Is unbroken Male descent important in Westeros?

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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.

Well no.

We know for a fact that Joffrey is a bastard. We have Cersei and Jaime's personal thoughts on that. If we had factual reasons to believe that a wildling bore offspring from a Stark princess, then that would equally be sufficient reason to discount the official ancestry of House Stark. But we don't have that. Instead, we have a wildling legend, of a hero who managed to hide with a Stark princess in the crypts for 9 months and weave the wildlings into the line of succession of the greatest power known to them - the legendary Starks of Winterfell. Their arch enemies from countless stories and myths, back to the founding of the Wall itself.

A very unlikely tale.

As for your second contention, that is a strawman argument, since you are the one who introduced the idea of direct line of descent having to be through the eldest trueborn son. I stated no such thing. Direct male line of descent could be through younger sons, cousins, bastards, whatever, from my point of view. What I am referring to is a direct male line of descent, going back to Bran the Builder.

Which indeed I believe to be the case for House Stark. Most certainly with legitimized bastards, uncles, cousins etc. in that line. But a direct male line nevertheless.

The Starks are never once stated to descend from Bran the Builder through the female line (other than in a oral wildling inspirational myth). And until that is confirmed, there is no reason to believe that.

Edit

Besides, we know Bael is merely an allegory for Rhaegar and Lyanna’s story, and Jon’s birth.

[Lord Varys]

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well no.

We know for a fact that Joffrey is a bastard. We have Cersei and Jaime's personal thoughts on that.

I was, of course, operating under the assumption that we don't have them - and only 'the official story'. You treat the official story of House Stark as gossip despite the fact that you do very well know that the official story in this world (as well as in our own) doesn't have to be always correct.

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If we had factual reasons to believe that a wildling bore offspring from a Stark princess, then that would equally be sufficient reason to discount the official ancestry of House Stark. But we don't have that. Instead, we have a wildling legend, of a hero who managed to hide with a Stark princess in the crypts for 9 months and weave the wildlings into the line of succession of the greatest power known to them - the legendary Starks of Winterfell. Their arch enemies from countless stories and myths, back to the founding of the Wall itself.

A very unlikely tale.

Not sure why that should be all that unlikely in light of the fact that Mance pulled pretty much the same thing off in AGoT and ADwD.

And if said Stark had only one child - that daughter - then her son by whatever father could easily enough have become his grandfather's heir. 

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

As for your second contention, that is a strawman argument, since you are the one who introduced the idea of direct line of descent having to be through the eldest trueborn son. I stated no such thing. Direct male line of descent could be through younger sons, cousins, bastards, whatever, from my point of view. What I am referring to is a direct male line of descent, going back to Bran the Builder.

Regardless what I said, there is no reason to believe the Starks are descended from Brandon the Builder in unbroken male line (whatever that is supposed to mean). You can believe that such an unbroken line exists, but there is no evidence for that anywhere in the books.

'Unbroken line' usually means from father to son, as I pointed out. A title/crown passing to a brother, uncle, or cousin isn't unbroken. It is even a straight line anymore, considering that it twists and turns around.

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The Starks are never once stated to descend from Bran the Builder through the female line (other than in a oral wildling inspirational myth). And until that is confirmed, there is no reason to believe that.

As I told you already, the Bael story doesn't mean our Starks are descended from Bael's son. His line could have died out a couple of generations down the line, and then Winterfell may have gone to some obscure cousins. But it is possible that they are.

8 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Edit

Besides, we know Bael is merely an allegory for Rhaegar and Lyanna’s story, and Jon’s birth.

Last time I looked Jon didn't kill Rhaegar, so I don't think that's all that much of an allegory in that regard. There are parallels there, to be sure, but there is also other meaning transported there. For instance, possibly a deep connection between the Starks and the free folk the former deny/aren't aware of?

But the main point here is that the Bael story makes it clear that you can be the bastard of woman and still end up bearing her name. The same thing is confirmed with the whole Joffrey Lydden-Lannister thing.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I was, of course, operating under the assumption that we don't have them - and only 'the official story'. You treat the official story of House Stark as gossip despite the fact that you do very well know that the official story in this world (as well as in our own) doesn't have to be always correct.

