Jump to content

Is unbroken Male descent important in Westeros?


norwaywolf123

Recommended Posts

Is the unbroken line of male descent important in Westeros? What i am mean by unbroken male descent, is that over the generations only biological male heirs inherit their fathers titles, rights and properties.

 

Is is more prestigous to have unbroken male descent, than it is to not have unbroken male descent?

 

Sometimes when a lord does not have male heirs, then his daughters husband can take his name and therby let the house survive albeit with a different male lineage.

Examples of this include

- House Lannister (Joffrey Lydden)

 

Other times the house loses it's name, and the female heir's husband's name takes over the house.

Examples

- House Lannister of Darry (Previously Darry)

- House Baratheon (Durrandon)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Descent via the female line is often alluded to as the next best thing when direct male descent is absent.

For example the Lannisters and their family history, and the various Reach Houses claiming descent from Garth Greenhand.

Effectively putting the Starks and Arryns above every other Westerosi House in terms of status, with the Starks being the more ancient of the two by far.

By contrast the Baratheons claim descent from the Storm Kings via the female line, the Lannisters claim descent via the female line, the Gardeners are dead except for Houses claiming descent via the female line, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, norwaywolf123 said:Is the unbroken line of male descent important in Westeros? What i am mean by unbroken male descent, is that over the generations only biological male heirs inherit their fathers titles, rights and properties.

 

Is is more prestigous to have unbroken male descent, than it is to not have unbroken male descent?

 

Sometimes when a lord does not have male heirs, then his daughters husband can take his name and therby let the house survive albeit with a different male lineage.

Examples of this include

- House Lannister (Joffrey Lydden)

 

Other times the house loses it's name, and the female heir's husband's name takes over the house.

Examples

- House Lannister of Darry (Previously Darry)

- House Baratheon (Durrandon)

It is important but few of the paramount houses, if any, has an unbroken line. Nymeros-Martell are broken from the start. Lannisters are broken too as you stated. Gardners are extinct on the main line. Starks male line is also broken with Brandon daughterlesd though they have an existing male line in Karstarks and possibly in WH and BT branches...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unbroken male line means usually father > (eldest) son.

A succession where a man is followed by his brother, nephew, uncle, or cousin isn't an unbroken line. And that sure as hell happened in any of the noble or royal houses we know of.

6 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Effectively putting the Starks and Arryns above every other Westerosi House in terms of status, with the Starks being the more ancient of the two by far.

Artys Arryn is supposedly descended from Hugor of the Hills, the first king of the Andals (and a guy who might have lived in the Age of Heroes) so the the two houses could be of equal age (although not as a Westerosi noble or royal house).

While we have it confirmed that the Lannisters and Durrandon-Baratheons descend from their legendary founders through the female line there is no reason to believe the Starks or Arryns (or Gardeners or Hightowers, etc.) descend from their legendary founders exclusively through the male line.

For instance, the story of Bael the Bard - if true - implies that Winterfell passed from from a ruling lord/king through a daughter to her bastard son - who simply ended up calling himself 'Stark'. After all, if Joffrey Lydden can style himself 'Lannister' then certainly a Snow (or any Northman with a Stark mother) can call himself 'Stark' he successfully seizes power in Winterfell.

True, we don't know whether this story is true nor whether our Starks are actually descended from Bael's son but it is possible. And many lordships and kingdoms may have passed from grandfather to grandson if the grandfather only lived long enough. And in such cases the woman in-between could have easily be passed over. It may not have happened if there were younger male branches around - but in absence of those a king's or lord's heir would have been his male grandchildren by his daughters (or the women themselves, although no queen regnant is known outside the Reach).

Vice versa, it is possible that a cousin marriage (say, a daughter of a king marrying her first cousin from a junior branch) actually ended up reestablishing descent through the male line. The Starks, Lannisters, and Arryns certainly do like to marry their cousins...

Speaking about ruling queens - it would be interesting to know whether that Gardener queen who ruled the Reach in her own right continued the line of House Gardener - giving her name to the sons and grandsons who succeeded her - or whether she died childless with Highgarden passing to a cousin or nephew.

1 hour ago, Corvo the Crow said:

It is important but few of the paramount houses, if any, has an unbroken line. Nymeros-Martell are broken from the start. Lannisters are broken too as you stated. Gardners are extinct on the main line. Starks male line is also broken with Brandon daughterlesd though they have an existing male line in Karstarks and possibly in WH and BT branches...

I'd not speculate about stuff like that - unbroken male line might be as non-existent in other houses as it is in the main houses. The Karstarks are already very old and Alys Karstark might not be the first female Karstark to come very close to rule Karhold in her own right.

Still, the younger a bloodline the more likely it is that there is unbroken line.

But especially in the North the chances are very high that entire branches of families - even the noble and royal families - were cut down severely or completely extinguished in the very hard winters. Obviously somebody always some distant cousin somewhere, but there is no reason to believe it was always a cousin/kinsman through the male line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Unbroken male line means usually father > (eldest) son.

