what Baelon's forcefulness (thanks for the confirmation in the RhaenyraxDaemon thread, btw) on Viserys did to (her half-sister? cousin?) Aemma (had they waited until she was at least 16, it certainly wouldn't have been as bad), the horror that was Rhea's (more likely than not a friend of hers, & at least distant kin through Hubert besides) marriage to Daemon (at least part-wise arranged by Baelon & Yorwyck), & possibly Royce being an ass as her Regent; there's no surprise that she would be both turned off by marriage & seceding any of her power to a male (again).

*Though I must say, can we be certain that Gardener woman was a Queen Regnant & not just a great Regent for a son or an unfit-to-rule brother or something? Does "succeeded to the Oakenseat" seal that she was a QR?

I suspect there was numerous cases of a female heir of a Great House pre-Conquest (as you said in the Jaehaerys is a "usurper" thread - the cases of Serena & Sansa Stark we have for even under Targaryen rule, hell, multiple times for Baela & Rhaena with Driftmark) married off to some male relative (even if of the female-line himself) to bind their claims & for him to rule in her stead upon succession.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

the Durrandons should have produced as many hotheaded and determined daughters as they had sons of the temperament of the Laughing Storm and Robert. Surely such a woman could have beaten the Stormlords into line.

True, particularly with how central power with the Kingdom of the Storm was with Storm's End - they didn't have highly-threatening vassals &/or dangerous internal rebellions like the Starks, Gardeners, Lannisters, & even the Martells did. And of course even more unique circumstances, but it didn't help Argella Durrandon though.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And George really had the opportunity to make Alyssa Arryn a Queen Regnant of the Vale. Now we know when she might not have lived but we still have no idea who she was or why all her male kin died.

According to the legend, Alyssa had brothers, & a husband besides. So without a retcon in TWoIaF, that's troublesome. It's also hampered by the brothers part (unless for whatever virtually impossible reason they were actually there at the time), but I think Ronnel's Stark wife may have become part of the Alyssa legend.

8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And thinking about the Lannisters - I really think George dropped the ball there. It should have been the Casterlys, and then some other Lann-something house Lann originally created, followed then by an Andal house which took over after the original line died out (or was extinguished during some battle during the Andal conquest) who was also descended from Lann through the female line.

Not sure I follow - so the Lannisters would be that Andal House taking over Casterly Rock to be the ones to survive to the present?

@Bael's Bastard - Exactly. And as Lord Varys said - I think the difference between royal FM-Andal succession (essentially Salic Law) & lordly FM-Andal inheritance (generally, male preference primogeniture), excluding Rhoynish-Dorne obviously.

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

in no small part due to the overwhelming lordly resistance to the idea of a King Laenor Velaryon in 101 AC mostly coming from very strong Andal regions like the West and the Reach

Just on the overwhelming part - where do you fall on the "20:1" for Viserys over Laenor ratio? Crock of shit, imo. No way Laenor loses by that much with the support of Houses Velaryon (you can be sure that Corlys & Rhaenys were doing everything they can get push his claim, including splashing the wealth around), Baratheon, Stark, Blackwood, Manderly, etc. Not to mention perhaps for a GC to even be called in the first place. And although there were many other factors playing into it, how much support the Blacks had during the Dance - indeed, the Greens specifically studied who voted for who in factoring in potential supporters (& dissenters) before Aegon's coronation. I think it would've been closer to 2:1 than 20:1.

Also, like how it was said to have played a factor in Egg's ascension with the GC of 233, do you think the gold of Casterly Rock (particularly as a foil to Driftmark) helped Viserys (if likely a smaller amount) in 101? Tyland would get a Council position once old enough after all, & yet there's no mention of the Tullys, or the Tyrells or Hightowers (all but confirmed as Viserys supporters, imo), gaining (more) royal favour.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But we can reasonably guess that Jaehaerys I's unification of laws also included that no the daughter of a lord had a better claim to his title and lands than his younger brothers.

