Jump to content

Negative image of bastards


Kandrax

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Northmen don't treat their bastards different or better. Jon lives at Winterfell and Joy Hill lives at Casterly Rock.

Still, both cultures treat them like shit and ascribe to the nonsensical stories about them.

Yeah, the treatment of bastards has far more to do with the social factors of absolute primogeniture and less with faith or culture.

Bastards receive treatment according to their parents, and it seems a bit according to the circumstances of their birth.  A bastard with two noble parents seems to have a good chance at a decent life and we see that Aegon IV's kids by noblewomen are considered "Great Bastards" and are more generally trusted with positions of importance.  Also, if your a bastard favored by your father, you probably have a decent shot at a reasonably good marriage, or a position with the Citadel (and maybe the Faith).  Jon would have been in an excellent position to make a good marriage.  Obviously loved by his father, and loved and respected by his half brother Robb, he would probably be expected to have a good deal of influence at Winterfell, especially once Robb comes into his own.  Ramsay is in a similar situation, since he's the only living child of Roose when the story starts, and thus stands a puncher's chance of actually inheriting the Dreadfort (assuming no one realizes he's a psychopath).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Yeah, the treatment of bastards has far more to do with the social factors of absolute primogeniture and less with faith or culture.

Bastards receive treatment according to their parents, and it seems a bit according to the circumstances of their birth.  A bastard with two noble parents seems to have a good chance at a decent life and we see that Aegon IV's kids by noblewomen are considered "Great Bastards" and are more generally trusted with positions of importance.  Also, if your a bastard favored by your father, you probably have a decent shot at a reasonably good marriage, or a position with the Citadel (and maybe the Faith).  Jon would have been in an excellent position to make a good marriage.  Obviously loved by his father, and loved and respected by his half brother Robb, he would probably be expected to have a good deal of influence at Winterfell, especially once Robb comes into his own.  Ramsay is in a similar situation, since he's the only living child of Roose when the story starts, and thus stands a puncher's chance of actually inheriting the Dreadfort (assuming no one realizes he's a psychopath).

Ramsay was in a better position than Jon because, bastards they may be, Ramsay was the only heir available to his father.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Yeah, the treatment of bastards has far more to do with the social factors of absolute primogeniture and less with faith or culture.

Bastards receive treatment according to their parents, and it seems a bit according to the circumstances of their birth.  A bastard with two noble parents seems to have a good chance at a decent life and we see that Aegon IV's kids by noblewomen are considered "Great Bastards" and are more generally trusted with positions of importance.

I think the crucial tidbit there is that the great bastards were royal bastards born to the king's beloved mistresses who - along with their mothers - were showered with favors while the king was still alive (and before they were legitimized along with the others on Aegon's deathbed).

There are many bastards getting the moniker 'the Bastard of X', indicating that men like Rolland Storm or Aurane Waters held important positions in their father's castles. But there are no examples I can think of where (unlegitimized) royal or noble bastards were married to the daughters of prestigious noble families. The sole exception might be the whole thing about Joy Hill but that may be just Jaime misinterpreting Tywin's original plans. Lady Sybell doesn't like the idea that he kin marry a Lannister bastard. 

Bastards are used when they come in handy, and they may step in for their trueborn kin if (and only if) they are legitimized.

We'll have to wait and see how Alyn of Hull's marriage to the Lady Baela Targaryen is seen by the people of Westeros - the king's sister does marry a baseborn bastard - and how popular Alyn Velaryon is as Lord of Driftmark. If this whole thing is not going to be a scandal or faces little to no opposition then bastards would have a pretty good standing. If not, then chances that unlegitimized bastards are married to noble ladies are very small.

2 hours ago, cpg2016 said:

Also, if your a bastard favored by your father, you probably have a decent shot at a reasonably good marriage, or a position with the Citadel (and maybe the Faith).  Jon would have been in an excellent position to make a good marriage.  Obviously loved by his father, and loved and respected by his half brother Robb, he would probably be expected to have a good deal of influence at Winterfell, especially once Robb comes into his own.  Ramsay is in a similar situation, since he's the only living child of Roose when the story starts, and thus stands a puncher's chance of actually inheriting the Dreadfort (assuming no one realizes he's a psychopath).

I see bastards having a decent enough shot to become maesters - and if they have the talent to even rise to the position of archmaester, eventually - but I'm more skeptical about the Faith. The doctrines of the Faith are not in favor of extramarital sex, and that doesn't make it likely such people rise to the position of Most Devout or even High Septon. The Faith might take wayward girls and the like, but fallen girls are not bastards...

Jon would have to be legitimized to rise to real power at Winterfell and the North. And while Robb has still siblings or children of his own that would have been a very stupid thing to do. That doesn't mean Jon couldn't have been Robb's close advisor, etc. but I don't see him being married to a great daughter/heiress in the North. The lords would decline such offers very politely but they would nevertheless decline.

Ramsay only rises as high as he does because Roose arranges for Tommen to legitimize him. If that hadn't happened and Roose had choked to death on some chicken bone in ASoS some distant Bolton cousin would have claimed the Dreadfort - and Ramsay wouldn't have had the power to stop him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a quite a list of high status bastards: Jon, Ramsay, Edric Storm, Aurane Waters, Robert Flowers (LC Kingsguard), Cotter Pyke, Blackfyres, Alayne Stone, Ellaria Sand, Sandsnakes.... I agree their success usually depends on them getting a boost from high-ranking relatives, but it wouldn't be possible to promote them this way if society was just going to shun them.

