Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kroeff

Big Question regarding Inheritance

Recommended Posts

Hello guys!

I am new in this fórum as a member, sorry for my english it is really average. 

So, I have a big question regarding inheritance. Doing some research in the fórum I found some discussions already, but they dont exactly touch the same idea, if there is a topic indeed I apologize.

My question concerns very problematic weddings, here are two good examples for this discussion:

Remember that this examples are hypothethical, we know already that how the Dance of the Dragons went and my guess is that Tyrion and Sansa will problably not have kids together.

 

Example n1. Sansa x Tyrion:

So in the texts it appears very clear that Tyrion and Sansa child would get a big claim in the north (sure why not) but would the northerners really support a Lannister  as Tywin tells Tyrion (because it all points out that the kid would have a Lannister name since Tyrion is the man in the relationship)?

I mean, you have a house that exists for Thousand of years as kings in the north and suddenly there would be a house from the South rulling winterfell. Even worse, a cadet lannister branch (Like the lannisters in Lannisport or even in Darry)?

I mean, I dont see any sense in this, the houses from the north would never accept it (even though Ned Stark is his Grandpa).

I can only think of one way, that I will cover after the second example.

 

Example n2. The Velaryons (Strong bastards maybe?) in the Dance:

I mean this example is even more absurd. During the rivarly events that leads to the civil war, the ONLY problem it seems for the "Greens" regarding Rhaenyra Inheritance is that her kids were possible bastards. What about the fact that the  Iron Throne would suddenly changes to House Velaryon? really, nobody minds that? not even the Old King Viserys? Because I dont see any complaints about this.

This example is more practical because the offspring are already born. So we all know that Jacaerys (or Lucerys) are Velaryons (in their name I mean).

----

Anyway, I understand that we had few examples with Matrilineal Marriages, that is, when the children adopts the mother dynasty ( I remember the case with a Lannister in the World of Fire and Ice). So this serves as a proof that this happens some times. But in my understanding this part of marriage must be agreed before and the Husband needs to take the Wife's name even before the kinds are born. So this would be weird to apply to the Velaryon case.

Maybe the answer is obvious while it is hidden in the texts.  Would Tyrion's kid takes the Stark name? In this way the lannister (and especially tyrion) would benefit from this by rulling Winterfell in the  for a while but in the long run the North would still belong to the Starks?

The same goes to the Velaryons, Jacaerys/Lucerys, etc would take the Targaryen name following his mom Dynasty to be able to rule the Iron Throne??

If that would be the case, then I understand why the only concern would be if the Velaryons are really Velaryons or Strong bastards. The same goes for the the Stark-Lannister kid, maybe it is obvious that their kid would have to take the Stark name and Tywin accepts that since he does not care so much about Tyrion, but it is still a reward for his son to rule Winterfell for a while (like Tywin said to him: "Never Casterly Rock but maybe Winterfell").

What do you guys think??

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Kroeff said:

Example n1. Sansa x Tyrion:

So in the texts it appears very clear that Tyrion and Sansa child would get a big claim in the north (sure why not) but would the northerners really support a Lannister  as Tywin tells Tyrion (because it all points out that the kid would have a Lannister name since Tyrion is the man in the relationship)?

I mean, you have a house that exists for Thousand of years as kings in the north and suddenly there would be a house from the South rulling winterfell. Even worse, a cadet lannister branch (Like the lannisters in Lannisport or even in Darry)?

I mean, I dont see any sense in this, the houses from the north would never accept it (even though Ned Stark is his Grandpa).

I can only think of one way, that I will cover after the second example.

This would depend how things play out. Is Tyrion Lannister going to rule the North in his own right successfully for a 40-50 years? Or is he going to do little more than impregnate Sansa and die an early death, meaning she does the ruling until her son takes over?

In the former scenario the son might feel confidant ruling as a Lannister, especially if his father also brought him up seeing himself mainly as a Lannister. In the latter scenario he would more see himself as a Stark and identify with his mother.

55 minutes ago, Kroeff said:

Example n2. The Velaryons (Strong bastards maybe?) in the Dance:

I mean this example is even more absurd. During the rivarly events that leads to the civil war, the ONLY problem it seems for the "Greens" regarding Rhaenyra Inheritance is that her kids were possible bastards. What about the fact that the  Iron Throne would suddenly changes to House Velaryon? really, nobody minds that? not even the Old King Viserys? Because I dont see any complaints about this.