A succession where a man is followed by his brother, nephew, uncle, or cousin isn't an unbroken line. And that sure as hell happened in any of the noble or royal houses we know of.

I was thinking of unbroken male line as in a continious line of male descent following the Y-DNA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup

 

Also a bit in the Salic law sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, norwaywolf123 said:

I was thinking of unbroken male line as in a continious line of male descent following the Y-DNA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup

 

Also a bit in the Salic law sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salic_law

Yeah, but the real ideal of an unbroken line is father > (eldest) son.

You don't see many uncles, nephews, and cousins inherit in holy scriptures, say, or most myths spending sentences and pages on family trees.

But again - chances are very high that there is no house with an unbroken male line regardless how you understand the term.

Some houses may never have had a ruling queen or lady (the Starks, for instance) but this doesn't mean the title didn't pass occasionally from a man to a grandson or great-grandson through the female line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, but the real ideal of an unbroken line is father > (eldest) son.

So Aragorn wasn't the ideal? No doubt Numenor sank beneath the waves because the descent from the eldest child was usurped by a male line? Ar-Pharazon the ideal? Not in Tolkien.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SFDanny said:

So Aragorn wasn't the ideal? No doubt Numenor sank beneath the waves because the descent from the eldest child was usurped by a male line? Ar-Pharazon the ideal? Not in Tolkien.

Tolkien wrote about Arda Marred.

And his works are not sacred scripture or mythology, they are works of fiction.

Still, Aragorn's lineage predominantly goes father > son. At least once the Lords of Andunie go royal. Obscure cadet branches seize power in Gondor but there is an unbroken line of male descent from father to son from Elendil to Aragorn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, norwaywolf123 said:

Is the unbroken line of male descent important in Westeros? What i am mean by unbroken male descent, is that over the generations only biological male heirs inherit their fathers titles, rights and properties.

This would seem to be more important in Houses of Andal descent. It certainly is not among the wildings, and in Dorne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Tolkien wrote about Arda Marred.

And his works are not sacred scripture or mythology, they are works of fiction.

Still, Aragorn's lineage predominantly goes father > son. At least once the Lords of Andunie go royal. Obscure cadet branches seize power in Gondor but there is an unbroken line of male descent from father to son from Elendil to Aragorn.

Not from Father to eldest son. Valandil is Isildur's youngest son and his line survives through him to Aragorn. Still in literature he is the epitome of the "hidden prince" trope, at least among modern fantasy which ASoI&F certainly follows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Not from Father to eldest son. Valandil is Isildur's youngest son and his line survives through him to Aragorn. Still in literature he is the epitome of the "hidden prince" trope, at least among modern fantasy which ASoI&F certainly follows.

That is why I wrote '(eldest) son'. That was supposed to entail eldest surviving son as well as firstborn son. At the point of Isildur's death Valandil was his only son.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

That is why I wrote '(eldest) son'. That was supposed to entail eldest surviving son as well as firstborn son. At the point of Isildur's death Valandil was his only son.

Sorry, that wasn't clear. But it is interesting that in Tolkien it is a usurper of the male line over the rightful female inheritor that dooms his world by breaking the ban of the Valar. Those who survive to set up the kingdoms in exile are descendants of a female line. The female line is the faithful, the usurpers and those who fall under the power of evil are the power hungry illegitimate male line. My point being, in fantasy literature, and in "sacred" texts it's complicated and not just Father to Son inheritance that is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SFDanny said:

Sorry, that wasn't clear. But it is interesting that in Tolkien it is a usurper of the male line over the rightful female inheritor that dooms his world by breaking the ban of the Valar. Those who survive to set up the kingdoms in exile are descendants of a female line. The female line is the faithful, the usurpers and those who fall under the power of evil are the power hungry illegitimate male line. My point being, in fantasy literature, and in "sacred" texts it's complicated and not just Father to Son inheritance that is important.

The Lords of Andunie are not the only female line there. Tar-Aldarion changed the succession laws of Númenor so that his daughter Ancalime, the first Queen Regnant of Númenor, could take the scepter. From her and her consort Hallacar all later kings (and the other two ruling queens) are descended. 

In that sense, Pharazôn and Zimraphel as well as Amandil, Elendil, and his two sons are both the descendants of the female line of the House of Elros.

In addition, I'd also like to point out that Elendil as his sons are not, in fact, members of the royal family of Númenor at the time of its downfall. They are descendants of the Line of Elros, but they are of a lesser branch. They wield lesser weapons, have lesser artifacts and consequently found lesser kingdoms back in Middle-earth.

It is all part of Tolkien's general narrative of gradual decline.

One should also keep in mind that Tar-Aldarion only changed the law a couple of generation after Silmarien and her consort founded the line of the Lords of Andunie, so she wasn't the rightful queen back when she was still alive.

