Rhea Royce and Succession

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

Do they?? I find it curious how female line had persisted to this day then. We know nothing about what happens if the husband is just the consort. Rhaenrya was princess when she married so it was quite obvious that Laenor's would take preference, besides that it was almost a given that Jace would simply change his name. If Queen Rhaenrya's sons had other last names than Targs, then you may have a point.

Nor do i understand Daemon's relevance here, we're discussing last names, not firsts.

There is no indication that any female lines have persisted to this day. One can speculate that the ancient houses must have female lines where the mother's name was kept, but there is no confirmation of this and no reason to assume it happened.

And LOL, no there is no reason to assume Laenor's name should take precedence. He wasn't even a prince, he was nothing, he got a courtesy knighthood two weeks before his wedding so that he had any title at all and didn't show up naked before his wife.

If the Targaryens don't care that their children grow up as Targaryens when a woman who is destined to continue the royal line is giving birth to them, then there is no reason to believe they would grant lesser houses such a privilege ... assuming this would even be a question. Which I doubt it would.

Any man marrying Rhea Royce would expect to give his children his name, not the name of his wife. That's just how it is.

If the Royces didn't want that to happen they should not have made a woman the heir to Runestone. Or they should have married her to another Royce.

And, no, there is no reason to assume Jace would have changed his name. Neither he nor Joffrey do change their names when Rhaenyra names them Prince of Dragonstone. In fact, it is ridiculous to assume that such name changes even take place in families where a son is supposed to follow his mother. Jacaerys Velaryon was born as Rhaenyra's heir, the second in line to the Iron Throne. He was to sit the Iron Throne from the day of his birth, and his royal grandfather even took with him to sit on the Iron Throne with him.

If Rhaenyra and Viserys I and Jacaerys had wanted him to be a Targaryen they would have named him such - and Jace could have changed his name any day throughout his life. The fact that he and his brothers didn't makes it clear that they had no such intentions.

Vice versa, Princess Rhaenys' children also inherited their father's name - as is proper - and not their mother's which would have come in handy when they were trying to claim the Iron Throne.

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

Emasculated or fuel of testorone, his opinion does not matter, he is the consort. What would a child of a Targ prince want to do we should discuss it when we know about said child and the context surrounding him. What would matter and prevail would be whatever arrangement the Royces and Alysanne made, since i don't think Jaeharys had anything to do with it.

There is no reason to even imagine an arrangement. I just brought that up because if the Royces didn't want Rhea's children to be Targaryens when the marriage was arranged they would have been shot down. But it doesn't even make sense for them to demand such a thing. It is common practice everywhere in the Seven Kingdoms outside Dorne that children take the names of their fathers not their mothers.

The only confirmation of a name change we have is Joffrey Lydden - and this was done by a council in the Westerlands settling the succession of sonless King of the Rock, indicating that name changes are not a normal thing in Westeros. Children inherit the names of their fathers, not their mothers, period.

7 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Royces are one of the most powerful and prideful Houses in the entire Realm, them being forced to change their name in exchange of marrying a Targ is a shit deal. In a world were the names last for a millenia, people don't give it up so easily. The Royce don't need Daemon, not even marrying themselves into the Targs, nor Jaeharys can force them into marriage, they can perfectly say we don't want this.

Unless all the Arryns die suddenly in a chill, is unlikely that there would ever going to be a Targ of the Eyrie, 

LOL, nobody expected the Royces to change their names. Rhea Royce would live and die a Royce. But Daemon Targaryen's children would be born Targaryens and inherit the name of their father like any child in Westeros outside Dorne does.

As for the Arryns - with a dragonriding branch of House Targaryen in the Vale their days would be numbered.

With Jeyne having no clear heir Daemon and his sons and grandsons would have seized the Vale when she died. And nobody would have opposed them.

[frenin]

3 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication that any female lines have persisted to this day. One can speculate that the ancient houses must have female lines where the mother's name was kept, but there is no confirmation of this and no reason to assume it happened.

We know about a few female ladies, what are the odds that they all ended as Jeyne Arryn??

 

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And LOL, no there is no reason to assume Laenor's name should take precedence. He wasn't even a prince, he was nothing, he got a courtesy knighthood two weeks before his wedding so that he had any title at all and didn't show up naked before his wife.

If the Targaryens don't care that their children grow up as Targaryens when a woman who is destined to continue the royal line is giving birth to them, then there is no reason to believe they would grant lesser houses such a privilege ... assuming this would even be a question. Which I doubt it would.