This example is more practical because the offspring are already born. So we all know that Jacaerys (or Lucerys) are Velaryons (in their name I mean).

Since Laenor Velaryon also nearly gained the Iron Throne in 101 AC, we can say that people don't really have issues with changing house names.

There are people insisting both Laenor and Jacaerys would have changed their names to Targaryen, but since Robert (who is as much a Targaryen as Harrold Hardyng - who many people think will rule as an Arryn - is an Arryn) didn't change his name, either, I don't think this is necessary.

And no: House Baratheon is not a new dynasty. They are Targaryen descendants, too, as descendants of Orys Baratheon who is seen as the Conqueror's half-brother and as descendants of Aegon V.

We have cases where sons seem to have taken the names of their mothers outside Dorne - the sons and grandsons of ladies Waynwood and Oakheart indicate that, as do the daughters of Maege Mormont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yandel considers the Baratheons to be a new dynasty ("Soon thereafter he ascended the Iron Throne himself as Robert I Baratheon, the progenitor of a glorious new dynasty"), and the AGOT Appendix calls the Targaryens "The Old Dynasty". Targaryen ancestry was used to support Robert's claim to the throne, of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember any child of Sansa and Tyrion would still be the grandchild of Ned Stark, which would go a long way to reconciling people to having southron blood in the Lord of Winterfell.

It's entirely possible in both cases that whoever takes the ruling seat would also take on the mother's surname instead of the father's.

Had Jacaerys Velaryon lived to become king he might have proclaimed himself Jacaerys Targaryen, first of his name--if not a bastard he had Targ blood on both sides, through his Velaryon grandmother Princess Rhaenys.

The Lannisters descend from Lann the Clever through the maternal line, so there is already precedent of that for their house, not to mention that Tywin might not mind Tyrion's children not bearing the Lannister name.

Furthermore there is precedent in the North, as Maege Mormont's daughters all bear her surname and all are legitimate so far as we know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nittanian said:

Yandel considers the Baratheons to be a new dynasty ("Soon thereafter he ascended the Iron Throne himself as Robert I Baratheon, the progenitor of a glorious new dynasty"), and the AGOT Appendix calls the Targaryens "The Old Dynasty". Targaryen ancestry was used to support Robert's claim to the throne, of course. 

Yeah, but that is actually an inconsistency. In real world European royal dynasties names change whenever a new male line takes over, never mind that such a new dynasty usually is descended from the previous king through the female line. That, however, doesn't seem to be the case in Westeros where apparently Starks through the female line remain Starks (Bael the Bard's son, for instance, if we take the story at face value), or Hardyngs who are descended from Arryns through the female line might eventually take the Arryn name rather than go with the name of their father. Not to mention those Oakhearts and Waynwoods and Mormonts who go by the names of their mother to the point that nobody even knows who their father is.

In as patriarchal a society as Westeros the name of the father should always trump the name of the mother - men like Laenor and Jacaerys Velaryon should be proud of the name of their fathers, never mind who their mothers happened to be.

But if some names are seen to be so sacrosanct that anybody from a female cadet branch who takes over a lordship or throne would take the traditional name, abandoning the name of his father, then it is quite clear that Robert could have continued to use the name Targaryen for his dynasty. One can certainly argue that Robert didn't do that because he hated the Targaryens so much, but one can assume that those houses who go back millennia had their own decent share of succession wars and struggles and there the hypothetical Stark, Lannister, Durrandon, Arryn, Hightower, Gardener, etc. cousins who eventually took over or restored peace apparently never felt the need to distance themselves from 'the old dynasty'.

This is rather odd. Because if the Baratheons are a new dynasty then Harrold Hardyng would also start 'a new dynasty' in the Vale if he were to take over. Or take the Blackfyre example. If Daemon Blackfyre's rebellion had been successful and he had ascended the Iron Throne his dynasty would have also had a new name - but it would have been the same old dynasty.

And the other point is that the Baratheons effectively are Targaryens in all but names and looks. Orys Baratheon is seen as the Conqueror's half-brother, so the Baratheons are basically Targaryens who don't look like Targaryens and who don't practice sibling incest. They do not only become Targaryens through the female line when a princess marries the heir to Storm's End.

4 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

Furthermore there is precedent in the North, as Maege Mormont's daughters all bear her surname and all are legitimate so far as we know.