Interesting, I've never considered that. I'd just put down cases like Jeyne & Cersei down to the Great Houses only being lordly post-Conquest, if helped by royal favour though. Meanwhile, more culturally & ethnically Northerners still pushed more for male rulers - Sansa & Serena, "She-Wolves" for their children & not themselves, etc. That makes a lot of sense, particularly with Alysanne's influence (generally) on her brother-husband & that would also have then played into their Second Quarrel!

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Another could be Garmund Hightower's eldest daughter by Rhaena Targaryen if it turned out that Garmund was also the eldest son of Lord Ormund and his successor as Lord of Oldtown ...

This is a very interesting one ... Though I'm more inclined to believe that Garmund wasn't Ormund's heir, & perhaps not even of his line, just some cousin or nephew or something. Corwyn Corbray was dead in 134AC & so it may have been headed by Thaddeus Rowan, Munkun, or Torrhen Manderly before the end of the Regency for Rhaena's match with Garmund - when Morning was perhaps still alive & perhaps even able to be mounted. A Targaryen-Hightower match makes a great deal of sense trying to heal from the Dance, but you don't give perhaps your only bonded dragon (by far largest anyway) over to the Hightower & Oldtown, or Rhaena herself for that matter. I'm more inclined to believe that at least for a time, the couple resided at court instead (geez, Aegon, Baela, Rhaena, & Viserys would all want to be around each other as much as they could after the fuckery of not only the Dance, but also the Regency).

Of course only an indicator at best, but there is the MUSH - completely void of their line. Indeed, the legitimised bastard line set to inherit (a Jon becomes Lord Hightower & a Hand to Aegon IV, after all) some time after 143AC could potentially play into the canon Targaryen-Hightower relations. To not be younger than Tywin, Viserys could only become Hand 143 at the earliest, but I definitely get the impression that he was Hand for Aegon for a decade or more. Legitimising Lyonel & Samantha's children would be a further peace-making boon from the Crown for the Hightowers, whilst perhaps also furthering Rhaena & Garmund's daughters (with dragonrider, & imo GEotD, descent) from the succession ... Daughters that are then perhaps married not into the Hightower line, but among the likes of the Dondarrions &/or Penroses instead.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In fact, that could explain why the Citadel is actually so much in favor of female inheritance on the daughter vs. uncle issue as it is when the succession of Balon Greyjoy is discussed after Euron's coup.

I get the impression, that like Winterfell at least, that all of the Iron Islands have still tended to the classic FM succession of essentially no women even post-Conquest. But anyway, I'm not sure what a possible precedent from Oldtown would have weight here. It's generally the same for all the "greenlands" - daughter before nuncle. Plus, Goodbrother's maester would know that not only was Asha the preferred (if not, chosen) heir of/by Balon, but also that the Ironborn would be less shitheaded under her rule compared to Euron or Vic - something that would be preferable for Oldtown & the wider realm.

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Lady Dustin (although the latter is a dowager lady).

What do you think of the possibility of her also having female-line Dustin descent to help with such? Not only with say William's death, but Ned was fine with her ruling as the dowager lady, if it would pass to her Ryswell kin with her death anyway ...

[Lord Varys]

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Not to say, slither my own Sea Snake, but I've been saying this for ages on r/asoiaf: (unfortunately) there's never* been a (known) successful Queen Regnant (not a case like say Marla Sunderland, who I think was used as a puppet by her brother besides) for any of the First Men or Andal/mixed royal dynasties, petty or great.

I don't see any reason why Marla Sunderland would have been her brother's puppet. The very fact that she had a brother must have meant that she herself was both charismatic and ambitious. Else said brother would have crowned himself or been the Lord of the Sisters prior to her declaring herself queen.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

And so, such surely played greatly into 92AC & 101AC precedents (& to a lesser degree that of 48AC) for the Targaryen dynasty ruling all of the Seven Kingdoms. The First Men royals practice essentially Salic Law, the Andals do the same to continue that tradition to not displease their FM vassals, & the Targs keep it going (particularly with how much of a clusterfuck the Dance was & how Rhaenyra did so much to hurt her cause, & so that of her female descendants).