You yourself have said that the man's name usually takes precedence, how there is no reason for it then??

The Targs not caring about it does not mean other houses don't care about it, especially the ones who have been around since forever like the Royces don't care either.

 

 

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

And, no, there is no reason to assume Jace would have changed his name. Neither he nor Joffrey do change their names when Rhaenyra names them Prince of Dragonstone. In fact, it is ridiculous to assume that such name changes even take place in families where a son is supposed to follow his mother. Jacaerys Velaryon was born as Rhaenyra's heir, the second in line to the Iron Throne. He was to sit the Iron Throne from the day of his birth, and his royal grandfather even took with him to sit on the Iron Throne with him.

 

Prince of Dragonstone=/King of Westereros. They don't need to change their names because they aren't kings yet. Said decision would take place upon their ascension.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason to even imagine an arrangement. I just brought that up because if the Royces didn't want Rhea's children to be Targaryens when the marriage was arranged they would have been shot down. But it doesn't even make sense for them to demand such a thing. It is common practice everywhere in the Seven Kingdoms outside Dorne that children take the names of their fathers not their mothers.

There is very much a reason, people don't like their family names to be lost, at all. It's hilarious that you imagine them as yes men and nothing else.

Again, we don't know if that rule applies to a ruler woman under normal circumstances.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

 The only confirmation of a name change we have is Joffrey Lydden - and this was done by a council in the Westerlands settling the succession of sonless King of the Rock, indicating that name changes are not a normal thing in Westeros. Children inherit the names of their fathers, not their mothers, period.

I suppose that it's pointless keep arguing... since you have said period.

The council was called, as you rightly say, to settle the King of the Rock succesion. Ruling ladies marrying highborn consorts are not normal circumstances. 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, nobody expected the Royces to change their names. Rhea Royce would live and die a Royce. But Daemon Targaryen's children would be born Targaryens and inherit the name of their father like any child in Westeros outside Dorne does.

As for the Arryns - with a dragonriding branch of House Targaryen in the Vale their days would be numbered.

With Jeyne having no clear heir Daemon and his sons and grandsons would have seized the Vale when she died. And nobody would have opposed them.

I love your headcanons, they are so straighforward.

If their kids have other name but Royce, the name is changing. 

Have we read the same books?? Jeyne Arryn did have a clear heirs, the succesion only muddied because she herself wanted it, there is no reason that if everything were to be different, things would go as they were in the first place. That without saying that the idea of dragonriding branches is... a curious one.

 

 

[Lord Varys]

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

We know about a few female ladies, what are the odds that they all ended as Jeyne Arryn??

We don't know of any female ladies outside Dorne passing their names to their children. Those female ladies we know of who have children are lacking known husbands - meaning it is pretty likely said ladies did marry men who were from the same house.

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

You yourself have said that the man's name usually takes precedence, how there is no reason for it then??

It is a personal thing - a man wants his children to bear his name, not the name of his wife. What Rhea Royce's male kin thought would have been their problem. They weren't the heirs to Runestone, were they?

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

The Targs not caring about it does not mean other houses don't care about it, especially the ones who have been around since forever like the Royces don't care either.

That's ad hoc nonsense. There isn't even any reason to assume the Royces cared - establish that first, before you make wild and baseless claims. The fact that there exist ancient houses doesn't prove any of your wild claims.

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

Prince of Dragonstone=/King of Westereros. They don't need to change their names because they aren't kings yet. Said decision would take place upon their ascension.

Baseless claim. There is no indication that any king would change his name upon ascension ... especially not one who could have gotten the Targaryen name by birth because he had a Targaryen mother and was seen as a future king from birth.

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

I suppose that it's pointless keep arguing... since you have said period.

The council was called, as you rightly say, to settle the King of the Rock succesion. Ruling ladies marrying highborn consorts are not normal circumstances. 

Give us evidence for your claim.

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

I love your headcanons, they are so straighforward.

If their kids have other name but Royce, the name is changing.

LOL, any child of a Targaryen man would be a Targaryen, period. You know, Rhea Royce's children could predecease their mother and never rule Runestone, the way Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor all predeceseased her. They could change their names to Royce when and if they succeeded her, if this was what they wanted (and if that is what was possible). But they would have grown up Targaryens like Rhaenyra's sons grew up Velaryon. But chances are about zero that any son would humiliate his father by taking the name of his mother ... especially not if their father's name made them royals and not backwater nobility.