Things like that - and the Oakheart and Waynwood examples - actually show that the author dropped the ball here. George just has a couple of women in the background who are ladies in their own right and who also have children bearing the names of their mothers. But he doesn't seem to have laid down any rules or internal consistency for the naming thing before he did that, or else Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor would have indeed all been Targaryens - just as is the case with the Mormont, Waynwood, and Oakheart children.

The only way to construe a case in which those children also have the names of their fathers - as do Laenor's sons and Corlys Velaryon's children - is that Anya Waynwood, Maege Mormont, and Arwyn Oakheart are married to a male Waynwood, Mormont, or Oakheart cousin. But there is no evidence for any of that.

But if Rhaenyra Targaryen - who was the anointed Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne since the age of eight - didn't have the power to give her name to her sons upon the day of their birth then the idea that some ruling ladies from some lesser houses could do that without any problem is just not very convincing. It was quite clear that Rhaenyra's sons would succeed her on the Iron Throne like Rhaenyra would succeed her father - King Viserys I himself made that clear when he took Jacaerys with him up on the Iron Throne.

In that sense I lean more to the idea that men in Westeros also do like to bear the names of their fathers, not their mothers, and fathers usually also insist and ensure that their children bear their names regardless who and what their wives are.

Thus I'm inclined that a hypothetical child by Tyrion and Sansa would, of course, be raised as a Lannister, not a Stark.

Share this post


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

Hello guys!

I am new in this fórum as a member, sorry for my english it is really average. 

So, I have a big question regarding inheritance. Doing some research in the fórum I found some discussions already, but they dont exactly touch the same idea, if there is a topic indeed I apologize.

My question concerns very problematic weddings, here are two good examples for this discussion:

Remember that this examples are hypothethical, we know already that how the Dance of the Dragons went and my guess is that Tyrion and Sansa will problably not have kids together.

 

Example n1. Sansa x Tyrion:

So in the texts it appears very clear that Tyrion and Sansa child would get a big claim in the north (sure why not) but would the northerners really support a Lannister  as Tywin tells Tyrion (because it all points out that the kid would have a Lannister name since Tyrion is the man in the relationship)?

I mean, you have a house that exists for Thousand of years as kings in the north and suddenly there would be a house from the South rulling winterfell. Even worse, a cadet lannister branch (Like the lannisters in Lannisport or even in Darry)?

I mean, I dont see any sense in this, the houses from the north would never accept it (even though Ned Stark is his Grandpa).

I can only think of one way, that I will cover after the second example.

 

Example n2. The Velaryons (Strong bastards maybe?) in the Dance:

I mean this example is even more absurd. During the rivarly events that leads to the civil war, the ONLY problem it seems for the "Greens" regarding Rhaenyra Inheritance is that her kids were possible bastards. What about the fact that the  Iron Throne would suddenly changes to House Velaryon? really, nobody minds that? not even the Old King Viserys? Because I dont see any complaints about this.

This example is more practical because the offspring are already born. So we all know that Jacaerys (or Lucerys) are Velaryons (in their name I mean).

----

Anyway, I understand that we had few examples with Matrilineal Marriages, that is, when the children adopts the mother dynasty ( I remember the case with a Lannister in the World of Fire and Ice). So this serves as a proof that this happens some times. But in my understanding this part of marriage must be agreed before and the Husband needs to take the Wife's name even before the kinds are born. So this would be weird to apply to the Velaryon case.

Maybe the answer is obvious while it is hidden in the texts.  Would Tyrion's kid takes the Stark name? In this way the lannister (and especially tyrion) would benefit from this by rulling Winterfell in the  for a while but in the long run the North would still belong to the Starks?

The same goes to the Velaryons, Jacaerys/Lucerys, etc would take the Targaryen name following his mom Dynasty to be able to rule the Iron Throne??

If that would be the case, then I understand why the only concern would be if the Velaryons are really Velaryons or Strong bastards. The same goes for the the Stark-Lannister kid, maybe it is obvious that their kid would have to take the Stark name and Tywin accepts that since he does not care so much about Tyrion, but it is still a reward for his son to rule Winterfell for a while (like Tywin said to him: "Never Casterly Rock but maybe Winterfell").

What do you guys think??