The Andals or some First Men traditions (not the Starks, though) might have been more favorable to female inheritance. They don't all have to be the same. The First Men Darklyns might have had very different customs than, say, the First Men Blackwoods, and so on. Back when there were petty kings all bets are off, really.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Agreed, it was presumably the same sort of thing for Jeyne Arryn, the Maiden of the Vale. After seeing what Baelon's forcefulness (thanks for the confirmation in the RhaenyraxDaemon thread, btw) on Viserys did to (her half-sister? cousin?) Aemma (had they waited until she was at least 16, it certainly wouldn't have been as bad), the horror that was Rhea's (more likely than not a friend of hers, & at least distant kin through Hubert besides) marriage to Daemon (at least part-wise arranged by Baelon & Yorwyck), & possibly Royce being an ass as her Regent; there's no surprise that she would be both turned off by marriage & seceding any of her power to a male (again).

Since Rhaenyra and Jeyne are cousins rather than Jeyne being Rhaenyra's half-aunt I expect Jeyne to be the daughter of a son Lord Rodrik had from another wife, either prior to his marriage to Daella or thereafter.

We got it confirmed that Jeyne already was the Lady of the Vale in 101 AC but if Lord Rodrik remarried immediately after Daella's death he could have had a son in 83 AC who, in turn, could have his daughter Jeyne in, say, 97-100 AC.

I don't think Jeyne and Rhea were necessarily close. And keep in mind that Daemon and Rhaenyra were not exactly close when Jeyne threw Daemon out of the Vale. That was when Daemon was effectively in disgrace and Rhaenyra was happy and fine with Laenor and Harwin, who was then leading the Blacks. At that time nobody at court had need of or was friendly with Daemon Targaryen.

I also doubt Lady Jeyne was in favor of her Lord Protector supporting Viserys instead of Laenor at the Great Council. After all, weakening the claim of the female line also inevitably weakened her own claim to the Vale.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

*Though I must say, can we be certain that Gardener woman was a Queen Regnant & not just a great Regent for a son or an unfit-to-rule brother or something? Does "succeeded to the Oakenseat" seal that she was a QR?

Of course it means that she was a Queen Regnant. Yandel is not listening or even mentioning any regents aside from the detailed accounts of the Targaryen kings. The idea that he would list some Queen Regent as a ruler in her own right makes little sense. Such people are usually not listed as monarchs in histories.

We don't know how she came into power. Could have been some Hatshepsut-like power grab but while we don't know anything about her we really don't know anything about her. What we do know is that she was still counted among the legitimate kings on the Oakenseat.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

I suspect there was numerous cases of a female heir of a Great House pre-Conquest (as you said in the Jaehaerys is a "usurper" thread - the cases of Serena & Sansa Stark we have for even under Targaryen rule, hell, multiple times for Baela & Rhaena with Driftmark) married off to some male relative (even if of the female-line himself) to bind their claims & for him to rule in her stead upon succession.

That certainly could have happened more often than not, especially in those weirdo cases where a king ruled for a very long time. It is more likely than not that people would have arranged marriages among the grandchildren and great-grandchildren to reduce the number of competing branches.

Baela and Rhaena weren't tricked out of their inheritance, though. Addam and Alyn were legitimized as the sons of Laenor Velaryon who, as Corlys only son, had been heir of Driftmark until his death. His sons would come before Laena's daughters in any possible scenario.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

True, particularly with how central power with the Kingdom of the Storm was with Storm's End - they didn't have highly-threatening vassals &/or dangerous internal rebellions like the Starks, Gardeners, Lannisters, & even the Martells did. And of course even more unique circumstances, but it didn't help Argella Durrandon though.

Indeed. The way she was treated could be a pretty strong hint that there was never a Storm Queen in the history of Westeros. But then, this was in the middle of a war and the Durrandons had already lost it.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

According to the legend, Alyssa had brothers, & a husband besides. So without a retcon in TWoIaF, that's troublesome. It's also hampered by the brothers part (unless for whatever virtually impossible reason they were actually there at the time), but I think Ronnel's Stark wife may have become part of the Alyssa legend.

