Jump to content
Lord Varys

[SPOILERS] Family trees and successions

Recommended Posts

Just now, The Wondering Wolf said:

We do not know that Darnold was Huberg's son. I guess it is likely but I think the text does not confirm it.

I honestly didn't think there was room for two lords inbetween Hubert and Rodrik but i guess Hubert was much older than Ronnel. And yea i might be wrong on the order and spelling. Only read that section once real quick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AlaskanSandman said:

I honestly didn't think there was room for two lords inbetween Hubert and Rodrik but i guess Hubert was much older than Ronnel. And yea i might be wrong on the order and spelling. Only read that section once real quick

I guess it depends on the degree of relationship between Ronnel and Hubert. If they were first cousins, they would probably be at the same age and Rodrik Hubert's grandson. But if the term cousin was used more loosely, there could be room for another generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

@Lord Varys Are you still there? Do you remember any other new Baratheons beside Rogar's brothers and their unnamed children and Borros children in the book? I don't have full version and have read only parts about Dance of the Dragons and reign of Aegon III.

Nope, and it looks like most of the Baratheons were killed off anyway. Still wondering if Davos was Orys's heir and Rogar's father. At least he was mentioned along with all the lords who fought for Aenys during the rebellions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Nope, and it looks like most of the Baratheons were killed off anyway. Still wondering if Davos was Orys's heir and Rogar's father. At least he was mentioned along with all the lords who fought for Aenys during the rebellions.

Wanted to throw that out some time ago, but didn't find the time:

I think the fact that Davos Baratheon is mentioned along with a string of lords (and one lady) who helped put down the rebels and they are all not mentioned by their lordly titles but rather only their names enables us, tentatively at least, to assume Davos Baratheon was indeed the father of Rogar and his brothers and the immediate successor of Orys One-Hand as Lord of Storm's End.

The fact that no Baratheon uncles and cousins of Rogar are mentioned nor show up in the book makes it rather likely that Orys had just that one son. Since we know that Rogar was born around 17 AC (ten years older than Alyssa, who was born in 7 AC, like Aenys) we can also be certain that Rogar's father - be he Davos or not - would have been shortly after the Conquest, likely already in 1 AC (then he would have been sixteen around the time his first son, Rogar, was born). Considering the unhealthy lifestyle of the average Baratheon it would be hardly a surprise if Rogar's father had died in the late 30s or early 40s of some sickness, a stupid feat of arms gone wrong, a drunken accident, etc. That way Rogar would have had enough time to be the Lord of Storm's End before Alyssa and the children came knocking.

Raymont Baratheon, the Kingsguard who once saved King Aenys from the Poor Fellows, would have definitely been a son of Orys if he still existed - which doesn't seem to be the case. The reason why he was deleted from the text might have something to do with the contempt Rogar publicly shows for King Aenys at that council session. Although I think one could have easily kept him and give Rogar some issues over the fact that his uncle died to protect some weakling king, etc.

As for the Arryn succession:

I think Rodrik's uncle and father are supposed to be the first and second of Hubert Arryn, respectively. Hubert gets his lordship in 37 AC, and one assumes he lasted at least some years. Rodrik was apparently born in 44 AC, being thirty-six in 80 AC when he marries Daella. It would fit rather nicely that Lord Hubert's second son would have a son of his own in that year. Even more since it seems Lord Rodrik would have had an older sister who attended her during the birth of Prince Aemon on Dragonstone in 55 AC (it is said the various daughters and sisters of a number of lords, the Arryns among them, attended the queen). Since Rodrik was only ten the year before it seems hardly likely that he had a daughter at the time, nor that a younger sister would have been up to the task to attend a queen who was about to give birth.

The branches of Joffrey and Isembard Arryn like descend from younger sons of Hubert Arryn. Rodrik's two unnamed sons are the father of Jeyne Arryn (the elder) and the Mad Falcon (the younger). Isembard Arryn is likely of lesser branch than Joffrey who ended up continuing the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ran said:

Who knows? As I recall, it's a son or brother who is said to have sent these letters, which may be a clue in and of itself. Clearly something was going on for someone to be seeking some legal argument. Were they doing it on behalf of the lord? Of the heir? Of themselves?