 

 

 

 

The north are small minded people.  They would rather have Roose Bolton ruling over them than a Lannister dwarf's son.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has been a while since I read the books but weren't the Baratheons originally supposed to be rather distant relatives of the Targs? I think GRRM only later retconned them into a cadet branch. As far as real world Europe is concerned, nobles on the continent don't use family names the way the English nobility does. They are referred to by their titles and the territories / estates they rule. Family names like Hohenzollern are semi-official at best. Even today the Prussian Hohenzollern branch call themselves Prinz / Prinzessin von Preussen, not Hohenzollern. And there is at least one example of a dynasty continued through a woman: the Habsburgs (though they have been Habsburg-Lothringen since). The Dutch royals also still call themselves Oranje, even after three queens. But that's modern times. Same with the Brits, though apparently the queen and Prince Philip  they had a fight over it when they married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Things like that - and the Oakheart and Waynwood examples - actually show that the author dropped the ball here. George just has a couple of women in the background who are ladies in their own right and who also have children bearing the names of their mothers. But he doesn't seem to have laid down any rules or internal consistency for the naming thing before he did that, or else Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor would have indeed all been Targaryens - just as is the case with the Mormont, Waynwood, and Oakheart children.

The only way to construe a case in which those children also have the names of their fathers - as do Laenor's sons and Corlys Velaryon's children - is that Anya Waynwood, Maege Mormont, and Arwyn Oakheart are married to a male Waynwood, Mormont, or Oakheart cousin. But there is no evidence for any of that.

But if Rhaenyra Targaryen - who was the anointed Heir Apparent to the Iron Throne since the age of eight - didn't have the power to give her name to her sons upon the day of their birth then the idea that some ruling ladies from some lesser houses could do that without any problem is just not very convincing. It was quite clear that Rhaenyra's sons would succeed her on the Iron Throne like Rhaenyra would succeed her father - King Viserys I himself made that clear when he took Jacaerys with him up on the Iron Throne.

In that sense I lean more to the idea that men in Westeros also do like to bear the names of their fathers, not their mothers, and fathers usually also insist and ensure that their children bear their names regardless who and what their wives are.

Thus I'm inclined that a hypothetical child by Tyrion and Sansa would, of course, be raised as a Lannister, not a Stark.

All true but...there are cases of men taking another name on becoming lord of a House whose name they didn't carry, and that was usually because the name they were given at birth was their father's but the House they will rule is theirs through their maternal line. The Lannisters themselves descend from Lann through the maternal line, so clearly someone, somewhere married in but didn't give his name to at least the son that followed his wife or father-in-law as head of Lann's house. If Harry Hardying lives to be Lord of the Vale, he will likely take the Arryn name.

We also have the story of Bael the Bard, which may or may not be true, but emphasizes that a son born to a daughter of the House can take the House's name and rule it.

There are no hard and fast rules on this in the series precisely because there weren't any in real history either: tradition dictated that children take their father's name, but there have always been exceptions. That gives the characters some leeway. If Sansa were to have a child with Tyrion and Tyrion died before the child was born, the child would be called whatever Sansa said the child would be called. She might have to clear it with whoever she considers king or queen, but they probably wouldn't deny the request as it would keep House Stark going.

There's also a regional component. While the Oakhearts are from the Reach, the other two houses you mentioned are from less conventional regions of Westeros. I would imagine those from Dorne, the North, and the Vale are far more likely than those from the Reach (Oakhearts excepted), the Crownlands, the Riverlands, or the Westerlands to buck tradition more easily. I'd say the Stormlands are a wild card. Sansa's being a Northerner and a Stark puts her in a good position if she wants to argue that her children should bear the Stark name.

Edited by Lady Blizzardborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2019 at 10:19 AM, Kroeff said:

Example n1. Sansa x Tyrion:

So in the texts it appears very clear that Tyrion and Sansa child would get a big claim in the north (sure why not) but would the northerners really support a Lannister  as Tywin tells Tyrion (because it all points out that the kid would have a Lannister name since Tyrion is the man in the relationship)?

I mean, you have a house that exists for Thousand of years as kings in the north and suddenly there would be a house from the South rulling winterfell. Even worse, a cadet lannister branch (Like the lannisters in Lannisport or even in Darry)?

I mean, I dont see any sense in this, the houses from the north would never accept it (even though Ned Stark is his Grandpa).

I can only think of one way, that I will cover after the second example.

See Varys's soliloquy on the nature of power.   Power resides where men think it resides; or more accurately, where they accept that it resides. 

If the Northerners approve of the Lannister claimant, and consider him to be independent they will accept him, and come up with a legal reason to support it.  If they don't like him, or consider him to be a Lannister puppet, they will reject him, and come up with a reason for that, too. 