It looks like there a few people who really hate bastards, and maybe some prejudice more widely, but they are tolerated and promoted. Not just by family, either - Bran's advisors thought his idea of Larence Snow for Lord Hornwood could be a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2018 at 5:06 PM, The Pink Letter said:

Ramsay was in a better position than Jon because, bastards they may be, Ramsay was the only heir available to his father.  

We don't know this.  He's the only child available, which is not the same thing.  Culturally, it seems like daughters have decent inheritance rights, as do brothers and any other non-bastard.  If he's literally the only possible heir (which seems unlikely) then you may be correct.  Far more likely is that the Dreadfort falls into an escheat similar to the Hornwood lands, which Winterfell gets to arbitrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

 Far more likely is that the Dreadfort falls into an escheat similar to the Hornwood lands, which Winterfell gets to arbitrate.

That is not what happened with the Hornwood lands, it did not revert back to the state, it was still 'Hornwood' property, just unclear who had the best claim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2018 at 7:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

I think the crucial tidbit there is that the great bastards were royal bastards born to the king's beloved mistresses who - along with their mothers - were showered with favors while the king was still alive (and before they were legitimized along with the others on Aegon's deathbed).

There are many bastards getting the moniker 'the Bastard of X', indicating that men like Rolland Storm or Aurane Waters held important positions in their father's castles. But there are no examples I can think of where (unlegitimized) royal or noble bastards were married to the daughters of prestigious noble families. The sole exception might be the whole thing about Joy Hill but that may be just Jaime misinterpreting Tywin's original plans. Lady Sybell doesn't like the idea that he kin marry a Lannister bastard. 

Well the Great Bastards are all sons and daughters of noblewomen, whereas Merry Meg's kids were legitimized, but don't feature in the narrative in the same way, which implies that having a noble mother is relevant.  Also, we see this with Robert; Edric Storm is raised at Storm's End and is a valued and known member of the household, whereas Gendry or Mya Stone are both pretty much forgotten about by the larger political community.  I can only imagine this is due to Delena Florent being his mother.

And I mean, there is an obvious answer to the second part.  While we may know the truth, it's apparently respectable enough to not cause a ton of comment for Harry the Heir to marry the Lord Protector's "natural daughter".  Or rather, while it may cause comment, it's not so egregious that it's going to be forcibly stopped.  Walder Rivers is married to a daughter of House Charlton.  This all makes a certain kind of social sense.  Bastards seem to be considered appropriate matches for folks who are at least one rung down on the social ladder, and to a member of the family who is unlikely to inherit (exceptional cases like Lollys Stokeworth and Bronn aside).

On 10/12/2018 at 7:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

but I'm more skeptical about the Faith. The doctrines of the Faith are not in favor of extramarital sex, and that doesn't make it likely such people rise to the position of Most Devout or even High Septon. The Faith might take wayward girls and the like, but fallen girls are not bastards...

I agree it is less likely.  That being said, the Faith seems pretty accepting that men have "needs" and there might be byblows from that.  Septas can clearly be bastard born, as Merry Meg's daughters are accepted into the Faith.  And while I don't know the timing, it seems reasonable that whether or not they were "legitimised" this kind of political act would mean less to the Faith if it weren't already acceptable to join a septry.

On 10/12/2018 at 7:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

Jon would have to be legitimized to rise to real power at Winterfell and the North. And while Robb has still siblings or children of his own that would have been a very stupid thing to do. That doesn't mean Jon couldn't have been Robb's close advisor, etc. but I don't see him being married to a great daughter/heiress in the North. The lords would decline such offers very politely but they would nevertheless decline.

I mean, this goes to what you consider "real power".  He's already Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, which makes him a man of actual political importance.  And if he has access to Robb's ear (which he clearly does/did), that gives him real power in a feudal political system.  Look at how influential Piers Gaveston, or the Despensers were, and that's just under Edward II.  If Robb tries to arrange a marriage between Jon and the second daughter of some House, or even a first daughter (say.... Alys Karstark), an ambitious lord might comply.  And that puts Jon in a position to inherit somewhere, as well as the informal influence he'd already wield.

On 10/12/2018 at 7:12 PM, Lord Varys said:

Ramsay only rises as high as he does because Roose arranges for Tommen to legitimize him. If that hadn't happened and Roose had choked to death on some chicken bone in ASoS some distant Bolton cousin would have claimed the Dreadfort - and Ramsay wouldn't have had the power to stop him.

I don't think this is right.  Or rather, it's only partially right.  As we see with Larence Snow, in the absence of a close claimant, a bastard has a real shot at inheriting.  Larence isn't a shoe-in, but the political elite of the North clearly see him as a strong contender to inherit the Hornwood lands.  Under those circumstances, it's even easier to see some ambitious lord (like Wyman Manderly, say) arrange for a marriage to one of their daughters and hope the resulting political bloc gains the guy the Lordship, and also indebts him to whoever arranges the marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

That is not what happened with the Hornwood lands, it did not revert back to the state, it was still 'Hornwood' property, just unclear who had the best claim

There is no such thing as "Hornwood property".  The Hornwood family traditionally controls that fief and it's assumed that it will pass to a Hornwood heir, but in a feudal system all land "belongs" to the highest authority and is sub-infeudated out from there.  Once the Hornwood heir is recognized, they'll get the land and titles.  Until then, since no one is paying relief for it and no one exists to do homage for it, it reverts to the Starks.  That's assuming it follows anything like traditional feudal tradition/law.

