Jump to content
Lord Varys

[SPOILERS] Family trees and successions

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Ran said:

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?

But, interestingly enough, Lord Cregan, who had 2 golden opportunities to try to reverse the New Gift - first when he was haggling with Jace over his support of Rhaenyra and then during The Hour of the Wolf, didn't even bring it up. This, to me hints that it ceased being contraversial - if it ever was, for the Starks _and_ that the New Gift wasn't yet failing at the time.

It is also quite intriguing that we have a Stark uncle attempting to usurp a nephew in Bennard - could it be that _he_ was the one writing letters and hoping to reverse that ruling, in a bid to become popular with the lords who had to cede those lands - probably Umbers, Karstarks and Boltons? Also, we finally have firm candidates for the Starks depicted on the genealogical tree in WoIaF, who took the Black, though likely not voluntarily - Bennard and some of his sons. At least one of them probably remained free to marry, though, since somebody had to sire Lyarra Stark.

Given that Alaric's sons predeceased him, it would be intriguing if Starks continued through his daughter's son(s) - which could also explain their support of Laenor, perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran

Does GRRM have an idea of the relation between Lord Edric and Lord Ellard, or between Lord Benjen and Lord Ellard and Lord Edric?

Personally, I think the "brother of Lord Stark" thing works just fine as an attempt by Lord Alaric's successors to void his agreement a decade and a half or more after the fact. 

Lord Alaric could have reluctantly made the agreement over the objections of his sons and other family members, and perhaps been able to force his affected bannermen to accept it while he lived.

Once he died in 72 AC, his grandson(s), at the urging or with the support of their affected bannermen, could have looked for a precedent that would give them support to have the agreement overturned.

Gyldayn pretty much glosses the whole thing over, giving a hint of Alaric's displeasure, but then having him be charmed, and then that is that. But that doesn't really tell us what the whole process was really like, not only the negotiations/persuasions, but the actual giving over/taking possession of the New Gift between the bannermen and the Night's Watch.

Did the Night's Watch immediately take possession of the New Gift? Was it a process over a number of years? Did the Targaryens perhaps agree to some later date for its implementation to give the Starks and their bannermen some time to prepare for the move?

Whatever the case, I could see the new Lord Stark and his brother attempting to overturn the transfer of the New Gift after it had already been settled and proven to hurt the affected bannermen without really helping the NW, or to prevent its full implementation if the process of turning it over had been gradual or put off for a later date.

If Lord Ellard was perhaps the younger brother of Lord Edric, he could be the brother that sent the letter to the Citadel, and perhaps nursed his grievances for decades up to the Great Council of 101 AC, by which time he was lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Maia said:

But, interestingly enough, Lord Cregan, who had 2 golden opportunities to try to reverse the New Gift - first when he was haggling with Jace over his support of Rhaenyra and then during The Hour of the Wolf, didn't even bring it up. This, to me hints that it ceased being contraversial - if it ever was, for the Starks _and_ that the New Gift wasn't yet failing at the time.

It is also quite intriguing that we have a Stark uncle attempting to usurp a nephew in Bennard - could it be that _he_ was the one writing letters and hoping to reverse that ruling, in a bid to become popular with the lords who had to cede those lands - probably Umbers, Karstarks and Boltons? Also, we finally have firm candidates for the Starks depicted on the genealogical tree in WoIaF, who took the Black, though likely not voluntarily - Bennard and some of his sons. At least one of them probably remained free to marry, though, since somebody had to sire Lyarra Stark.

Given that Alaric's sons predeceased him, it would be intriguing if Starks continued through his daughter's son(s) - which could also explain their support of Laenor, perhaps?

Bennard's wife was a Karstark, so an interesting possibility, though that seems really late in the game.

Not sure at what point Rickon became lord between Lord Ellard at the GC in 101 AC and his death in 121 AC, but for him to have been sending letters to the Citadel as the brother of Lord Stark would have been around 50 years after the agreement to give the New Gift to the NW.

The MUSH puts Lyarra's birth in 131 AC, just a few years after the birth of Cregan's son and heir Rickon. Not sure if that date will hold up, but the other dates seem to have so far. Lyarra being a granddaughter of Bennard would make sense.

It would be great to know the relation between Edric, Ellard, and Benjen. I am still pretty surprised that GRRM hasn't given us a more complete list of Stark Lords between Torrhen and Cregan. There is no ASOIAF without the Starks, and six of the eight original POVs are Winterfell people either by parentage or marriage.

We can assume that Lord Edric was a minor when he became Lord of Winterfell, with Lord Alaric's sons still being unwed in 58 AC, and Edric becoming lord in 72 AC, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If 'Lord Stark's brother' were clearly marked as a brother of a Lord Stark who was not Alaric Stark then this works. Else this just creates confusion.

Overall, I think we can harmonize Gyldayn's account with whatever Yandel said or is going to say in the future if we just assume that there were things Gyldayn did not/forgot to mention.

And there is actually space for that in 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.
Little more need be said of the time Queen Alysanne and King Jaehaerys spent in the North. After lingering in Winterfell for another fortnight, they made their way to Torrhen’s Square and thence to Barrowton, where Lord Dustin showed them the barrow of the First King and staged somewhat of a tourney in their honor, though it was a poor thing compared to the tourneys of the south.

I think this constitutes a golden opportunity to place whatever Yandel believes to know happened in that fortnight Gyldayn decided wasn't that important after all.

That would mean Alaric's son(s) would have to be involved in that, though. And as I said, trying to prevent the New Gift makes those Starks look less revisionist than if they try to get it back later.