Given the ambiguities of this particular situation, finding good reasons on either side shouldn't be difficult.  As to whether or not they accept him,  that would come down to a myriad of factors too numerous to go into here; name change being one of many.

Share this post


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

All true but...there are cases of men taking another name on becoming lord of a House whose name they didn't carry, and that was usually because the name they were given at birth was their father's but the House they will rule is theirs through their maternal line. The Lannisters themselves descend from Lann through the maternal line, so clearly someone, somewhere married in but didn't give his name to at least the son that followed his wife or father-in-law as head of Lann's house. If Harry Hardying lives to be Lord of the Vale, he will likely take the Arryn name.

We also have the story of Bael the Bard, which may or may not be true, but emphasizes that a son born to a daughter of the House can take the House's name and rule it.

There are no hard and fast rules on this in the series precisely because there weren't any in real history either: tradition dictated that children take their father's name, but there have always been exceptions. That gives the characters some leeway. If Sansa were to have a child with Tyrion and Tyrion died before the child was born, the child would be called whatever Sansa said the child would be called. She might have to clear it with whoever she considers king or queen, but they probably wouldn't deny the request as it would keep House Stark going.

There's also a regional component. While the Oakhearts are from the Reach, the other two houses you mentioned are from less conventional regions of Westeros. I would imagine those from Dorne, the North, and the Vale are far more likely than those from the Reach (Oakhearts excepted), the Crownlands, the Riverlands, or the Westerlands to buck tradition more easily. I'd say the Stormlands are a wild card. Sansa's being a Northerner and a Stark puts her in a good position if she wants to argue that her children should bear the Stark name.

Given there has never in apparently 8000 years been a ruling Lady Stark/Queen Stark, I would suggest that almost the exact opposite of your last guess is true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lady Blizzardborn said:

All true but...there are cases of men taking another name on becoming lord of a House whose name they didn't carry, and that was usually because the name they were given at birth was their father's but the House they will rule is theirs through their maternal line. The Lannisters themselves descend from Lann through the maternal line, so clearly someone, somewhere married in but didn't give his name to at least the son that followed his wife or father-in-law as head of Lann's house. If Harry Hardying lives to be Lord of the Vale, he will likely take the Arryn name.

The Lannister case had the husband of a Lannister princess - Joffrey Lydden - take the Lannister name when he was chosen as King of the Rock by a council in the West.

This was obviously a rather special case, taking place during the Andal power grab in the West.

The general problem here is that in as patriarchal world as Westeros it simply makes no sense that women would be treated the way they are and then men actually go by the names of their mothers or grandmothers rather than their fathers. Sure, a Harry the Heir would inherit the Eyrie and the Vale because of his Arryn grandmother, but a son honoring his father would keep his father's name. He would also not be ashamed of his father's name, nor would he really see the need to change it. He can include the Arryn banner into his own - as Harry has already done.

And if you go to the Velaryon claimants to the Iron Throne then neither Jacaerys nor Laenor have any reason to favor the names of their mothers over the names of their fathers. Especially not Laenor, who is the son of the great Sea Snake, a man more formidable than any of the sons of the Old King. Who needs the Targaryen name if he is descended from the greatest man of the 1st century AC?

13 hours ago, Loge said:

Has been a while since I read the books but weren't the Baratheons originally supposed to be rather distant relatives of the Targs? I think GRRM only later retconned them into a cadet branch. As far as real world Europe is concerned, nobles on the continent don't use family names the way the English nobility does. They are referred to by their titles and the territories / estates they rule. Family names like Hohenzollern are semi-official at best. Even today the Prussian Hohenzollern branch call themselves Prinz / Prinzessin von Preussen, not Hohenzollern. And there is at least one example of a dynasty continued through a woman: the Habsburgs (though they have been Habsburg-Lothringen since). The Dutch royals also still call themselves Oranje, even after three queens. But that's modern times. Same with the Brits, though apparently the queen and Prince Philip  they had a fight over it when they married.

The Baratheons were always described as the descendants of Orys Baratheon, the alleged half-brother of Aegon the Conqueror. FaB did not confirm that Orys was Lord Aerion's bastard son, but it did very much reinforce the fact that people believed this to be the case - which makes the Baratheons a non-incestuous, illegitimate cadet branch of House Targaryen. They may be black-haired, but they are Targaryens anyway.