Alyssa Arryn could still have been an Arryn by birth, with her either ruling instead of her brothers for some reason, or with her taking over after their deaths.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Not sure I follow - so the Lannisters would be that Andal House taking over Casterly Rock to be the ones to survive to the present?

We know from the AGoT that the Lannisters are descended from Lann the Clever through the female line. The way George played it in TWoIaF there were a lot of Lannisters before the Joffrey Lydden incident. It would have been better if House Lannister would have been a newer house founded by some Andal who claimed descent from Lann the Clever through the female line after whatever dynasty had ruled the Rock which was descended from Lann in the male line had been extinguished.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Just on the overwhelming part - where do you fall on the "20:1" for Viserys over Laenor ratio? Crock of shit, imo. No way Laenor loses by that much with the support of Houses Velaryon (you can be sure that Corlys & Rhaenys were doing everything they can get push his claim, including splashing the wealth around), Baratheon, Stark, Blackwood, Manderly, etc. Not to mention perhaps for a GC to even be called in the first place. And although there were many other factors playing into it, how much support the Blacks had during the Dance - indeed, the Greens specifically studied who voted for who in factoring in potential supporters (& dissenters) before Aegon's coronation. I think it would've been closer to 2:1 than 20:1.

As long as there is no reason to believe the 20:1 ratio is wrong I'm going to believe it. I find it not unlikely that Viserys was much more popular than Laenor because of 

(1) Viserys being the preferred heir of the Old King as Baelon's son - when Jaehaerys I chose Baelon in 92 AC he also chose his line and thus Viserys as Baelon's heir.

(2) Viserys being an actually grown-up man who could rule in his own right while Laenor would most likely be a puppet of Rhaenys and Corlys.

(3) Viserys being a descendant through the male line.

In addition there is a pretty good chance that a lot of support for Viserys might have been bought with Hightower, Lannister, and Tyrell gold. And with Lord Grover Tully also standing with Viserys, very much insisting that a man through the male line should rule, it was really only three Northern lords, the Velaryons and their bannermen, and, presumably, the Baratheon-led Stormlords supporting Laenor.

You also have to keep in mind that not all lords showed up at the Great Council. Lord Tymond Lannister and Lord Matthos Tyrell tried to outdo each other with Lord Tyrell bringing the greatest retinue to Harrenhal. If he (and Otto Hightower as Hand) pretty much controlled the Reach lords then Viserys would already had a great advantage simply for that reason.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Also, like how it was said to have played a factor in Egg's ascension with the GC of 233, do you think the gold of Casterly Rock (particularly as a foil to Driftmark) helped Viserys (if likely a smaller amount) in 101? Tyland would get a Council position once old enough after all, & yet there's no mention of the Tullys, or the Tyrells or Hightowers (all but confirmed as Viserys supporters, imo), gaining (more) royal favour.

Sure, Lannister gold would always be a factor in such deliberations.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Interesting, I've never considered that. I'd just put down cases like Jeyne & Cersei down to the Great Houses only being lordly post-Conquest, if helped by royal favour though. Meanwhile, more culturally & ethnically Northerners still pushed more for male rulers - Sansa & Serena, "She-Wolves" for their children & not themselves, etc. That makes a lot of sense, particularly with Alysanne's influence (generally) on her brother-husband & that would also have then played into their Second Quarrel!

It is mostly based on the idea that it makes little sense to assume that all the Seven Kingdoms would have had similar/identical laws of succession prior to the Conquest. They were independent kingdoms. Some kingdoms (like the North, but possibly also other Andal kingdoms) would have preferred an uncle over a daughter, but Jaehaerys I would have made the 'a daughter comes before an uncle' thing the guiding principle of the unified laws, possibly even creating some strong precedents to that effect.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

This is a very interesting one ... Though I'm more inclined to believe that Garmund wasn't Ormund's heir, & perhaps not even of his line, just some cousin or nephew or something. Corwyn Corbray was dead in 134AC & so it may have been headed by Thaddeus Rowan, Munkun, or Torrhen Manderly before the end of the Regency for Rhaena's match with Garmund - when Morning was perhaps still alive & perhaps even able to be mounted. A Targaryen-Hightower match makes a great deal of sense trying to heal from the Dance, but you don't give perhaps your only bonded dragon (by far largest anyway) over to the Hightower & Oldtown, or Rhaena herself for that matter. I'm more inclined to believe that at least for a time, the couple resided at court instead (geez, Aegon, Baela, Rhaena, & Viserys would all want to be around each other as much as they could after the fuckery of not only the Dance, but also the Regency).