Not sure why that should be all that unlikely in light of the fact that Mance pulled pretty much the same thing off in AGoT and ADwD.

And if said Stark had only one child - that daughter - then her son by whatever father could easily enough have become his grandfather's heir. 

Regardless what I said, there is no reason to believe the Starks are descended from Brandon the Builder in unbroken male line (whatever that is supposed to mean). You can believe that such an unbroken line exists, but there is no evidence for that anywhere in the books.

'Unbroken line' usually means from father to son, as I pointed out. A title/crown passing to a brother, uncle, or cousin isn't unbroken. It is even a straight line anymore, considering that it twists and turns around.

As I told you already, the Bael story doesn't mean our Starks are descended from Bael's son. His line could have died out a couple of generations down the line, and then Winterfell may have gone to some obscure cousins. But it is possible that they are.

Last time I looked Jon didn't kill Rhaegar, so I don't think that's all that much of an allegory in that regard. There are parallels there, to be sure, but there is also other meaning transported there. For instance, possibly a deep connection between the Starks and the free folk the former deny/aren't aware of?

But the main point here is that the Bael story makes it clear that you can be the bastard of woman and still end up bearing her name. The same thing is confirmed with the whole Joffrey Lydden-Lannister thing.

Again. Strawman argument. I never denied that a bastard can bear the name of his mother’s House. And it is certainly possible that it happened to any House you wish to mention over the course of Westerosi history.

My point simply is that there is no credible evidence that this happened in the case of the Starks. Until then, there is no basis to dispute that they descend from Bran the Builder in a direct male line of descent, as they claim.

As for Bael being a symbolic representation of Jon’s origin story, that does not require that every detail of Bael and Rhaegar’s stories should align. Randomly picking out differences between their stories is a bit foolish, in that context. Besides, the example you picked actually does align, given that Rhaegar’s dalliance with Lyanna directly led to his death and similarly Bael died in a battle against the family whose daughter he mythically impregnated.

[Sea Dragon]

Martin is about to make the women the heroes of the story. Danaerys is the main hero. Cersei is just doing the best she can. Arya is struggling now but she will come out a leader. And so on. From what I understand of Martin he is a feminist so it makes the most sense that he will make it not necessary to have men be the bloodline importance anymore. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

21 minutes ago, Sea Dragon said:

Martin is about to make the women the heroes of the story. Danaerys is the main hero. Cersei is just doing the best she can. Arya is struggling now but she will come out a leader. And so on. From what I understand of Martin he is a feminist so it makes the most sense that he will make it not necessary to have men be the bloodline importance anymore. 

Don’t be fooled by the Show. Sansa is not on the heroic journey she was thrust into by D&D. Dany is not the lone saviour she was depicted as by them. And Cersei does not have any of the redeeming qualities they tried to temper her character with.

Can’t argue about Arya. She is my favourite character, and undeniably awesome. Far more so in the books than her simplistic depiction in the Show, in fact.

But we digress. None of the above should influence the importance of male line of descent as it exists in Westeros.

Historic claims through the female line are clearly emphasized as quite distinct from claims through the male line, for even the greatest of Houses.

[Aline de Gavrillac]

The current symmetry to Bael the Bard is Mance Rayder.  Both wildlings.  Both men of influence among the wildlings.  Both can get in and out of Winterfell.  Mance Rayder slept with Lyanna under Rickard's nose and got her with child.  That child is Jon Snow.  Bael was the blue rose.  Mance is the blue rose.  

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

My point simply is that there is no credible evidence that this happened in the case of the Starks. Until then, there is no basis to dispute that they descend from Bran the Builder in a direct male line of descent, as they claim.

Can you give me quote that they do claim that? I never read anything of that sort.

There is no textual evidence suggesting that the Starks are descended from Brandon the Builder in unbroken male line. All we know is that they are (supposedly) descended from him.

[Free Northman Reborn]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Can you give me quote that they do claim that? I never read anything of that sort.

There is no textual evidence suggesting that the Starks are descended from Brandon the Builder in unbroken male line. All we know is that they are (supposedly) descended from him.