It wouldn't be up to some Royces to decide what name Daemon Targaryen's sons would bear. It would be his call, and the call of his sons. And it is quite clear what calls such sons would have made.

18 minutes ago, frenin said:

Have we read the same books?? Jeyne Arryn did have a clear heirs, the succesion only muddied because she herself wanted it, there is no reason that if everything were to be different, things would go as they were in the first place. That without saying that the idea of dragonriding branches is... a curious one.

LOL, Jeyne named her fourth cousin her heir. That wasn't a clear heir, else there wouldn't have been a succession war.

Even if everything would have been different it is also quite obvious that the dragons of the Vale wouldn't have been content with remaining backwater nobility with dragons. And it is quite clear that they would retained at least one dragon - one of Daemon's children would have claimed Caraxes after his father's death even if they hadn't been allowed hatchlings and dragon eggs. Which we have no reason to assume considering Viserys I allowed Daemon's daughters dragon eggs, so we can expect any children he may have had with Rhea to get dragon eggs, too.

[frenin]

8 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't know of any female ladies outside Dorne passing their names to their children. Those female ladies we know of who have children are lacking known husbands - meaning it is pretty likely said ladies did marry men who were from the same house.

We don't nex to nothing about most of them besides their name, sometimes not even that, and that they are ruling ladies.  If we don't know that even if they are men of the same House, the Mormonts come to mind, that assumption seems pretty bold.

 

 

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is a personal thing - a man wants his children to bear his name, not the name of his wife. What Rhea Royce's male kin thought would have been their problem. They weren't the heirs to Runestone, were they?

How Rhea's father or grandfather thought about the matter would be relevant however, since he was the Lord of Runestone. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

That's ad hoc nonsense. There isn't even any reason to assume the Royces cared - establish that first, before you make wild and baseless claims. The fact that there exist ancient houses doesn't prove any of your wild claims.

There is any reason to assume Daemon cared,  it's not ad hoc nonsense old houses wants their name to survive. And.., wild claims, ofc ofc.

 

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Give us evidence for your claim.

Normal circumstance is a ruling son marrying a highborn woman, That's why Male preference primogeniture is custom. didn'tyou know about that?? Since male preference is the normal circumstance, a female ruling lady is by default not a normal circumstance.

I said that we don't know how things work in that case, and we don't, and that we don't have a reason to believe the Royces wouldb be ecstatic with such deal. You claim not only that they would but even in the case that they wouldn't, they would be irrelevant. I don't expect evidence for your claims, i'm used to your headcanons disguised as fact.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, any child of a Targaryen man would be a Targaryen, period. You know, Rhea Royce's children could predecease their mother and never rule Runestone, the way Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor all predeceseased her. They could change their names to Royce when and if they succeeded her, if this was what they wanted (and if that is what was possible). But they would have grown up Targaryens like Rhaenyra's sons grew up Velaryon. But chances are about zero that any son would humiliate his father by taking the name of his mother ... especially not if their father's name made them royals and not backwater nobility.

It wouldn't be up to some Royces to decide what name Daemon Targaryen's sons would bear. It would be his call, and the call of his sons. And it is quite clear what calls such sons would have made.

Again, you saying period that's not settle the matter. We don't know what they wanted, we don't know what would they have accepted and we don't know if they would ever have accepted such deal. All the rest is your headcanon, which i don't really care about.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, Jeyne named her fourth cousin her heir. That wasn't a clear heir, else there wouldn't have been a succession war.

Even if everything would have been different it is also quite obvious that the dragons of the Vale wouldn't have been content with remaining backwater nobility with dragons. And it is quite clear that they would retained at least one dragon - one of Daemon's children would have claimed Caraxes after his father's death even if they hadn't been allowed hatchlings and dragon eggs. Which we have no reason to assume considering Viserys I allowed Daemon's daughters dragon eggs, so we can expect any children he may have had with Rhea to get dragon eggs, too.

Was there any dragonrider as neighbour when she ruled in her will?? It's like arguing that the story would've been the same if Jon Arryn did not die, you can't intoduce a rather big differentiating factor and expect everything to remain the same, that's simply absurd, someday you will get it,

 

And the dragons of the Vale would have to remain backwater nobility, one of Daemons sons would've claimed Caraxes if the crown allowed it etc etc. The Velaryons were already dragonriders by the time Baela and Rhaena were born, the Royces weren't.

[Lord Varys]

21 hours ago, frenin said:

We don't nex to nothing about most of them besides their name, sometimes not even that, and that they are ruling ladies.  If we don't know that even if they are men of the same House, the Mormonts come to mind, that assumption seems pretty bold.