George later made Robert and his brothers even closer cousins of the Targaryens by making their paternal grandmother Princess Rhaelle Targaryen, a daughter of Aegon V and sister of Jaehaerys II.

You are certainly right that George's obsession with house/family names does actually not fit with the naming habits in the real middle ages. Kings and nobles were indeed referenced via their estates and castles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bael’s story is an embellished wildling fantasy. Robb Stark is descended from Bran the Builder through an unbroken male line of House Stark, which will continue through Rickon Stark into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Bael’s story is an embellished wildling fantasy. Robb Stark is descended from Bran the Builder through an unbroken male line of House Stark, which will continue through Rickon Stark into the future.

If I were either one of those victorious Red Kings (Royces II & IV) I would have tried to make sure that all male Starks would have been dead and next lord of Winterfell would have been either my son or brother. So I assume that Starks living nowadays could actually have more blood of ancient Red Kings than Bran the Builder :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Bael’s story is an embellished wildling fantasy. Robb Stark is descended from Bran the Builder through an unbroken male line of House Stark, which will continue through Rickon Stark into the future.

There is no evidence for that. Considering the savagery of the North in the ancient days it is not only very unlikely that there is an unbroken male line, but also that there is a female line stretching back to Brandon the Builder. There may have already been lords of a sort at the place where Winterfell would once stand back in the Age of Heroes, but lords related to and descended from each other? Not very likely if you consider the fact that the ancient First Men - like the wildlings today - only follow strength. They would have laughed at the thought that they had to follow the weakling son or grandson of some great hero - and their practice of the First Night ensured that true heroes and warriors fathered children on all the women in their domains, not their weakling husbands.

But the specific story of Bael's son implies that this Stark didn't actually continued the line but died screaming at the Dreadfort when he gave up his skin. We have idea who the next Stark king was.

9 hours ago, Loose Bolt said:

If I were either one of those victorious Red Kings (Royces II & IV) I would have tried to make sure that all male Starks would have been dead and next lord of Winterfell would have been either my son or brother. So I assume that Starks living nowadays could actually have more blood of ancient Red Kings than Bran the Builder :)

There is that, too. But if you go back to the most ancient of times - shortly after the Long Night, say - it makes little sense to assume that men were as obsessed with primogeniture and blood claims as they are later when proper' kingdoms and a rule of law has (somewhat) developed.

The idea that dudes living in shabby ringforts calling themselves 'kings' who 'ruled' at best a few acres around their homes would have been able to establish anything resembling an 'unbroken line' is insane.

It is quite clear that all those stories and legends and founding myths have about the same chance of being accurate as the fairy-tales half the nobility of Europe told each other in the middle ages that they were all descended from some survivor of Troy. That wasn't true for Romulus and Remus and it wasn't true for anyone else.

The very fact that the heroes from the Age of Heroes are depicted as larger than life figures - Lann, Durran Godsgrief, the Grey King, Garth Greenhand, etc. - when such figures no longer exist in the present day implicitly confirm that this is all nonsense. Because there is really no reason given as to why cunning warriors no longer live to the age of 312, say.

This doesn't mean that sorcery and non-human species may not have played a greater role back then than they do now.

Share this post


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

There is no evidence for that. Considering the savagery of the North in the ancient days it is not only very unlikely that there is an unbroken male line, but also that there is a female line stretching back to Brandon the Builder. There may have already been lords of a sort at the place where Winterfell would once stand back in the Age of Heroes, but lords related to and descended from each other? Not very likely if you consider the fact that the ancient First Men - like the wildlings today - only follow strength. They would have laughed at the thought that they had to follow the weakling son or grandson of some great hero - and their practice of the First Night ensured that true heroes and warriors fathered children on all the women in their domains, not their weakling husbands.

But the specific story of Bael's son implies that this Stark didn't actually continued the line but died screaming at the Dreadfort when he gave up his skin. We have idea who the next Stark king was.

There is that, too. But if you go back to the most ancient of times - shortly after the Long Night, say - it makes little sense to assume that men were as obsessed with primogeniture and blood claims as they are later when proper' kingdoms and a rule of law has (somewhat) developed.

The idea that dudes living in shabby ringforts calling themselves 'kings' who 'ruled' at best a few acres around their homes would have been able to establish anything resembling an 'unbroken line' is insane.

It is quite clear that all those stories and legends and founding myths have about the same chance of being accurate as the fairy-tales half the nobility of Europe told each other in the middle ages that they were all descended from some survivor of Troy. That wasn't true for Romulus and Remus and it wasn't true for anyone else.