It's not out of the question that the Starks, as the liege lords, hold the Hornwood lands at the moment and are entitled to the revenues from it while they are in an administrative role.  Certainly English kings were known for keeping abbeys and bishoprics without an abbot/bishop for long periods, so they could control the revenue from those sees (William Rufus springs to mind as having been well known for this).

Essentially, the Starks have the right to make the final judgement on whose claim is the most valid, or that is what it sounds like from the deliberation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cpg2016 said:

There is no such thing as "Hornwood property".

Sure there is. 

1 minute ago, cpg2016 said:

 

  The Hornwood family traditionally controls that fief and it's assumed that it will pass to a Hornwood heir, but in a feudal system all land "belongs" to the highest authority and is sub-infeudated out from there. 

Yeah, this is not medieval England, many of these houses ruled their lands before they swore oaths to others. 

1 minute ago, cpg2016 said:

 

Once the Hornwood heir is recognized, they'll get the land and titles. 

Exactly, it does not revert back to the crown, just like the Dustin lands never did.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Well the Great Bastards are all sons and daughters of noblewomen, whereas Merry Meg's kids were legitimized, but don't feature in the narrative in the same way, which implies that having a noble mother is relevant. 

They play no role because Prince Viserys gave them to the Faith. They would be septas or dead by the time their royal sire legitimized them.

24 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Also, we see this with Robert; Edric Storm is raised at Storm's End and is a valued and known member of the household, whereas Gendry or Mya Stone are both pretty much forgotten about by the larger political community.  I can only imagine this is due to Delena Florent being his mother.

In part, the more crucial circumstances there - as is laid out in the books - are the circumstances around Edric's conception. This was a huge scandal and a humiliation not just for Stannis/Selyse but also House Florent as such. Robert had to acknowledge and care for the child once it became clear he had impregnated Delena.

Mya Stone was apparently sort of acknowledged by Lord Robert back in the day, but the fact that she plays no role is more to the fact that Robert ignores her (he once intended to bring her to court - had that happened she may have become quite prominent) not so much because of her mother.

24 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

And I mean, there is an obvious answer to the second part.  While we may know the truth, it's apparently respectable enough to not cause a ton of comment for Harry the Heir to marry the Lord Protector's "natural daughter".  Or rather, while it may cause comment, it's not so egregious that it's going to be forcibly stopped.

Harry seems to be a very special case to me. For one, the boy is from a very modest family on his father's side. He also has Arryn blood, but he is only the presumptive heir of the Vale, not the heir Lord Jon or Lord Robert actually wanted. And we have no idea what Lady Anya knows or suspects about 'Alayne Stone'.

How things would stand if Lord Robert died and a bastard were supposed to become the Lady of the Vale at Lord Harrold's side is quite unclear at this point. Sansa were truly Littlefinger's bastard this whole thing could take a very ugly turn for her, especially if Littlefinger suffered a rather unpleasant downfall...

24 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Walder Rivers is married to a daughter of House Charlton.  This all makes a certain kind of social sense.  Bastards seem to be considered appropriate matches for folks who are at least one rung down on the social ladder, and to a member of the family who is unlikely to inherit (exceptional cases like Lollys Stokeworth and Bronn aside).

Walder Rivers seems to be a very powerful knight. There are ways how bastard can make a pretty good life, but House Charlton isn't exactly a very great house. A royal bastard or the bastard of a great lord could certainly marry the younger daughter of some petty lord. That wouldn't be that much of an issue.

24 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

I agree it is less likely.  That being said, the Faith seems pretty accepting that men have "needs" and there might be byblows from that.  Septas can clearly be bastard born, as Merry Meg's daughters are accepted into the Faith.  And while I don't know the timing, it seems reasonable that whether or not they were "legitimised" this kind of political act would mean less to the Faith if it weren't already acceptable to join a septry.

Here we have to consider that we are talking about royal bastards whose grandfather (most likely) happened to be the Hand of the King at the time their existence was discovered. That is much different from the average noble bastard. And I'm sure that the Faith takes such children, I'm just not so sure they do rise high within the hierarchy of the Faith.

24 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

I mean, this goes to what you consider "real power".  He's already Lord Commander of the Night's Watch, which makes him a man of actual political importance.  And if he has access to Robb's ear (which he clearly does/did), that gives him real power in a feudal political system.  Look at how influential Piers Gaveston, or the Despensers were, and that's just under Edward II.  If Robb tries to arrange a marriage between Jon and the second daughter of some House, or even a first daughter (say.... Alys Karstark), an ambitious lord might comply.  And that puts Jon in a position to inherit somewhere, as well as the informal influence he'd already wield.

But it doesn't seem this was done - else there would be quite a few of bastard cadet branches of various great houses, different Snows, Storms, Flowers, etc. all throughout Westeros.