But there is also no reason to marry Rhaena to some secondary/irrelevant Hightower, and we know from Ran that this marriage was part of the peace-making process in the wake of the Dance.

It is possible that the regents brokered the match for Rhaena but by that time she would have been an adult and could have arranged this whole thing all by herself, with the help of Baela/Alyn, Aegon III, and Viserys.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Of course only an indicator at best, but there is the MUSH - completely void of their line. Indeed, the legitimised bastard line set to inherit (a Jon becomes Lord Hightower & a Hand to Aegon IV, after all) some time after 143AC could potentially play into the canon Targaryen-Hightower relations.

I doubt those MUSH Hightowers are canon.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

I get the impression, that like Winterfell at least, that all of the Iron Islands have still tended to the classic FM succession of essentially no women even post-Conquest.

Women are irrelevant category on the Iron Islands. That's the most patriarchal culture you could possibly have. Asha is an exception.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

But anyway, I'm not sure what a possible precedent from Oldtown would have weight here. It's generally the same for all the "greenlands" - daughter before nuncle. Plus, Goodbrother's maester would know that not only was Asha the preferred (if not, chosen) heir of/by Balon, but also that the Ironborn would be less shitheaded under her rule compared to Euron or Vic - something that would be preferable for Oldtown & the wider realm.

Sure, that would also favor into it. But for the Citadel the things at Oldtown would always be much closer than whatever happens at Winterfell. The only other important place would be King's Landing.

14 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

What do you think of the possibility of her also having female-line Dustin descent to help with such? Not only with say William's death, but Ned was fine with her ruling as the dowager lady, if it would pass to her Ryswell kin with her death anyway ...

I find it more likely in light of the knowledge we have right now that there are no other Dustin cousins around and thus Lady Dustin could keep the seat as the only remaining person with a good claim. If she herself was a Dustin cousin one would expect it to have been mentioned. Not to mention that the better claims then would still have Barbrey's Ryswell brothers. Why isn't one of them ruling Barrowton in her stead, or did come to Barrowton to help her rule? Why isn't one of them styled as her heir?

[The Twinslayer]

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 0:01 PM, Lord Varys said:

@Bael's Bastard

Indeed, the 'a daughter comes before an uncle' has to be seen as a rule that (more or less) should apply only to the lordly level, but not to the royal level. It didn't apply to the Andal and First Men kingdoms before the Conquest, and it didn't apply to the Iron Throne (in no small part due to the overwhelming lordly resistance to the idea of a King Laenor Velaryon in 101 AC mostly coming from very strong Andal regions like the West and the Reach).

 

Interesting discussion.  Note that when Alys Karstark says that a daughter comes before an uncle, she is likely talking about proximity as much as gender.  Alys' father was Lord Rickard Karstark.  Now that Rickard is dead, the question is whether Rickard's daughter or Rickard's uncle (not Alys' uncle) will inherit.  Alys is closer to Lord Rickard than Alys' great-uncle and therefore has the better claim.  If Lord Rickard had died leaving a daughter (Alys) and a younger brother (Alys' uncle), it might be a closer question.

Also note that different houses appear to have different rules.  In AGOT, Robb says "Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before me."  But in the same book, Walder Frey says "Sweet words I get from my wife.  Did you see her?  Sixteen she is, and a little flower, and her honey's only for me.  I wager she gives me a son by this time next year.  Perhaps I'll make him heir, wouldn't that boil the rest of them?"  Robb thinks the inheritance rules for Winterfell are fixed but Walder thinks he can name his own heir.   