The very fact that the heroes from the Age of Heroes are depicted as larger than life figures - Lann, Durran Godsgrief, the Grey King, Garth Greenhand, etc. - when such figures no longer exist in the present day implicitly confirm that this is all nonsense. Because there is really no reason given as to why cunning warriors no longer live to the age of 312, say.

This doesn't mean that sorcery and non-human species may not have played a greater role back then than they do now.

So you started by disputing the unbroken male line of House Stark - a reasonable position, but one which I happen to disagree with.  But then you had to try and one-up it by claiming that the current Starks are not related to the ancient Starks at all - whether through the male or female line.

Come on, Lord Varys. You know that is incorrect. Even if we can't prove it one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So you started by disputing the unbroken male line of House Stark - a reasonable position, but one which I happen to disagree with.  But then you had to try and one-up it by claiming that the current Starks are not related to the ancient Starks at all - whether through the male or female line.

Come on, Lord Varys. You know that is incorrect. Even if we can't prove it one way or another.

The bold pretty much ends any discussion of the topic. You just take something at face value which is given to us deliberately in a strongly suspicious manner based on ridiculous real world medieval nonsense. Those stories are not supposed to be taken at face value. And they are presented as such. You leave the sphere of rational discussion when you actually think we should believe what you want to believe when there is no reason to do so.

This is not a fictional world where ancient stories are told in a way that allows us to conclude they are true. They are deliberately created as to be dubious or obvious nonsense.

We have reason to believe that the stories from the Dawn Age and the Age of Heroes and the centuries/millennia thereafter (before the Andals brought proper literacy to Westeros) are just that - invented stories. And we have reason to believe that it is very unlikely that 'the Starks' 8,000 or 6,000 years ago where much closer in custom to the way the wildlings are today. After all, before the Wall was raised there shouldn't have been any difference between the people living in 'the Umber lands' and those living directly north of the Wall.

The idea that the First Men during/immediately after the Long Night actually cared about the right of primogeniture - or hereditary succession as such - is, quite frankly, very unlikely in light of what we know about original First Men culture.

It is very easy to imagine how the various 'noble bloodlines' are just fake, reconstructions the later First Men created once hereditary succession and male primogeniture had become the norm. After all, once you had a couple of generations of Lannisters, Starks, or Durrandons it is the easiest thing in the world to imagine that it was always this way - simply by saying that all the previous kings had been 'Starks' or 'Lannisters' or 'Durrandons'.

I mean, who is going to contradict them? Who is even going to care? It is not even clear that the concept of 'house names' was always understood in the same way. Perhaps there were times when the rulers of a certain fort were all referred to as 'Starks', 'Lannisters', etc., never mind whether they were actually related. The idea that the ancient First Men cared more about how a man called himself than, say, the Golden Company and other free companies do today is not very convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many potential candidates for a spouse any prince(ss) had?  After all  member of ruling house could not marry just anybody but they usually married another VIP and in the north there could not have been many houses that were powerful enough to have that status. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

The bold pretty much ends any discussion of the topic. You just take something at face value which is given to us deliberately in a strongly suspicious manner based on ridiculous real world medieval nonsense. Those stories are not supposed to be taken at face value. And they are presented as such. You leave the sphere of rational discussion when you actually think we should believe what you want to believe when there is no reason to do so.

This is not a fictional world where ancient stories are told in a way that allows us to conclude they are true. They are deliberately created as to be dubious or obvious nonsense.

We have reason to believe that the stories from the Dawn Age and the Age of Heroes and the centuries/millennia thereafter (before the Andals brought proper literacy to Westeros) are just that - invented stories. And we have reason to believe that it is very unlikely that 'the Starks' 8,000 or 6,000 years ago where much closer in custom to the way the wildlings are today. After all, before the Wall was raised there shouldn't have been any difference between the people living in 'the Umber lands' and those living directly north of the Wall.

The idea that the First Men during/immediately after the Long Night actually cared about the right of primogeniture - or hereditary succession as such - is, quite frankly, very unlikely in light of what we know about original First Men culture.

It is very easy to imagine how the various 'noble bloodlines' are just fake, reconstructions the later First Men created once hereditary succession and male primogeniture had become the norm. After all, once you had a couple of generations of Lannisters, Starks, or Durrandons it is the easiest thing in the world to imagine that it was always this way - simply by saying that all the previous kings had been 'Starks' or 'Lannisters' or 'Durrandons'.