We don't even know whether Lady Maege is married. If he husband was a commoner without a name it wouldn't be much of an issue. If Bronn had a son by Lollys he would not be able to give him his name.

21 hours ago, frenin said:

How Rhea's father or grandfather thought about the matter would be relevant however, since he was the Lord of Runestone. 

Only if you presuppose that this would have been an issue - which you are doing. You are begging the question and you are ignoring the existing textual evidence to the contrary, trying to wish away the issue of Rhaenyra's sons by special pleading.

21 hours ago, frenin said:

There is any reason to assume Daemon cared,  it's not ad hoc nonsense old houses wants their name to survive. And.., wild claims, ofc ofc.

Daemon being a man indicates he would have cared. But it is not necessary for me to assume he must have cared or that his caring was the deciding factor when we know the naming customs of the Seven Kingdoms. You could just as well say that it was a lord's call whether to give his bastard a bastard's name - it wasn't: society saw to it that any bastard be branded with a bastard's name, not matter what the father's wishes were.

Also, if you bother to check the marriage customs of the people we are talking about - the decloaking of the bride and cloaking her into the husband's colors - it is quite clear that a bride leaves her father's house and joins the house of her husband. There is no reason that this is different when the bride happens to be an heir or a lady in her own right.

We see this also happening with royal ladies who ride dragons - in the case of Rhaena Corbray, for instance. She just married a knight yet after her marriage she was no longer a Targaryen in the same way she was prior to her marriage.

Daemon wouldn't have joined House Royce with his marriage - Rhea Royce would have joined House Targaryen. And that would have been advancement on her part, she would have greater improved her own standing, being in a much more powerful position with her own liege of House Arryn thanks to her own ties to the royal family.

21 hours ago, frenin said:

Normal circumstance is a ruling son marrying a highborn woman, That's why Male preference primogeniture is custom. didn'tyou know about that?? Since male preference is the normal circumstance, a female ruling lady is by default not a normal circumstance.

Sorry, that's nonsense. Westerosi noble culture lived for 8,000 years - the rare succession of women would have happened rather often in those years (although not necessarily in any of the houses we know supposedly existed for all that time in unbroken male succession) and people would have known how to deal with that.

Daemon Targaryen wouldn't have been the first prince to marry an heiress.

21 hours ago, frenin said:

I said that we don't know how things work in that case, and we don't, and that we don't have a reason to believe the Royces wouldb be ecstatic with such deal. You claim not only that they would but even in the case that they wouldn't, they would be irrelevant. I don't expect evidence for your claims, i'm used to your headcanons disguised as fact.

We do know how things work in this case - we learned it from Rhaenyra and Laenor. We have no reason to assume there were special rules for heiresses to pass on their names to their children.

21 hours ago, frenin said:

Again, you saying period that's not settle the matter. We don't know what they wanted, we don't know what would they have accepted and we don't know if they would ever have accepted such deal. All the rest is your headcanon, which i don't really care about.

There is no reason to expect that a dragonriding prince would allow his children to bear another name.

21 hours ago, frenin said:

Was there any dragonrider as neighbour when she ruled in her will?? It's like arguing that the story would've been the same if Jon Arryn did not die, you can't intoduce a rather big differentiating factor and expect everything to remain the same, that's simply absurd, someday you will get it,

Sure, I can, since that's literature and not reality. Daemon having sons wouldn't have given gay Jeyne suddenly a husband, would it? Just as it wouldn't have changed the family tree of House Arryn in a meanigful way ... unless, perhaps, in the sense that Daemon may have married an Arryn after his wife's death or may have married his children to Arryns once they were old enough for marriage.

21 hours ago, frenin said:

And the dragons of the Vale would have to remain backwater nobility, one of Daemons sons would've claimed Caraxes if the crown allowed it etc etc. The Velaryons were already dragonriders by the time Baela and Rhaena were born, the Royces weren't.

LOL, if you try to make an argument try to make better points. Vhagar was claimed by Aemond without the Crown's approval, no? There is no reason to believe Viserys I would have forbidden his brother's trueborn children a dragon. Nor is there any reason that the giving of dragon eggs depended on the parents being dragonriders - Alyn Velaryon wasn't a dragonrider yet his daughter Laena got a dragon egg in her cradle still, and that during the reign of a king who despised dragons.

[frenin]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

We don't even know whether Lady Maege is married. If he husband was a commoner without a name it wouldn't be much of an issue. If Bronn had a son by Lollys he would not be able to give him his name.