It seems clear that bastards can wield great informal power at their father's/brother's castles, but it doesn't seem these people were included in dynastic plans. Whether this was because the lords and kings were smart enough to realize that this could threaten their own bloodline, or because bastards are usually so despised that most great houses consider it an insult to marry their darling daughters and sisters (or heiresses!) to a bastard is unclear.

But it certainly could be a combination of both.

24 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

I don't think this is right.  Or rather, it's only partially right.  As we see with Larence Snow, in the absence of a close claimant, a bastard has a real shot at inheriting.  Larence isn't a shoe-in, but the political elite of the North clearly see him as a strong contender to inherit the Hornwood lands.  Under those circumstances, it's even easier to see some ambitious lord (like Wyman Manderly, say) arrange for a marriage to one of their daughters and hope the resulting political bloc gains the guy the Lordship, and also indebts him to whoever arranges the marriage.

Bastards always do have claims, and those claims do become stronger if there is no clear legitimate heir. But Larence only seems to be considered because Bran suggested him. The club of the legitimate nobility is well-advised to keep the by-blows out of the elite circles. I mean, technically Edric Storm would make an ideal match for Shireen Baratheon, yet there is a very good reason why such a thing is not done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

Sure there is. 

Yeah, this is not medieval England, many of these houses ruled their lands before they swore oaths to others. 

Exactly, it does not revert back to the crown, just like the Dustin lands never did.

Lets make this clear.  ASOIAF is based in large part on medieval and early modern English history (e.g. the War of the Roses).  Not exclusively, and it's a fantasy series, but still.

Reversion is not permanent.  Feudal lords are expected to distribute land, and the fact that the crown takes back land when the line goes extinct is yet further proof that the ultimate "ownership" of the land belongs to the crown, and whoever has seisin at any given moment does so as an effective tenant of their feudal superior. 

And it's immaterial if they ruled their lands.  It's possible that each individual vassal has a unique relationship to their land and their lord (and from a technical standpoint they do, because they swear individual oaths), but the default position should be that the situation in Westeros roughly parallels real history.  When those lords swore to be vassals of the Starks, in return they were confirmed in their land.  This is the whole point of an oath and ceremony of vassalage.  The Starks have the symbolic right to give and take away lands, just the same as it didn't matter that Charlemagne was independently the master of Europe in 800, the fact that the Pope put a crown on his head symbolically elevated the Papacy to a position of superior power and authority to Charlemagne.  Symbols matter.  The reality may be that it would be difficult to the point of impossibility for the Starks to "take back" the Hornwood inheritance, but from a legal standpoint they have that right.  The unquestionably enfeoffed the Manderlys at White Harbor on their own patrimonial lands, but it would be even more difficult for them to expel the Manderlys against their wishes.

So to reiterate - your denials ignore actual history, the text, and common sense.  We see Northern nobles pressing the Starks to be named heir.  We know how infeudation works in a general sense.  It might behoove you to look up the meaning of the word "escheat".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Lets make this clear.  ASOIAF is based in large part on medieval and early modern English history (e.g. the War of the Roses).  Not exclusively, and it's a fantasy series, but still.

but still what?

GRRM is pretty clear that he views the laws in his world as being purposefully vague. 

GRRM: Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

 

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Reversion is not permanent.  Feudal lords are expected to distribute land, and the fact that the crown takes back land when the line goes extinct is yet further proof that the ultimate "ownership" of the land belongs to the crown, and whoever has seisin at any given moment does so as an effective tenant of their feudal superior. 

The Hornwood line had not gone extinct, that is my point. the issue is that it is unclear which person of Hornwood blood would get the property. 

Maester Luwin answered. "With no direct heir, there are sure to be many claimants contending for the Hornwood lands. The Tallharts, Flints, and Karstarks all have ties to House Hornwood through the female line

Now Rodrik was not in a position to adjudicate, but the lands were not going to be ruled by some other family, it was still Hornwood land. 

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

And it's immaterial if they ruled their lands. 

It really is not. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

They play no role because Prince Viserys gave them to the Faith. They would be septas or dead by the time their royal sire legitimized them.

None of his kids from non-noblewomen have roles.  It's made pretty clear that he has a ton of bastards.  We only hear about the ones from important women.

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

In part, the more crucial circumstances there - as is laid out in the books - are the circumstances around Edric's conception. This was a huge scandal and a humiliation not just for Stannis/Selyse but also House Florent as such. Robert had to acknowledge and care for the child once it became clear he had impregnated Delena.

Mya Stone was apparently sort of acknowledged by Lord Robert back in the day, but the fact that she plays no role is more to the fact that Robert ignores her (he once intended to bring her to court - had that happened she may have become quite prominent) not so much because of her mother.

I mean, I agree, but these sort of go hand in hand, you know?  The reason people give a shit about bastards born to noblewomen is because the political community at large cares about the kid, and because it behooves the father to give a shit, because the mother (and perhaps her family) might press for some recognition.  Robert may acknowledge Mya as his own, but she has no potential source of backing aside from him.  This gets into the Sansa case, because Littlefinger is likely to be a power in the Vale for years to come, and clearly cares about the fate of his natural daughter, so she's a more attractive match, since she brings along the political connections and influence expected of a daughter born into wedlock.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Harry seems to be a very special case to me. For one, the boy is from a very modest family on his father's side. He also has Arryn blood, but he is only the presumptive heir of the Vale, not the heir Lord Jon or Lord Robert actually wanted. And we have no idea what Lady Anya knows or suspects about 'Alayne Stone'.