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

Interesting discussion.  Note that when Alys Karstark says that a daughter comes before an uncle, she is likely talking about proximity as much as gender.  Alys' father was Lord Rickard Karstark.  Now that Rickard is dead, the question is whether Rickard's daughter or Rickard's uncle (not Alys' uncle) will inherit.  Alys is closer to Lord Rickard than Alys' great-uncle and therefore has the better claim.  If Lord Rickard had died leaving a daughter (Alys) and a younger brother (Alys' uncle), it might be a closer question.

That is most likely her argument there. Proximity and primogeniture both favor Alys in this case. 

22 minutes ago, The Twinslayer said:

Also note that different houses appear to have different rules.  In AGOT, Robb says "Bran can't be Lord of Winterfell before me."  But in the same book, Walder Frey says "Sweet words I get from my wife.  Did you see her?  Sixteen she is, and a little flower, and her honey's only for me.  I wager she gives me a son by this time next year.  Perhaps I'll make him heir, wouldn't that boil the rest of them?"  Robb thinks the inheritance rules for Winterfell are fixed but Walder thinks he can name his own heir.   

At that point Robb doesn't seem to think all that much about the whole succession thing. He had a conservative upbringing, very much believing in the primogeniture thing. The eldest son inherits.

Later when he is king he thinks he has the right to declare Sansa Lannister unfit to inherit Winterfell, seemingly intending to replace her with his bastard half-brother who has joined the Night's Watch.

Lord Walder's statement suggests that lords and kings have the right to name heirs, either officially or in their last wills (as was done with Lady Rohanne Webber), and they can stipulate conditions under which an heir is allowed to inherit.

[Consigliere]

A Reddit member (HollowayDivision) created a Google custom search to lookup SSMs [Link].

@Rhaenys_Targaryen - please edit the OP to include this link.

[Lost Melnibonean]

The Wiki says that Starpike is the seat of House Peake. But since the Appendix to Dance lists Laswell Peake as an exiled lord, shouldn't we assume that House Peake lost it's rights to Starpike after the Second Blackfyre Rebellion? Is there any info in TWOIAF to suggest otherwise? 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

13 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

The Wiki says that Starpike is the seat of House Peake. But since the Appendix to Dance lists Laswell Peake as an exiled lord, shouldn't we assume that House Peake lost it's rights to Starpike after the Second Blackfyre Rebellion? Is there any info in TWOIAF to suggest otherwise? 

The Peake Uprising in 233 AC occurred at Starpike, which might suggest (but does not confirm) that the Peake's still held the castle at the time.

Lady Margot Lannister is currently married to "Lord Titus Peake". Starkpike was the last castle held by the Peake's (having lost the other two in the First Blackfyre Rebellion), so if he's not Lord of Starkpike, what is he lord of?

 

2 hours ago, Consigliere said:

A Reddit member (HollowayDivision) created a Google custom search to lookup SSMs [Link].

@Rhaenys_Targaryen - please edit the OP to include this link.

Done!

[Lord Varys]

25 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Lady Margot Lannister is currently married to "Lord Titus Peake". Starkpike was the last castle held by the Peake's (having lost the other two in the First Blackfyre Rebellion), so if he's not Lord of Starkpike, what is he lord of?

Indeed, it seems Lord Titus is the present Lord of Starpike. I remember tossing around the idea once that Titus was either one of the last Peakes surviving the slaughter of the Red Lion at Starpike in 233 AC, or the heir of one of the surviving Peakes born sometime later. He would have gotten his Lannister marriage most likely as a compensation for the way the captured Peakes were treated by the royal forces as well as a way to better control the next Lord of Starpike. Regardless when the boy was born he could easily enough have been raised as ward/hostage at Casterly Rock.

And considering that Lady Margot doesn't show up in the Lannister family tree she could easily enough be the daughter or granddaughter of a younger brother of the Grey Lion who doesn't show up on the family tree.

Both Titus and Margot could easily turn out to be in their late sixties. We have no idea how old they are.