George didn't delve that far into it, so I can't say. All I know is that GRRM suggested we convey a countervailing opinion to the idea that the Starks had been happy regarding the Targaryen role in the New Gift. Which is why that part of TWoIaF remains.

Here are the quotes to compare.

TWoIaF:

Quote

Though in these days it is said that Lord [Alaric] Stark was glad to aid the Night's Watch with the Gift, and took little convincing, the truth is otherwise. Letters from Lord Stark's brother to the Citadel, asking the maesters to provide precedents against the forced donation of property, made it plain that the Starks were not eager to do as King Jaehaerys bid. It may be that the Starks feared that, under the control of the Castle Black, the New Gift would inevitably decline—for the Night's Watch would always look northward and never give much thought to their new tenants to the south. And as it happens, that soon came to pass, and the New Gift is now said to be largely unpopulated thanks to the decline of the Watch and the rising toll taken by raiders from beyond the Wall.

FaB:

Quote

The notion did not please Lord Alaric; though a strong friend to the Night’s Watch, he knew that the lords who presently held the lands in question would object to them being given away without their leave. “I have no doubt that you can persuade them, Lord Alaric,” the queen said. And finally, charmed by her as ever, Alaric Stark agreed that, aye, he could. And so it came to pass that the size of the Gift was doubled with a stroke.

The bold has to be changed, especially the part about where it is claimed that the Starks were not eager to do as Jaehaerys bid them to. Unless you want to create two distinct and contradictory versions. One historian claiming Alysanne convinced Lord Stark to make other lords give up lands and another where King Jaehaerys forced Lord Stark to give up land.

I would say one can amend TWoIaF so that's the sons of Lord Alaric Stark who complain - but not necessarily to the Citadel and certainly not to learn about precedents to give up lands. Rather, say, that their father was a fool to listen to Queen Alysanne, and that their words fell on ears made of stone, or something along those lines.

One could also make it that its his grandson who complains - but he would have no way of getting the New Gift back, so it would be pointless.

But, in a sense, FaB also has Yandel's version integrated in it. Lord Alaric has to be persuaded. Originally, he is no fan of the idea. And making the Starks seers who can foresee the future decline of the Watch but are apparently powerless to stop makes them both too wise and too impotent at the same time. It would be better to make this whole thing a problem only with hindsight in mind.

At least that's my take on the whole thing.

By the way and already mentioned: Cregan's younger brother should find his way into the Stark family tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Unless you want to create two distinct and contradictory versions. 

Yes, that's exactly what George wanted. I already said this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Here are the quotes to compare.

TWoIaF:

FaB:

The bold has to be changed, especially the part about where it is claimed that the Starks were not eager to do as Jaehaerys bid them to. Unless you want to create two distinct and contradictory versions. One historian claiming Alysanne convinced Lord Stark to make other lords give up lands and another where King Jaehaerys forced Lord Stark to give up land.

I would say one can amend TWoIaF so that's the sons of Lord Alaric Stark who complain - but not necessarily to the Citadel and certainly not to learn about precedents to give up lands. Rather, say, that their father was a fool to listen to Queen Alysanne, and that their words fell on ears made of stone, or something along those lines.

One could also make it that its his grandson who complains - but he would have no way of getting the New Gift back, so it would be pointless.

But, in a sense, FaB also has Yandel's version integrated in it. Lord Alaric has to be persuaded. Originally, he is no fan of the idea. And making the Starks seers who can foresee the future decline of the Watch but are apparently powerless to stop makes them both too wise and too impotent at the same time. It would be better to make this whole thing a problem only with hindsight in mind.

At least that's my take on the whole thing.

By the way and already mentioned: Cregan's younger brother should find his way into the Stark family tree.

Seems to me Galdayn’s version is more likely the one in error. He comes across as someone so infatuated with the idea of Queen Allysane’s charms that he seemed awefully quick to have Lord Alaric agree to giving up the New Gift. The version in tWOIAF seems far more realistic.