How things would stand if Lord Robert died and a bastard were supposed to become the Lady of the Vale at Lord Harrold's side is quite unclear at this point. Sansa were truly Littlefinger's bastard this whole thing could take a very ugly turn for her, especially if Littlefinger suffered a rather unpleasant downfall...

Whatever his family, his prospects are more important in this case.  It's difficult to imagine Lady Anya knows much at all about "Alayne".  If she did, she wouldn't be reticent about the match at all, and would certainly tell Harry herself.  Or try and get her for one of her sons.  Sansa is among the two or three most eligible bachelorettes in the kingdom.

And it seems unlikely to me that the chivalrous Vale knights would stoop to murdering Sansa.  Whatever her birth (even if she's actually Alayne Stone), she's legally wed to Harry, or presumably will be, and is also an immensely rich woman, since she's got to be Littlefinger's only heir.  Not to mention there is a decent chance she's legitimized, under this circumstance, and is thus a Lady.  Any children from her marriage will be legitimate as well.

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

But it doesn't seem this was done - else there would be quite a few of bastard cadet branches of various great houses, different Snows, Storms, Flowers, etc. all throughout Westeros.

Well, first off, if they're legitimized, they'd probably take a new name.  That being said, I think your missing my point.  One doesn't have to be a lord to have influence.  Jon is Robb's childhood companion, friend, and half-brother.  Given his choice of heir, Robb clearly trusts and I daresay loves Jon like a brother - on the basis of that relationship alone Jon will have immense influence at Winterfell and there are sure to be plenty of lords willing to marry off a superfluous daughter in order to gain the ear of Lord Stark's trusted councilor. 

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Walder Rivers seems to be a very powerful knight. There are ways how bastard can make a pretty good life, but House Charlton isn't exactly a very great house. A royal bastard or the bastard of a great lord could certainly marry the younger daughter of some petty lord. That wouldn't be that much of an issue.

What does him being a knight have to do with it?  We were discussing bastards.  House Charlton is a lordly house.  If you are agreeing that bastards potentially have a route to landed influence and power, I agree wholeheartedly, and have been arguing this from the start.  If there is no taboo, then there isn't a taboo.  It has nothing to do with being a bastard at that point, and everything to do with social status.  A Baelish can't marry a Tully, because legitimate or not, there are too many layers of social strata in between, and that's for an heir and a second daughter!  Perhaps being a bastard means having to accept marrying an additional step down the ladder.  Even so, that would put Jon in some pretty excellent company.  As a beloved son/half-brother of one of the half dozen most powerful men in the Seven Kingdoms, he's got a wide array of options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cpg2016 said:

None of his kids from non-noblewomen have roles.  It's made pretty clear that he has a ton of bastards.  We only hear about the ones from important women.

But there are plenty of his bastards with noble women we hear nothing of, such as the two Butterwell bastards. We only hear of the most  historically important . 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bernie Mac said:

but still what?

GRRM is pretty clear that he views the laws in his world as being purposefully vague. 

GRRM: Well, the short answer is that the laws of inheritance in the Seven Kingdoms are modelled on those in real medieval history... which is to say, they were vague, uncodified, subject to varying interpertations, and often contradictory.

 

The Hornwood line had not gone extinct, that is my point. the issue is that it is unclear which person of Hornwood blood would get the property. 

Maester Luwin answered. "With no direct heir, there are sure to be many claimants contending for the Hornwood lands. The Tallharts, Flints, and Karstarks all have ties to House Hornwood through the female line

Now Rodrik was not in a position to adjudicate, but the lands were not going to be ruled by some other family, it was still Hornwood land. 

No, he doesn't view laws as being vague.  He views them explicitly as being modelled on those in real medieval history, as you so generously quoted for me.  Those laws were often vague, or subject to interpretation, and most of all dependent on various historical and local traditions.  All that means is that it's difficult to hammer out explicit rules for succession in general (incidentally, one of the ways in which early modern states stamped out feudal aristocratic power was by codifying laws to the detriment of claimed traditional privilege).  That is not at all the same thing as saying we don't know how titles passed down, or that there weren't some basic rules for how this happened.  There are vast swathes of literature written on it, not to mention on how the system morphs from one where land always reverted back to the king, and indeed was revocable at will (Charlemagne his immediate successors) to the more common method by which legitimate heirs pay relief for the right to inherit.

What do you define as ownership?  If the Hornwood's don't have an absolute right to pass on their land to who they wish, they don't really own it at all, now do they?  What is obvious is that Robb is going to weigh the various claims and make a decision; the fact that Larence Snow is considered a legitimate heir means that Robb is given wide range in making this decision, which means it will ultimately come down to a political question as well as a legal one.  If the Starks have the right to assign the land, it means they have ultimate legal ownership of it.  Which, again, is exactly how feudal infeudation works.  That the Hornwoods can expect to pass on their land is not relevant to the question of who has the ultimate right to dispose of it.