I mean, who is going to contradict them? Who is even going to care? It is not even clear that the concept of 'house names' was always understood in the same way. Perhaps there were times when the rulers of a certain fort were all referred to as 'Starks', 'Lannisters', etc., never mind whether they were actually related. The idea that the ancient First Men cared more about how a man called himself than, say, the Golden Company and other free companies do today is not very convincing.

You have a bemusing habit of trying to appeal to hyper realism when it suits you and chuck it out the window when it doesn’t. All of us do that, to an extent. But you seem to go a tad overboard.

Do you discount the magical aspects of this story in all instances, or only when it suits you to do so?

Daenerys is a descendent from the first Targaryen, but Bran is not a descendent from the first Stark? Sure, whatever you say.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You have a bemusing habit of trying to appeal to hyper realism when it suits you and chuck it out the window when it doesn’t. All of us do that, to an extent. But you seem to go a tad overboard.

Do you discount the magical aspects of this story in all instances, or only when it suits you to do so?

Daenerys is a descendent from the first Targaryen, but Bran is not a descendent from the first Stark? Sure, whatever you say.

When have I ever something like that? We don't even know who the first Targaryen was or when that person lived. It looks as if the present-day Targaryens and Baratheons are all descended from Aenar Targaryen, but that's just 400 years, not allegedly 8,000 years. How long the Targaryens specifically were a thing in Old Valyria is never even mentioned - and it is clearly irrelevant for the story at hand.

Just as it is irrelevant whether any of the allegedly millennia-old dynasties go back this far. There is no narrative reason given as to why anyone should be a descendant of some ancient or invented hero guy.

What I said about the childish stories of the First Men would also go about childish Valyrian stories about their origins - had we such stories.

What the ancient First Men did (to the Children of the Forest) is going to be important for the plot. That's where Bran's past-seeing thing comes in. But nobody is going to care whether Brandon the Builder was ever a Stark - who is actually never referred to as a Stark in the books, just as Lann the Clever isn't a Lannister, Durran Godsgrief isn't a Durrandon (obviously), Garth Greenhand isn't a Gardener, etc. They all precede the dynasties they allegedly founded. They are figures larger than life - essentially heroes from fairy-tales.

Magic has nothing to do with millennia-old unbroken dynasties, by the way, nor is this a Tolkien-like world where magic continues to decline sort of naturally. Fire magic disappeared because Valyria was destroyed, not because it no longer worked. And it is coming back now that the dragons are back. Other types of magic were never gone - they are merely weakened/no longer practiced because their practitioners were physically destroyed (the Children of the Forest) and their traditions forgotten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

When have I ever something like that? We don't even know who the first Targaryen was or when that person lived. It looks as if the present-day Targaryens and Baratheons are all descended from Aenar Targaryen, but that's just 400 years, not allegedly 8,000 years. How long the Targaryens specifically were a thing in Old Valyria is never even mentioned - and it is clearly irrelevant for the story at hand.

Just as it is irrelevant whether any of the allegedly millennia-old dynasties go back this far. There is no narrative reason given as to why anyone should be a descendant of some ancient or invented hero guy.

What I said about the childish stories of the First Men would also go about childish Valyrian stories about their origins - had we such stories.

What the ancient First Men did (to the Children of the Forest) is going to be important for the plot. That's where Bran's past-seeing thing comes in. But nobody is going to care whether Brandon the Builder was ever a Stark - who is actually never referred to as a Stark in the books, just as Lann the Clever isn't a Lannister, Durran Godsgrief isn't a Durrandon (obviously), Garth Greenhand isn't a Gardener, etc. They all precede the dynasties they allegedly founded. They are figures larger than life - essentially heroes from fairy-tales.

Magic has nothing to do with millennia-old unbroken dynasties, by the way, nor is this a Tolkien-like world where magic continues to decline sort of naturally. Fire magic disappeared because Valyria was destroyed, not because it no longer worked. And it is coming back now that the dragons are back. Other types of magic were never gone - they are merely weakened/no longer practiced because their practitioners were physically destroyed (the Children of the Forest) and their traditions forgotten.

I put it to you that you overestimate the “realism” of this series. It is a fantasy tale, in the end.

A tale dealing with two magical bloodlines at its heart.

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

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
Sign in to follow this  

×