And the way Tolkien portrays the three ruling queens don't make it very likely he considered female rule to be an improvement or the way things should be (but then, I guess as an Englishman being born under Queen Victoria he couldn't really ignore this kind of thing). Those three female monarchs are at best adequate rulers at at worst pretty bad - not to mention that they tend unnaturally cling to power and life (even before the shadow falls on Númenor) - which may or may not be a hint that women actually wielding power the way a man does is an unnatural thing (it isn't that explicit but it is implied).

It is certainly noteworthy that there are no female monarchs among the Eldar. And, no, Melian and Galadriel aren't monarchs, they are consorts. They wield a lot of informal power - and they definitely have a lot of magical powers and are very wise, etc. - but they do not rule the lands they live in. Their husbands do.

In Gondor and Arnor male primogeniture ruled again, there being no ruling queen - despite the fact that Fíriel (the wife of Arvedui, the last king of Arthedain) had a better claim (as per Númenórean law) than the claimant that eventual took the crown of Gondor, Eärnil II.

But why are we talking Tolkien again ;-)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But why are we talking Tolkien again ;-)?

Because The Winds of Winter and Fire and Blood are not out yet!

I would take issue with your hint about women wielding power, and I think Tolkien makes it very clear Ar Pharazon's actions in taking the throne from the rightful female heir is an evil act that foreshadows the doom that follows. But enough about the Silmarillion. 

I don't think you would disagree that Martin provides cultures in his series that show that Father to son inheritance is not a key in their belief systems. Even the Targaryens, who adopt much of the Andal traditions when they conquer the Seven Kingdoms have many examples to show this is not critical. Egg being chosen over young Maegor is one of those. I would even say that the Green position in the Dance is more motivated by using old Andal tradition to win power than it is any commitment to that tradition. Off to bed. Good Night, LV

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bael the Bard is a wildling folktale, and given the context, no different to primitive tales of heroes  sneaking into a god’s realm to steal the secret of Fire, or a peasant, hero of the common man, marrying a princess by way of his wits and guile.

Might as well believe Clarence Crabb tied a dragon’s neck in a knot so that every time he breathed fire he roasted his own arse.

Jon had never heard the tale until a ragged wildling girl spun it to him. I would go with Maester Luwin’s records of lineages and ancestry instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Bael the Bard is a wildling folktale, and given the context, no different to primitive tales of heroes  sneaking into a god’s realm to steal the secret of Fire, or a peasant, hero of the common man, marrying a princess by way of his wits and guile.

Might as well believe Clarence Crabb tied a dragon’s neck in a knot so that every time he breathed fire he roasted his own arse.

Jon had never heard the tale until a ragged wildling girl spun it to him. I would go with Maester Luwin’s records of lineages and ancestry instead.

If you argue that way you also have to believe Joffrey, Myrcella, and Tommen are Robert's trueborn children - or Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor Velaryon his seed, Addam and Alyn of Hull the sons of Laenor Velaryon rather than Corlys Velaryon, Aenys and Maegor the sons of the Conqueror, etc.

The Starks had no reason to be particularly proud of the fact that a wildling king seduced the daughter of the King in the North and put his bastard on the throne of the Starks. That's why that story fell by the wayside.

But even if that was just a story - there is no confirmation whatsoever that all the people calling themselves 'Stark' were indeed trueborn Starks or Starks through the male line.

For instance, take the bastard King Ronard Storm from the Stormlands. That guy had a lot of wives and continued the Durrandon line yet he is remembered by the historians as a Storm, yet he himself and his trueborn children likely called themselves 'Durrandon' and continued the royal branch of that house.

A similar thing likely happened all over the place, both on the lordly and the royal level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

Because The Winds of Winter and Fire and Blood are not out yet!

Looks like that ;-).

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I would take issue with your hint about women wielding power, and I think Tolkien makes it very clear Ar Pharazon's actions in taking the throne from the rightful female heir is an evil act that foreshadows the doom that follows. But enough about the Silmarillion. 

That is correct, but I'd say that this is just another sign that Pharazôn isn't exactly a good guy, not necessarily a statement that female rule is a positive thing. The plot underlines the fact that Pharazôn is a usurper.

6 hours ago, SFDanny said:

I don't think you would disagree that Martin provides cultures in his series that show that Father to son inheritance is not a key in their belief systems. Even the Targaryens, who adopt much of the Andal traditions when they conquer the Seven Kingdoms have many examples to show this is not critical. Egg being chosen over young Maegor is one of those. I would even say that the Green position in the Dance is more motivated by using old Andal tradition to win power than it is any commitment to that tradition. Off to bed. Good Night, LV

Oh, sure, father to son is an ideal in Westeros. It is just not an ideal that's always realized. At times a seat goes to a younger brother, a daughter, an uncle, or cousin. At times even to illegitimate children or widows, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that 2 Red kings (Royce II & IV) sacked Winterfell, so it is possible that both times all adult male "Starks" died and likely even their male children and relatives who were in WF when it fell.

So either "Stark" bloodline continued via some distant male relative or one sister or daughter of late King of Winter "married" relative of victorious Red king and that new lord of WF start calling himself a Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...