Put another way, if the Hornwoods or anyone else "own" their land, then the Starks have no right to take it away in instance of a rebellion.  That isn't how ownership works.  What the Hornwoods have is a promise to enjoy the use of their seisin in return for fulfilling the pledges they make when they became a vassal and accepted the lands from the Starks.  If they revolt, they can be removed from their honor.  For contemporary in-universe example, see House Florent.  As with that case, there may be a real feeling of being "Florent" or "Hornwood" men, which means there will be loyalist sentiment among the lesser holders, burghers, or knights, but that doesn't change the ultimate fact that the feudal overlord has ultimate ownership of the land.  Just like IRL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2018 at 10:27 AM, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

Actually, Lady Hornwood talks deprecatingly about Ramsey Snow's bastardy, and Sir Rodrik seems to think that she wouldn't take kindly to her husband's bastard being made the heir.

Also, Ygritte has a negative reaction to hearing Jon's name.

Quote

"I'm Jon Snow."

She flinched. "An evil name."

"A bastard name," he said. "My father was Lord Eddard Stark of Winterfell." (ACOK Jon VI)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

None of his kids from non-noblewomen have roles.  It's made pretty clear that he has a ton of bastards.  We only hear about the ones from important women.

We only hear about those from the mistresses and Daena - there are others that have been acknowledged (like the Butterwell bastards) and, most likely, a ton of unacknowledged bastards. Those would not know who they are even after they have been legitimized. And there might even be some important ones there - the Lothston heir, Viserys Plumm, etc.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

I mean, I agree, but these sort of go hand in hand, you know?  The reason people give a shit about bastards born to noblewomen is because the political community at large cares about the kid, and because it behooves the father to give a shit, because the mother (and perhaps her family) might press for some recognition.  Robert may acknowledge Mya as his own, but she has no potential source of backing aside from him.  This gets into the Sansa case, because Littlefinger is likely to be a power in the Vale for years to come, and clearly cares about the fate of his natural daughter, so she's a more attractive match, since she brings along the political connections and influence expected of a daughter born into wedlock.

In a sense it goes hand in hand, but noble birth only helps your bastard if you are a woman who was pimped out to the king or great lord by your family. Only then they are likely to care much about the bastards you might produce. If that's not the case, if you dishonor your father, your house, or even your husband by sleeping with some other (powerful) man and produce a child, your family might not be willing to support you or your child.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Whatever his family, his prospects are more important in this case.  It's difficult to imagine Lady Anya knows much at all about "Alayne".  If she did, she wouldn't be reticent about the match at all, and would certainly tell Harry herself.  Or try and get her for one of her sons.  Sansa is among the two or three most eligible bachelorettes in the kingdom.

All I'm saying is that we don't know what the Waynwoods know or suspect. But even if we assume she doesn't know, Littlefinger has his hands at her throat (or rather: the opportunity to do House Waynwood a very great favor) because he bought up all the Waynwood debt. While he is Lord Protector he could ruin the house if he were demanding that the Waynwoods pay their debts.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Harry the Heir is so lowborn as he is on his father's side. That is how this bastard marriage is made believable. He could not be from a prestigious Vale family on his father's side.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

And it seems unlikely to me that the chivalrous Vale knights would stoop to murdering Sansa.  Whatever her birth (even if she's actually Alayne Stone), she's legally wed to Harry, or presumably will be, and is also an immensely rich woman, since she's got to be Littlefinger's only heir.  Not to mention there is a decent chance she's legitimized, under this circumstance, and is thus a Lady.  Any children from her marriage will be legitimate as well.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply murder. Just disgrace. Harrold could sent his bastard wife to the Silent Sisters or find some other way to get an annulment. Only kings can legitimize bastards. Lord Harrold wouldn't be a king.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

Well, first off, if they're legitimized, they'd probably take a new name.

But we were talking about unlegitimized bastards. Legitimized bastards no longer are bastards. The only bastard line we know of are the Longwaters, and our beloved Rennifer is neither very impressive nor particularly prominent.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

That being said, I think your missing my point.  One doesn't have to be a lord to have influence.  Jon is Robb's childhood companion, friend, and half-brother.  Given his choice of heir, Robb clearly trusts and I daresay loves Jon like a brother - on the basis of that relationship alone Jon will have immense influence at Winterfell and there are sure to be plenty of lords willing to marry off a superfluous daughter in order to gain the ear of Lord Stark's trusted councilor.

Could be. But even if this were the case then it is really odd we don't have any such branches out there. No descendants of the bastards of Lannisters, Starks (Brandon Snow also seems to have had the ear of his royal brother), Arryns, etc. Either it didn't happen often that bastards rose high at the side of their legitimate brothers or they didn't make prestigious matches that allowed their lines to keep high positions and offices.

The only such branch we know of that survived and thrived actually seems the Targaryen bastard cadet branch of Orys Baratheon - and they kept the name of their founder.

But overall, I think real power is dynastic influence, not private influence. If you don't have lands, titles, etc., and you are just dependent on the good graces of the people with real power you are basically nothing.

If Littlefinger doesn't get around to father some children of his own he'll be nothing but a footnote in the history of Westeros, even if there were a short period of time where he effectively ruled the entire continent.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

What does him being a knight have to do with it?  We were discussing bastards.  House Charlton is a lordly house. 