It is a simple inference from the fact that Great Houses that descend from some mythical figure through the female line, are clearly stated to do so in the glossaries and histories. That reasonably implies that those that do not qualify (lessen) their line of descent with that qualification, obviously claim descent through the male line, which ranks higher in Westerosi culture.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

It is a simple inference from the fact that Great Houses that descend from some mythical figure through the female line, are clearly stated to do so in the glossaries and histories. That reasonably implies that those that do not qualify (lessen) their line of descent with that qualification, obviously claim descent through the male line, which ranks higher in Westerosi culture.

No, there is no reason that this is a law. We have such information for the Lannisters and Tyrells but we don't know how the Arryns, Durrandons, Gardeners, Hightowers, etc. are descended from their mythical founders - and it is the same with the Starks.

The fact that there are great houses who keep their names despite being descended through the female line establishes that this is a possibility. We have no reason or right to assume that the author would only tell this if this is the case. He might not know himself at this point - or he might keep it intentionally vague as he does pretty much everything about the more distant past.

[SFDanny]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no textual evidence suggesting that the Starks are descended from Brandon the Builder in unbroken male line. All we know is that they are (supposedly) descended from him.

Absolutely. Not only that but the story of Bael the Bard as we hear it tells us that it is Bael's son who inherits the the crown of the King in the North through his mother's bloodline. If we accept the story, the Stark male line is broken.

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, there is no reason that this is a law. We have such information for the Lannisters and Tyrells but we don't know how the Arryns, Durrandons, Gardeners, Hightowers, etc. are descended from their mythical founders - and it is the same with the Starks.

The fact that there are great houses who keep their names despite being descended through the female line establishes that this is a possibility. We have no reason or right to assume that the author would only tell this if this is the case. He might not know himself at this point - or he might keep it intentionally vague as he does pretty much everything about the more distant past.

Again, distinguish between your opinion and fact. And similarly let’s argue consistently. I wasn’t arguing about what the author knows or doesn’t know, which we can’t know as we aren’t mind readers.

And for the third or fourth time, the argument is not about whether it is POSSIBLE that the Starks descend through the female line. As stated before, of course it is possible, for them and for any House.

We are talking about which way the evidence leans, supported by the claims in the histories, and by the Houses themselves. For some Houses, like the Lannisters and Tyrells, Florents and half the Houses in the Reach, there need be no debate, as they freely ackowledge their link to Garth Greenhand through the female line.

Others ackowledge no such thing. So until there is actual evidence to that fact, the default state of affairs is that they descend through the male line.

[Bernie Mac]

4 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Others ackowledge no such thing. So until there is actual evidence to that fact, the default state of affairs is that they descend through the male line.

come on, allow some common sense, the idea that for six thousand years a daughter's son, or a sister's, or even a niece's son has never inherited seems far fetched. 

the correct state of affairs is that neither position has been claimed, so you can both be right and neither are currently wrong. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

come on, allow some common sense, the idea that for six thousand years a daughter's son, or a sister's, or even a niece's son has never inherited seems far fetched. 

the correct state of affairs is that neither position has been claimed, so you can both be right and neither are currently wrong. 

A lot about the timeline and setting is far fetched. 

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Others ackowledge no such thing. So until there is actual evidence to that fact, the default state of affairs is that they descend through the male line.

No, it isn't. The default state of affairs is that we do not know how the Starks (and any other house) is supposedly descended from some legendary founder. We only have a claim that this is the case - we don't know whether it is true, nor do we know how the descent is supposed to have happened.

Anything else is just wishful thinking and make believe.

And I'm not dismissing the possibility that the Starks are descended from Brandon the Builder through the male line. I just say we don't know and that the facts don't support that idea at this point.

[Maia]

On 5/30/2018 at 5:46 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

 None of the above should influence the importance of male line of descent as it exists in Westeros.

I am not entirely sure why you think that it is so important. TWoIaF has decisively proven that inheritance of magic isn't limited to the male lines, so why do you insist on something that is unprovable? In fact, there is a strong hint that Stark magic came into their bloodline through the Warg-king's daughters, rather than was  inherent in their paternal bloodline.

On 5/30/2018 at 5:46 AM, Free Northman Reborn said:

Historic claims through the female line are clearly emphasized as quite distinct from claims through the male line, for even the greatest of Houses.

