Is unbroken Male descent important in Westeros?

[Free Northman Reborn]

11 minutes ago, Ser Micaelys said:

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).  

Nope. Claiming descent through the female line is a stand in for when no descent can be claimed through the male line. It is of LESSER status, not greater. That much is patently obvious from reading the context of such references.

[Angel Eyes]

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Nope. Claiming descent through the female line is a stand in for when no descent can be claimed through the male line. It is of LESSER status, not greater. That much is patently obvious from reading the context of such references.

This seems to be the case. If unbroken male descent was the only way succession was passed, the Targaryens would have been in real trouble in 131 AC when Aegon II died with no sons, dead unmarried brothers and only Aegon son of Daemon (later Aegon III) left.

[Ser Micaelys]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Nope. Claiming descent through the female line is a stand in for when no descent can be claimed through the male line. It is of LESSER status, not greater. That much is patently obvious from reading the context of such references.

I really don't understand why you replied this to my post. I could say nuh duh. Perhaps reread my post I get the impression you don't understand it.

Nothing you respond says nope to anything I wrote. For example, the Baratheon's are not any less prestigious because they are Baratheon's not Durrandon's, if saying they descend from the Durrandon's through the female line makes them lesser it wouldn't be mentioned, it is mentioned to add status. The same reason the other families claim female descent, it doesn't make them greater than a related family with pure male line, if it did they would have inherited it, it simply makes them greater than what they would have been without the claim, I would think that is patently obvious. It would be less IF there was a ruling male line house but it's the Baratheon's who got the power and then eventually became the Royal family of the seven kingdoms.

Whether the claimant is male or female, from a male or female line, if they win the claim and their line succeeds and successfully carries on the house it is not ''lesser" than any other house. The OP is about the status of the house not an individual claimant at times of inheritance or disputes. Is there anything in the story that is patently obvious that the Baratheon, Martell, Lannister or any other house is considered lesser due to female descent over other houses because they have unbroken make descent?

Is it ever even specifically mentioned that a house even has an unbroken male line?      

[Angel Eyes]

2 minutes ago, Ser Micaelys said:

I really don't understand why you replied this to my post. I could say nuh duh. Perhaps reread my post I get the impression you don't understand it.

Nothing you respond says nope to anything I wrote. For example, the Baratheon's are not any less prestigious because they are Baratheon's not Durrandon's, if saying they descend from the Durrandon's through the female line makes them lesser it wouldn't be mentioned, it is mentioned to add status. The same reason the other families claim female descent, it doesn't make them greater than a related family with pure male line, if it did they would have inherited it, it simply makes them greater than what they would have been without the claim, I would think that is patently obvious. It would be less IF there was a ruling male line house but it's the Baratheon's who got the power and then eventually became the Royal family of the seven kingdoms.

Whether the claimant is male or female, from a male or female line, if they win the claim and their line succeeds and successfully carries on the house it is not ''lesser" than any other house. The OP is about the status of the house not an individual claimant at times of inheritance or disputes. Is there anything in the story that is patently obvious that the Baratheon, Martell, Lannister or any other house is considered lesser due to female descent over other houses because they have unbroken make descent?

Is it ever even specifically mentioned that a house even has an unbroken male line?      

I don’t think there is, and given how unpredictable Westeros is, it is highly unlikely and nigh-impossible.

[Yukle]

9 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

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.

Thanks for that!

I won't pretend I'm not a little disappointed with that.  The Starks seem so cool in so many regards, especially their support of the Blacks in the Dance of the Dragons.

Girl power! 

[norwaywolf123]

19 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

This seems to be the case. If unbroken male descent was the only way succession was passed, the Targaryens would have been in real trouble in 131 AC when Aegon II died with no sons, dead unmarried brothers and only Aegon son of Daemon (later Aegon III) left.

All Targaryens (assuming they are trueborn) have Targaryen y-dna. But the further away the common ancestry of some targaryen males, the further away the latest shared paternal ancestor.

[norwaywolf123]

11 hours ago, Yukle said:

Thanks for that!

I won't pretend I'm not a little disappointed with that.  The Starks seem so cool in so many regards, especially their support of the Blacks in the Dance of the Dragons.

Girl power! 

Female nobles may have less rights than noble men, they may also be discriminated against, but they are still noble. Being noble means that these women are part of the Westerosi elite. Most Westerosi men(and women) occupy a lower socio-economic position in Westerosi society than female nobles. Also female Starks are part of one of Westeros greatest houses, meaning that these women are close to the top of the Westerosi totem pole of status.

[Bernie Mac]

38 minutes ago, norwaywolf123 said:

 Also female Starks are part of one of Westeros greatest houses, meaning that these women are close to the top of the Westerosi totem pole of status.

I'm guessing what is found disappointing is that other regions such as the Vale, Westerlands and obviously Dorne, will allow a female to be head of state but it is unfortunate that the North does not.

[norwaywolf123]

3 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

I'm guessing what is found disappointing is that other regions such as the Vale, Westerlands and obviously Dorne, will allow a female to be head of state but it is unfortunate that the North does not.

The North may allow for it even if it has not happened yet. Sometimes it comes down to circumstance.