So yes, two contradictory versions, with Galdayn’s seeming the more fanciful and embellished by his own biases and interpretations.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The bold has to be changed, especially the part about where it is claimed that the Starks were not eager to do as Jaehaerys bid them to. Unless you want to create two distinct and contradictory versions. One historian claiming Alysanne convinced Lord Stark to make other lords give up lands and another where King Jaehaerys forced Lord Stark to give up land.

I don't see why this is a problem.  Take a real world example:  when an administration official resigns, there are often conflicting reports that she either resigned on her own accord or was forced to resign by the president.  The "actual truth" is sometimes never known - even by scholars.  If anything, this disagreement enhances the "realism" of the maesters' accounts - historians disagree on this type of stuff all the time.

26 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Seems to me Galdayn’s version is more likely the one in error. He comes across as someone so infatuated with the idea of Queen Allysane’s charms that he seemed awefully quick to have Lord Alaric agree to giving up the New Gift. The version in tWOIAF seems far more realistic.

Agreed.  Plus Yandel's account seems to have more evidence in the form of the the letters to the Citadel from [some Lord Stark's] brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, unless Lord Alaric had some brother Gyldayn doesn't know anything about, TWoIaF is right now wrong on that one. Only an existing brother can write letters as far as I know, and it makes no sense for successors to complain about things a predecessor did or was forced to do. The intention when Yandel's piece was written obviously was that Lord Stark's brother tried to give his brother ammunition - in the form of precedents against the forced donation of land - against the king's pressure to make the New Gift.

Alaric's sons or grandson or whoever now supposedly wrote those letters - if they were written at all - would have to inquire whether land can be restored or taken back, say, but not inquire how to prevent what has already happened. Else Yandel's account just doesn't make any sense - even Lord Alaric was commanded to force his lords to give up their lands.

At this point we don't really have two distinct contradictory position - we have Gyldayn's account and we have Yandel's which doesn't fit at all with the set of Starks George had Gyldayn introduce in FaB. Unless, of course, Gyldayn invented Walton and Alaric ;-).

If there are letters then there is also nothing to disagree about. Letters are letters. They are written and they are signed. Yandel would know which Stark wrote those letters unless he used some false name. This is not about contradictory accounts, this about whether the people who supposedly wrote letters existed - and had a reasonable, understandable motivation to do what they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, unless Lord Alaric had some brother Gyldayn doesn't know anything about, TWoIaF is right now wrong on that one.

Of course, whether Alaric has a brother - and thus the relationship of whoever wrote the Citadel to a Lord Stark (was it one of Alaric's sons when the decision was made, or perhaps the brother of a subsequent Lord Stark at a later date?) - needs to be corrected/clarified. 

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The intention when Yandel's piece was written obviously was that Lord Stark's brother tried to give his brother ammunition - in the form of precedents against the forced donation of land - against the king's pressure to make the New Gift.

I don't think this is a given.  The brother may have written the Citadel because he disagreed with Lord Stark's decision and was trying to convince him otherwise.

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Alaric's sons or grandson or whoever now supposedly wrote those letters - if they were written at all - would have to inquire whether land can be restored or taken back, say, but not inquire how to prevent what has already happened. Else Yandel's account just doesn't make any sense - even Lord Alaric was commanded to force his lords to give up their lands.

All the quote says is the brother asked the Citadel "to provide precedents against the forced donation of property."  Such precedents could certainly be used as support to ask for the lands to be restored just as much as they could be used to try to prevent what has already happened.  Further, if this happened in the future who's to say the lands had been turned over at that point?  Perhaps Alaric and then his successor encountered great difficulty getting the residing lords to give up their lands, and the latter were successfully able to delay the exchange.

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

If there are letters then there is also nothing to disagree about. Letters are letters. They are written and they are signed. Yandel would know which Stark wrote those letters unless he used some false name.

Oh there's still plenty to disagree about - as I've mentioned, the intent of the Stark that requested the precedents, whether the Lord Stark at the time agreed with his "brother's" position, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Here are the quotes to compare.

TWoIaF:

FaB:

The bold has to be changed, especially the part about where it is claimed that the Starks were not eager to do as Jaehaerys bid them to. Unless you want to create two distinct and contradictory versions. One historian claiming Alysanne convinced Lord Stark to make other lords give up lands and another where King Jaehaerys forced Lord Stark to give up land.