It means that a powerful knight who also happens to be the bastard of the liege lord of House Charlton might be able to convince a woman from that house to marry him. This doesn't have to be an arranged match. Matches like Jorah-Lynesse or other 'love matches' growing out tourney fame and the like are always possible if the man involved knows how to impress and woo a girl.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

If you are agreeing that bastards potentially have a route to landed influence and power, I agree wholeheartedly, and have been arguing this from the start.  If there is no taboo, then there isn't a taboo.  It has nothing to do with being a bastard at that point, and everything to do with social status.

I was talking about arranged marriages and marriage alliances. Love matches and marriages done in defiance of the families involved are always possible. If Duncan can marry Jenny anyone can marry anyone. But they usually do not do this.

Matches between bastards and legitimate nobility do happen occasionally, but seem to be very rare - especially if the bastards in question are not legitimized.

5 minutes ago, cpg2016 said:

A Baelish can't marry a Tully, because legitimate or not, there are too many layers of social strata in between, and that's for an heir and a second daughter!  Perhaps being a bastard means having to accept marrying an additional step down the ladder.  Even so, that would put Jon in some pretty excellent company.  As a beloved son/half-brother of one of the half dozen most powerful men in the Seven Kingdoms, he's got a wide array of options.

Actually, I think a Tully actually living up to the 'Family, Duty, Honor' thing - in that order! - would have given his second daughter to the man she loved, especially considering the fact the man was good enough to be raised at Lysa's side as her foster brother. It wasn't what Hoster wanted for his daughter, but it doesn't strike me as an impossible marriage. A marriage to a bastard would be more problematic.

In general, you have to keep in mind that landless brothers of great men are just that - landless. Marrying your daughter to a second or third son is not really a great match (unless they are Lannisters, Tyrells, Hightowers, Velaryons, etc.) and bastards most definitely are not lords, no matter whether they have the ear of the king or lord or not. You want your daughter to marry a man with a title, a man with lands and a proper estate (or the chance to inherit that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff was a bastard throughout highschool in terms of behavior and the illegitimacy of the things he said.  Similarly, the bastards of Westeros who act like bastards are probably doing the most harm by cementing the prejudices in the minds of their countrymen.   If they're bitter about their bastardry they should slap the law, not their betters.   If I were a lawyer in the ancient world, I'd look for the loophole in that law.   In a world where the only thing that matters is who came out of which womb, I'd propose getting the legal heir drunk and then shoving them up into an elephant, so when they plopped out again there'd be witnesses to attest to their late- onset bastardization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bernie Mac said:

But there are plenty of his bastards with noble women we hear nothing of, such as the two Butterwell bastards. We only hear of the most  historically important . 

 

I mean, this is both a good and bad point.  Yes, we only have evidence of the bastards that have impacted our story.  On the flip side, we shouldn't expect to hear anything of anyone else, right?  We don't know anything about a ton of other characters, some of whom are very important legitimate nobles.  We can only base our opinions on the facts presented to us, and then leaven that with common sense and real world parallels.

It is clearly possible for bastards to marry into the nobility.  Perhaps they don't land an heiress or an heir, but a marriage to a royal bastard has historically been a sign of favor.  Which isn't to say every bastard can or will rise high.  But Jon in particular is in a good spot; he's loved by his father, who is Warden and Lord Paramount of the North, and he's exceptionally close to his half brother, who is heir to both positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

We only hear about those from the mistresses and Daena - there are others that have been acknowledged (like the Butterwell bastards) and, most likely, a ton of unacknowledged bastards. Those would not know who they are even after they have been legitimized. And there might even be some important ones there - the Lothston heir, Viserys Plumm, etc.

Sure, no argument here.  Look, I'm not claiming that all noble born bastards have a great life and are politically relevant.  I am, and have been, making the case that having a noble mother drastically increases your chances for rising high in life.  Because again, you have a constituency to back you

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In a sense it goes hand in hand, but noble birth only helps your bastard if you are a woman who was pimped out to the king or great lord by your family. Only then they are likely to care much about the bastards you might produce. If that's not the case, if you dishonor your father, your house, or even your husband by sleeping with some other (powerful) man and produce a child, your family might not be willing to support you or your child.

Yes, this is possible.  But Edric Storm is a good exception to this rule.  We don't have a ton of good examples, unfortunately, but that is definitely one of the few.  Ramsay Snow might be another.  Even excepting his rise to real power, his mother gets silver and he gets a bunch of money, and then to come live at the Dreadfort (before going on to kill Domeric).

I get that Aegon IV isn't a great example because people were pimping out their daughters to him and he was an ass, but we don't have many others to go on.  It makes intuitive sense that having a noblewoman for a mother helps your cause, or it does to me.  Your right that it seems when fathers are deliberately trying to get their daughters pregnant by the king its a different circumstance, but on the other hand, the very fact that this is seen as a way into royal favor, and that the bastard children should then be kept around despite falling out of royal favor (a la Bittersteel, who is clearly brought up to think of himself as a Bracken, with all its attendant hatred of the Blackwoods), is telling in and of itself.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

All I'm saying is that we don't know what the Waynwoods know or suspect. But even if we assume she doesn't know, Littlefinger has his hands at her throat (or rather: the opportunity to do House Waynwood a very great favor) because he bought up all the Waynwood debt. While he is Lord Protector he could ruin the house if he were demanding that the Waynwoods pay their debts.