Why the Starks should have supported Laenor in 101 AC over the New Gift and what they would have thought to accomplish with this I still don't understand at all. That would entail that they knew Jaehaerys (desperately) wanted Viserys on the Iron Throne - and as far as we know this is not the case. It also sounds rather petty if they were tactically supporting some claimant just to anger the king. And this doesn't really add up all that much, anyway, considering that the assumption that the guys who supported Laenor in 101 AC would also support Rhaenyra during the Dance proved to correct. Which sort of implies the Northmen of this generation were not that obsessed with strict male primogeniture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Ok, thanks.

Not a problem. Also, a warning, the MUSH's dates and marriages are in many cases things we came up with to work with our game, and are not necessarily reflective of George's intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ran said:

Not a problem. Also, a warning, the MUSH's dates and marriages are in many cases things we came up with to work with our game, and are not necessarily reflective of George's intentions.

Can you by any chance mark things - say, by putting certain names, dates, etc. in italics or something like that - that's definitely from George and what you made up yourselves? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ran said:

Not a problem. Also, a warning, the MUSH's dates and marriages are in many cases things we came up with to work with our game, and are not necessarily reflective of George's intentions.

I hear you. I try to always note when something is a MUSH date, and that it could always turn out to be off. But in the case of Cregan's birth and Rickon's death dates, it turned out to be correct, and would seem likely to give at least general possible dates for Rickon and possibly Benjen. I wouldn't be as sure about Lyarra and her children, though at least Brandon seems possible based on other factors, like the alleged age of Beron when he was dying, Willam when he died, etc.

Edited by Bael's Bastard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify - Cregan's third wife is Lynara Stark of unknown parentage at this point. Lyarra Stark is Rickard's wife, the daughter of Arya Flint and Rodrik Stark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Varys said:

Just to clarify - Cregan's third wife is Lynara Stark of unknown parentage at this point. Lyarra Stark is Rickard's wife, the daughter of Arya Flint and Rodrik Stark.

Thanks, mixed up the names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done a count of named characters, including bastards, from the major noble families who lived from 0 BC-136 AC:

House Arryn: 15
House Baratheon: 15
House Greyjoy: 6
House Hightower: 22
House Lannister: 10
House Martell: 9
House Stark: 16
House Tully: 6
House Tyrell: 6
House Velaryon: 26

House Greyjoy, Tully, and Tyrell were definitely given lesser roles in the book, unfortunately. We can make a near-complete family tree for the Hightowers, Velaryons, and Baratheons, though the others are lacking in major spots.

Other interesting notes:

  • House Darry is interesting as at least three Lords of Darry are killed during the Dance of the Dragons, with the latter two likely being quite young (Derrick and Roland).
  • Lord Darklyns are referred to often enough that we could probably map out a near-complete family tree, though unfortunately only a handful are given first names (usually distinguished by Old or Young/New Lord Darklyn).
  • Houses Qoherys, Towers, and Strong also have a near-complete family tree.
  • Curiously, while mentioned twice, House Florent is the only major house of the Reach to never receive a named member.
  • The Kennings and Risleys are both referred to as landed knights, indicating that both houses have since rose to lordly houses, while House Swyft seems to have been demoted to landed knights since the Dance of the Dragons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can also deduce that Rhea Royce succeeded Yorbert Royce as head of House Royce, as she was the heir to House Royce while Yorbert was Lord of Runestone. It is also likely that Gunthor Royce was the nephew of Lady Rhea that succeeded her, given the timeframe and his age. Though I'm still unsure of how a nephew comes before a daughter, unless the nephew was maternal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LordSeaSnake said:

We can also deduce that Rhea Royce succeeded Yorbert Royce as head of House Royce, as she was the heir to House Royce while Yorbert was Lord of Runestone. It is also likely that Gunthor Royce was the nephew of Lady Rhea that succeeded her, given the timeframe and his age. Though I'm still unsure of how a nephew comes before a daughter, unless the nephew was maternal?

If this Gunthor was a son of Rhea's sister, that must have been a younger one. And then I do not see how Gunthor would have been considered old in 135 AC. So maybe Rhea's nephew died without issue and was succeeded by Gunthor who could have been a younger brother of Yorbert.

Share this post


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

If this Gunthor was a son of Rhea's sister, that must have been a younger one. And then I do not see how Gunthor would have been considered old in 135 AC. So maybe Rhea's nephew died without issue and was succeeded by Gunthor who could have been a younger brother of Yorbert.

It would make sense. I forgot how only two decades passed between Rhea's death and Gunthor being referred to as "old". Perhaps this nephew perished during the Dance of the Dragons. I'd be curious about Ser Willam Royce's relation as well. Perhaps a son of Lord Gunthor?

Share this post


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

It would make sense. I forgot how only two decades passed between Rhea's death and Gunthor being referred to as "old". Perhaps this nephew perished during the Dance of the Dragons. I'd be curious about Ser Willam Royce's relation as well. Perhaps a son of Lord Gunthor?

Certainly possible.

I am wondering about a scenario where Rhea and Daemon had children anyway. I have a hard time to see proud Daemon allowing his sons to be called Royces. On the other hand I can not imagine Runestone would have passed to the Targaryens.

Share this post


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

Certainly possible.

I am wondering about a scenario where Rhea and Daemon had children anyway. I have a hard time to see proud Daemon allowing his sons to be called Royces. On the other hand I can not imagine Runestone would have passed to the Targaryens.

Considering Daemon most likely tried to lay claim to Runestone as a Targaryen I doubt he would have suffered it if they had been named Royces...

Share this post


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

Considering Daemon most likely tried to lay claim to Runestone as a Targaryen I doubt he would have suffered it if they had been named Royces...

I can not imagine he would have changed his name though.

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

×