I would say one can amend TWoIaF so that's the sons of Lord Alaric Stark who complain - but not necessarily to the Citadel and certainly not to learn about precedents to give up lands. Rather, say, that their father was a fool to listen to Queen Alysanne, and that their words fell on ears made of stone, or something along those lines.

One could also make it that its his grandson who complains - but he would have no way of getting the New Gift back, so it would be pointless.

But, in a sense, FaB also has Yandel's version integrated in it. Lord Alaric has to be persuaded. Originally, he is no fan of the idea. And making the Starks seers who can foresee the future decline of the Watch but are apparently powerless to stop makes them both too wise and too impotent at the same time. It would be better to make this whole thing a problem only with hindsight in mind.

reading the quotes it strikes me that Lord Alaric says that the lords holding the land will complain, so it stands to reason that you would want to know if there complaints would become a even greater problem by them siting precedents from the past. Perhaps Yandel mistook the letters of the Starks to find out if the Lords could site precedents as them apossing Alysanne's idea.

Of course this does not fit with @Ran his statement that George want conflicting versions.

Edited by direpupy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, unless Lord Alaric had some brother Gyldayn doesn't know anything about, TWoIaF is right now wrong on that one. Only an existing brother can write letters as far as I know, and it makes no sense for successors to complain about things a predecessor did or was forced to do. The intention when Yandel's piece was written obviously was that Lord Stark's brother tried to give his brother ammunition - in the form of precedents against the forced donation of land - against the king's pressure to make the New Gift.

Alaric's sons or grandson or whoever now supposedly wrote those letters - if they were written at all - would have to inquire whether land can be restored or taken back, say, but not inquire how to prevent what has already happened. Else Yandel's account just doesn't make any sense - even Lord Alaric was commanded to force his lords to give up their lands.

At this point we don't really have two distinct contradictory position - we have Gyldayn's account and we have Yandel's which doesn't fit at all with the set of Starks George had Gyldayn introduce in FaB. Unless, of course, Gyldayn invented Walton and Alaric ;-).

If there are letters then there is also nothing to disagree about. Letters are letters. They are written and they are signed. Yandel would know which Stark wrote those letters unless he used some false name. This is not about contradictory accounts, this about whether the people who supposedly wrote letters existed - and had a reasonable, understandable motivation to do what they did.

What we know is fragmentary and incomplete. For all we know Alaric had an unclewho was still alive, and it was therefore the PREVIOUS lord Stark’s brother who wrote the letters.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, DMC said:

Of course, whether Alaric has a brother - and thus the relationship of whoever wrote the Citadel to a Lord Stark (was it one of Alaric's sons when the decision was made, or perhaps the brother of a subsequent Lord Stark at a later date?) - needs to be corrected/clarified. 

Yeah, that's my entire point. I like conflicting accounts very much, but I'd like to be the conflicting accounts involve people we actually know existed ;-). And this is not an obscure enough issue - involving some peasants or bastards or dragonseeds, etc. - where it makes sense that historians and chroniclers, etc. didn't feel the need to concern themselves with. This is not the age of Alys Rivers or the looks of Nettles or the existence of the bastard girl Sara Snow.

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't think this is a given.  The brother may have written the Citadel because he disagreed with Lord Stark's decision and was trying to convince him otherwise.

Well, that's part of my point. As it stands it should take place at a time BEFORE the decision was made. And if 'letter guy' was another brother of Lord Alaric - or an uncle or a son or whoever - then it would have been great if the existence of said guy (not the letters thing, just his existence) were actually mentioned in FaB. That this is not the case does not really make it the best of ideas or scenario to have a mystery guy in TWoIaF for the alternative scenario.

Which is why I'd suggest to make one of Alaric's sons the letter guy - who could then write his letters around the time Jaehaerys and Alysanne are at Winterfell in an attempt to convince his father not to do this. This would make the most sense, no?