Largely when the women or their consorts actually held the kingship, though, or when they were conquered and absorbed into the newly dominant family. A grandson who was declared heir since childhood inheriting directly from his maternal grandfather wouldn't be worth a mention, IMHO.

And yea, some Houses, like the Florents have a female mythical founder, but I saw no indication that they enjoyed less prestige because of that.

[Yukle]

On 5/29/2018 at 7:06 AM, Lord Varys said:

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.

Now you mention it, is it that we've never had any mention of a woman ruling the North, or has it been explicitly stated that all of the ruling Starks never had a woman? The Mormonts seem fairly conservative to northern traditions and don't seem too bothered by a woman ruling them if there are no men to do so. And they did support the Blacks in the Dance of the Dragons. Those would suggest that surely at some point in their thousands of years of rule there was a woman ruling.

[norwaywolf123]

29 minutes ago, Yukle said:

Now you mention it, is it that we've never had any mention of a woman ruling the North, or has it been explicitly stated that all of the ruling Starks never had a woman? The Mormonts seem fairly conservative to northern traditions and don't seem too bothered by a woman ruling them if there are no men to do so. And they did support the Blacks in the Dance of the Dragons. Those would suggest that surely at some point in their thousands of years of rule there was a woman ruling.

Even if a woman rules a house, the paternal line of that house can persist. If she is married to a cousin, or another male that shares her fathers paternal line.

[norwaywolf123]

What i meant with unbroken male descent is that a house has a direct paternal line to the founder.

I am talking about paternal descent as in y-dna. Y-dna is the male sex chromosome. A key feature of the Y-dna is that it is only passed on from biological father to biological son. The Y-dna rarely mutates which makes it usefull for genetic research.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

Now you mention it, is it that we've never had any mention of a woman ruling the North, or has it been explicitly stated that all of the ruling Starks never had a woman? The Mormonts seem fairly conservative to northern traditions and don't seem too bothered by a woman ruling them if there are no men to do so. And they did support the Blacks in the Dance of the Dragons. Those would suggest that surely at some point in their thousands of years of rule there was a woman ruling.

Martin was asked if there has ever been a ruling Lady of Winterfell and his answer was “No”.

As for the references to female descent, they are not merely when a prominent woman ruled a House. It was when a line of descent was sought when no male line, which is the default, was available.

EDIT

Here is his quote:

Have there ever been a ruling Lady of Winterfell or Queen of Winter?]

No. Although I do hope to someday write the Dunk & Egg story where they travel to Winterfell and meet the She-Wolves.

 

[Ser Micaelys]

I think it's important at times of inheritance, it seems the ideal heir is the father's eldest son to his eldest son and so on, mirroring the typical real world preference. Honestly it makes much more sense for bloodlines, inheritance and names to go from the mothers side, mother to daughter and so on, as you always know the biological mother and the father cannot be guaranteed. But I don't think it adds or lessens prestige, just like Prince William isn't any less an heir, royal or special in England because his grandmother is the Queen instead of a grandfather being a King, he will inherit and become King.

I think the difference is not being of the male line but the MAIN line. The Starks are the ruling house, they have not taken a different surname and been supplanted by another house whether the blood descent is the same or not.

It's my impression the inherited female line keep their surname if they are inheriting and it's more prestigious than their husbands, maybe I have this wrong but isn't even Harry the Heir expected to change to an Arryn if/when he inherits. 

So what I am getting at is when the houses claim descent through the female line they are ADDING prestige by saying even if the house is officially blah blah blah look at this cool ancestor we have, look at the rights we could have. It's explaining why the last name is different. House Baratheon are from the female Durrandon line and known and said because they are Baratheons not Durrandon's. Even if the Stark's at one point or more times went through the line of a female heir it doesn't matter because the Stark's still rule, it doesn't need to be said their from any Stark line, they don't need to say we descend from the Stark's through the female line it would be redundant.

Unless someone has crowed about coming from an unbroken male line it's not important as long as you are the main ruling family, the recent male line is important at specific times of inheritance, it gives you a better claim the closer you are to the seat but there are always other claims and sometimes that direct line is ignored for other reasons eg. Egg (over an infant).