Any non-paramount lords with two tiers of lords below them?

[newbieone]

On 24.02.2018 at 3:56 PM, Only 89 selfies today said:

IT > Paramount House Baelish > House Frey of the Crossing > cadet House Frey of Riverun > the lord vassals who answer to Riverun

Could work on two conditions:

(1) the Freys of Riverrun being vassalized to their own kin of the Crossing rather than directly to the LP

(2) Riverrun retainining some lordly vassals despite no longer being the LP's seat

As far as I can see, cadets tend to end up on the same tier as the main branch, i.e. answering directly to the main branch's liege. However, the Daynes of High Hermitage are vassalized to the Daynes of Starfall instead of directly to the Princes of Dorne.

As for Riverrun, House Tully goes back to the First Men as a relatively powerful house back then, and Riverrun was their seat ever since the Andal invasion, long before becoming LP, so I guess Riverrun may well have lords as vassals even when Riverrun is not paramount.

Good find.

On 24.02.2018 at 0:40 PM, Free Northman Reborn said:

(...) Whether any other non-Paramount lords have more than one sub-tier of lords below them is unknown. Perhaps the Hightowers, and outside chance the Redwynnes. But again, we don't know for sure. (...)

The vassal of the vassal would then in most cases presumably be a landed knight sworn to say House Stout or House Webber, or to one of the dozen lords sworn to House Manderly.

The interesting part is the bit where Martin adds that "sometimes the vassals of the vassals would have vassals, down to the man who can raise five friends". So it would seem that he is referring to a level below that of the landed knight sworn to a petty lord, sworn to House Manderly, for example. Suggesting that there is indeed another tier even lower down (in some cases).

The Glovers have vassals despite being only a masterly house. However, the Glovers being only a masterly house is a bit of an oddity, considering that they used to be kings and right now are considered to be among the Starks' most important vassals, not just some knight equivalent who just happens to be a direct vassal of the LP. Must be a bit of a Templeton-like case, as the Templetons can raise 1000 men, marry high and so on (probably no problem becoming official lords if only they wanted), so I guess it's not impossible that they have some landed knights as their own vassals. The problem with the Glovers' vassals — and they have several, which are probably clans (or so Asha thinks) — is that clan heads are typically treated as lords, e.g. Lord Wull for Hugo Wull. Then again, I guess the Glovers also are, most of the time.

On 24.02.2018 at 7:12 PM, Angel Eyes said:

House Hardyng answers to House Waynwood, who answers to House Arryn.

Or is this not an example?

Would need one more tier. And not sure the Hardyngs are full lords.

 

(…) Martin specifically used the Karstarks in his example of vassals with vassals with vassals. And yet you would suggest that the Umbers for some reason would not follow that same structure. Because "sheep"? (…)

I think there's probably some variety regarding the extent to which the various individual powerful houses delegate, so there might be one or two high lords with only masters/knights below them and one or two petty lords with further petty lords below them. Regarding the Karstarks, I wouldn't be surprised if they had lords below them, perhaps even lords with masters, but lords with lords would surprise me. Part of the reason is there aren't many castles in the North (though the masterly Tallharts have a castle, while the lordly Stouts have more of a keep), and while not strictly required, I think a lord would need something close to a proper castle, so for the Karstarks to have two tiers of lords below them the castle network would have to be quite extensive. The Umbers own the 'Last Hearth', so it kind of looks like they're the only folks with a huge house anywhere near.

I'm pretty sure the last tier of vassals Martin has in mind are free farmers and such like (at the bottom end but still within the chain), so Karstarks having vassals with vassals with vassals would mean Karstark > petty lord > master or knight > farmer.