[Lost Melnibonean]

Quote

Tywald, the eldest of the twins, died in battle in 233 whilst squiring for Lord Robert Reyne of Castamere during the Peake Uprising.  Pierced through with a spear as he clambered through the broken gates of Starpike, Tywald died in the arms of his twin brother Tion, who was serving as a squire to Prince Aegon Targaryen, King Maekar’s youngest son.  The prince, it is said, fulfilled Tywald’s last request, and dubbed him a knight as he was dying.

King Maekar himself had perished less than an hour earlier, his crowned helm crushed by a rock dropped from the battlements as he led the attack on Starpike’s main gates.  Others slain upon that grievous day included Lord Robert Reyne.  Ser Roger Reyne (the Red Lion), his eldest son and heir, took a bloody vengeance after the battle, slaying seven captive Peakes before Prince Aegon arrived to halt the slaughter.

http://www.georgerrmartin.com/world-of-ice-and-fire-sample/

Man, how does Aegon V let a Peake retain starpike after that? 

[Lord Varys]

9 hours ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

http://www.georgerrmartin.com/world-of-ice-and-fire-sample/

Man, how does Aegon V let a Peake retain starpike after that? 

Because Egg was a good guy and did not fault the children for crimes their parents committed?

In fact, the idea is that Titus was the young/infant son of one of the Peakes the Red Lion killed, making Titus the new lord. Egg then took charge of the boy, making him a ward/hostage in the care of Lord Gerold's at Casterly Rock in the wake of the Great Council, resulting in Gerold eventually marrying him to his cousin Margot.

Whether Starpike was ever rebuild in its ancient glory/continues to be a strong castle remains to be seen. But one assumes Lannister gold could have made it pretty strong again.

[Lost Melnibonean]

15 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

The Peake Uprising in 233 AC occurred at Starpike, which might suggest (but does not confirm) that the Peake's still held the castle at the time.

Lady Margot Lannister is currently married to "Lord Titus Peake". Starkpike was the last castle held by the Peake's (having lost the other two in the First Blackfyre Rebellion), so if he's not Lord of Starkpike, what is he lord of?

That makes sense. Thanks! 

[Lost Melnibonean]

What were the Lord and Lady Smallwood doing at the traitors's tourney in The Mystery Knight? Smallwood fought for the red dragon in the First Blackfyre Rebellion.

[Prince Brightfyre]

On January 26, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Lost Melnibonean said:

What were the Lord and Lady Smallwood doing at the traitors's tourney in The Mystery Knight? Smallwood fought for the red dragon in the First Blackfyre Rebellion.

I did a little digging, and from what I came up with, I think a few things.

1) Their current overlord is House Vance of Wayfarers Rest, and we don't know if that was so during the Blackfyre rebellions. If it was, it could be in coherence with them, as the Vances' arms' are quartered with a black dragon. 

 2) Because House Shawney was there at the Whitewalls tourney as well, and they are a noble house hailing from the Riverlands. I'm guessing they could be somewhat close or "neighborly" to the Shawney's, so naturally they would support their cause and join in with them. 

3) All about personal gain. Maybe they didn't like the current rule of the crown. They may have thought the crown weak, and joining in with the Blackfyre host would be most beneficial for their House. Lords were generally promised lands, gold, power, and influence in exchange for their support in the rebellion against the crown. 

[Lord Varys]

On 26.1.2017 at 10:33 PM, Lost Melnibonean said:

What were the Lord and Lady Smallwood doing at the traitors's tourney in The Mystery Knight? Smallwood fought for the red dragon in the First Blackfyre Rebellion.

We know that not all the lords at Whitewalls had fought for the Black Dragon the last time. Some of the invited guests just have issues with Aerys I and/or Bloodraven. That is discussed in the story itself.

[Lost Melnibonean]

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We know that not all the lords at Whitewalls had fought for the Black Dragon the last time. Some of the invited guests just have issues with Aerys I and/or Bloodraven. That is discussed in the story itself.

Right.Do we ever get a hint as to what Smallwood's issue might have been?