Very true.  That being said, we're told explicitly that Lady Waynwood won't betroth her sons to Sansa despite all that (indeed, for that reason), so at best buying up her debt is a limited weapon.  I think we should assume that Lady Anya doesn't suspect Sansa's true identity.  She has no reason to know who Sansa is, for all his faults LF is a reasonably crafty schemer, and did a good job laying no trails.  Lady Anya can't afford to bribe LF's guards/confidantes, we know there is no one left in the capital who knows where Sansa is... it just doesn't make sense for a random noblewoman to be in on the secret.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Oh, I didn't mean to imply murder. Just disgrace. Harrold could sent his bastard wife to the Silent Sisters or find some other way to get an annulment. Only kings can legitimize bastards. Lord Harrold wouldn't be a king.

Sending wives away is a pretty tough thing, I would think.  Historically it is, at least.  Especially since, as I said, Sansa is in a position of some economic and potentially political significance of her own.  Littlefinger is extremely wealthy, which will pass to Sansa, and this may be a case even more clear-cut than the Hornwood inheritance, since there may be literally no other living relatives, no matter how distant, of Petyr Baelish aside from his natural daughter.  The House is only 3 generations old and we can be reasonably certain LF has no siblings.  Doesn't seem like uncles or aunts, either.

All of which are also good reasons not to disavow Alayne Stone.  And her's and Harry's children would be legitimate.  Assuming they get legally married, I mean.  

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Could be. But even if this were the case then it is really odd we don't have any such branches out there. No descendants of the bastards of Lannisters, Starks (Brandon Snow also seems to have had the ear of his royal brother), Arryns, etc. Either it didn't happen often that bastards rose high at the side of their legitimate brothers or they didn't make prestigious matches that allowed their lines to keep high positions and offices.

True, but it's also made clear that in the vast majority of cases, bastards aren't raised as a member of the family.  If they're acknowledged, they're fostered out somewhere like Larence Snow/Hornwood.

But overall I think you're right, it's unusual for bastards to achieve high power.  One could say the same about second and third sons.  It's a matter of degree of likelihood, not absolutes.  Bastards are further down the curve of social status, but not so low that they can never rise.  Jon and even Walder Rivers have a much better chance at social advancement than Bronn did, if only because they're likely to get trained in arms at a castle, to be introduced to political and social elites in passing with whom they can later take service, etc.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I was talking about arranged marriages and marriage alliances. Love matches and marriages done in defiance of the families involved are always possible. If Duncan can marry Jenny anyone can marry anyone. But they usually do not do this.

Matches between bastards and legitimate nobility do happen occasionally, but seem to be very rare - especially if the bastards in question are not legitimized.

I agree they're rare, which again speaks to the paucity of evidence.  I'm not claiming they're better off than legitimate kids.  But as you mention, a bastard making a place and name for himself or herself in the world seems vastly more likely than a commoner managing to do so.

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, I think a Tully actually living up to the 'Family, Duty, Honor' thing - in that order! - would have given his second daughter to the man she loved, especially considering the fact the man was good enough to be raised at Lysa's side as her foster brother. It wasn't what Hoster wanted for his daughter, but it doesn't strike me as an impossible marriage. A marriage to a bastard would be more problematic.

Hoster wasn't marrying his daughter off to Baelish. Not a chance.  He force feeds her an abortifacient!  She's a counter for him to gain more power and influence in the south, and while this is regrettable, it seems to be far more in line with social attitudes than allowing a love match.

 

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

In general, you have to keep in mind that landless brothers of great men are just that - landless. Marrying your daughter to a second or third son is not really a great match (unless they are Lannisters, Tyrells, Hightowers, Velaryons, etc.) and bastards most definitely are not lords, no matter whether they have the ear of the king or lord or not. You want your daughter to marry a man with a title, a man with lands and a proper estate (or the chance to inherit that).

I am aware of this.  The flip side is this; that third son has essentially no better prospects than his bastard half brother.  Yes, there is more status and honor and potential political alliance in marrying a legitimate kid, but it doesn't guarantee your daughter is marrying into land or even anything more than a tenuous dependency on her brother-in-law's hospitality.  And since we see no partability of fiefs, that means that the majority, the vast majority, of marriage being made are to landless second sons.  So yes, if I'm Lord Oakheart, ideally I want my sons to marry heiresses and my daughters to marry heirs, but everyone is going to have the same thought about my kids.  So I've got to marry my daughters off to someone.  Instead of getting my second daughter to marry the third son of my peer, or the heir to one of my landed knights, why not try and get her to marry a bastard of someone one up on the social scale than I am?  Maybe my Lord Paramount has a couple sons and a bastard son (just like Ned); he gets to shore up an alliance with an important vassal without giving a way a legitimate kid.  Maybe he wants a lesser dowry cause the son is influential.

TL;DR, you are 100% correct.  There are too many sons and daughters who don't stand to inherit or be well provided for because most Houses aren't Lannisters or Velaryons or Starks.  So as long as you acknowledge that your daughter is unlikely to marry a great lord, having them marry a politically influential bastard is not a crazy or even unreasonable thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...