52 minutes ago, DMC said:

All the quote says is the brother asked the Citadel "to provide precedents against the forced donation of property."  Such precedents could certainly be used as support to ask for the lands to be restored just as much as they could be used to try to prevent what has already happened.  Further, if this happened in the future who's to say the lands had been turned over at that point?  Perhaps Alaric and then his successor encountered great difficulty getting the residing lords to give up their lands, and the latter were successfully able to delay the exchange.

If there were considerable difficulty there we should expect this to have been mentioned in FaB. Trying to prevent something that has already been done - especially if it were done by Lord Alaric - also looks like stupid revisionism if you ask me. It would be better if there were actual opposition to the New Gift at Winterfell when it was made.

1 hour ago, direpupy said:

reading the quotes it strikes me that Lord Alaric says that the lords holding the land will complain, so it stands to reason that you would want to know if there complaints would become a even greater problem by them siting precedents from the past. Perhaps Yandel mistook the letters of the Starks to find out if the Lords could site precedents as them apossing Alysanne's idea.

Of course this does not fit with @Ran his statement that George want conflicting versions.

That was a possibility I mentioned, too. The letters could be from the lords Lord Alaric tried to force to give up their lands - or rather, to combine both version, a son of Alaric could champion their cause and write those letter(s) to the Citadel to give their complaints some scholarly backup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

@Ran Any idea if Davos was Orys's heir and/or Rogar's father? Or do you have any opinion on that one?

No idea. George doesn't have a Baratheon family tree worked out in the same way that he has for the Starks (up to a certain point) or the Targaryens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And this is not an obscure enough issue - involving some peasants or bastards or dragonseeds, etc. - where it makes sense that historians and chroniclers, etc. didn't feel the need to concern themselves with. This is not the age of Alys Rivers or the looks of Nettles or the existence of the bastard girl Sara Snow.

Right, both Yandel and Gyldayn (I hate trying to spell that name btw) should know whether Alaric has a brother, and at least Yandel should know the identity of the brother Stark that wrote the Citadel.  That definitely needs to be rectified.

42 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, that's part of my point. As it stands it should take place at a time BEFORE the decision was made. And if 'letter guy' was another brother of Lord Alaric - or an uncle or a son or whoever - then it would have been great if the existence of said guy (not the letters thing, just his existence) were actually mentioned in FaB. That this is not the case does not really make it the best of ideas or scenario to have a mystery guy in TWoIaF for the alternative scenario.

Well, as I said I don't think it necessarily has to take place before the decision was made.  As for why it wasn't mentioned in FaB, this is why I agreed with FNR upthread that it seems more likely Gyldayn's account is in error because he seems to have a bias towards Alysanne.  Thus, it may be that he didn't wish and/or view the Stark/Citadel letters as worthy of mentioning - or perhaps even mention if there were difficulties following Alaric agreeing to Alysanne's request.

45 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Which is why I'd suggest to make one of Alaric's sons the letter guy - who could then write his letters around the time Jaehaerys and Alysanne are at Winterfell in an attempt to convince his father not to do this. This would make the most sense, no?

Yes, I agree that would make the most sense.  Definitely the most expedient explanation/correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brother thing, again, was due to George not having finalized some details of the family tree when we were working on TWoIaF. That is being fixed. The basic point that there were Starks who were not in fact happy, and who present the issue as one of being forced rather than freely given, will remain because that's how George wanted it. 

I can see about four or five different scenarios. Did the people send it in Alaric's time? After his time? On the behalf of Lord Alaric (or some other Lord Stark succeeding him), or in opposition to him? Was there turmoil in the North after the New Gift grant that Gyldayn doesn't care about, but which Yandel highlights as an explanation for why the Starks sided for Laenor instead of Viserys? Were Gyldayn's own sources not particularly accurate in its depiction of how Alaric came to grant the New Gift?

And so on. The key point in all this is that GRRM wanted the matter of the New Gift to be a point of contention that some scholars believe informed Ellard Stark's choice to back Laenor. At the same time, he wanted to have Gyldayn's history be a history and not an objective and unimpeachable report. 

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran Since Cregan's son name was Edric and now we have Lord Edric Stark, does that mean that King Edrick Snowbeard is a typo? It's only case where name Edrick is used and it's the same as Edric but with additional letter than doesn't even change the pronunciation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×