So, they all married commoners?? And people fell for that?? Maege could get away with that shit, she is from a remore island of a remote kingdom, doubt the others would be half as fortunate. 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Only if you presuppose that this would have been an issue - which you are doing. You are begging the question and you are ignoring the existing textual evidence to the contrary, trying to wish away the issue of Rhaenyra's sons by special pleading.

I'm not ignoring the textual evidence to the contrary, since the point is that we don't know how it works for ruling ladies and her consorts.

Rhaenrya was specifically not a ruling lady, she was a heir apparent and her children could, and moret han likely would, chang their names if they ever got near the Iron Throne.

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Daemon being a man indicates he would have cared. But it is not necessary for me to assume he must have cared or that his caring was the deciding factor when we know the naming customs of the Seven Kingdoms. You could just as well say that it was a lord's call whether to give his bastard a bastard's name - it wasn't: society saw to it that any bastard be branded with a bastard's name, not matter what the father's wishes were.

Also, if you bother to check the marriage customs of the people we are talking about - the decloaking of the bride and cloaking her into the husband's colors - it is quite clear that a bride leaves her father's house and joins the house of her husband. There is no reason that this is different when the bride happens to be an heir or a lady in her own right.

We see this also happening with royal ladies who ride dragons - in the case of Rhaena Corbray, for instance. She just married a knight yet after her marriage she was no longer a Targaryen in the same way she was prior to her marriage.

Daemon wouldn't have joined House Royce with his marriage - Rhea Royce would have joined House Targaryen. And that would have been advancement on her part, she would have greater improved her own standing, being in a much more powerful position with her own liege of House Arryn thanks to her own ties to the royal family.

Just as i can claim that any proud house would care about its name going extinct. 

 

I know how traditions work, but that tells us nothing about how the arrangement about the names are made.

 

And yes, the match was great for both parties, it would be less great for the Royces if their name were to disappear however.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sorry, that's nonsense. Westerosi noble culture lived for 8,000 years - the rare succession of women would have happened rather often in those years (although not necessarily in any of the houses we know supposedly existed for all that time in unbroken male succession) and people would have known how to deal with that.

Daemon Targaryen wouldn't have been the first prince to marry an heiress.

Ofc people would have known how to deal with that, we don't however. And i'm not sure you understand what not a normal circumstance mean, but yes, a ruling lady marrying a highborn is not a normal circumstance.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

We do know how things work in this case - we learned it from Rhaenyra and Laenor. We have no reason to assume there were special rules for heiresses to pass on their names to their children.

We did not learn much from them, precisely because Rhaenrya did not have children while being Queen, only while she was pincess. And because yes, the children would change their names more likely than not.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason to expect that a dragonriding prince would allow his children to bear another name.

There is no reason to expect the Royces would accept such deal.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, I can, since that's literature and not reality. Daemon having sons wouldn't have given gay Jeyne suddenly a husband, would it? Just as it wouldn't have changed the family tree of House Arryn in a meanigful way ... unless, perhaps, in the sense that Daemon may have married an Arryn after his wife's death or may have married his children to Arryns once they were old enough for marriage.

So you're arguing that the story would've been the exact same had Jon Arryn not died??  Incredible, that's just stupid.

This is literature true, but it has its own laws and logics, and as we constantly see in the books, one factor being altered has massive effects on it. Saying, it's literature is an incredibly simplistic view, We don't expect Aegon 1 to be reborn again riding a direwolf because it's literature not reaility.

 

- Jeyne Arryn was not gay.

 

It would not have changed the tree family of the Arryn, it very well could change the relationship between the Arryns, being them much more close between them, hence no succesion war, or it could mean that the coz would go over Daemon, ie more trouble. Or a bunch of other alternatives i'm too lazy right now to count,

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, if you try to make an argument try to make better points. Vhagar was claimed by Aemond without the Crown's approval, no? There is no reason to believe Viserys I would have forbidden his brother's trueborn children a dragon. Nor is there any reason that the giving of dragon eggs depended on the parents being dragonriders - Alyn Velaryon wasn't a dragonrider yet his daughter Laena got a dragon egg in her cradle still, and that during the reign of a king who despised dragons.

I should make absolutisms like you do.

Vhagar was claimed without the Crown's approval, there is no guarantee that with Carasex things may go like that. Since we have no reason to believe how Viserys would've acted with Daemon and Rhaena, the Targs and Velaryons were kin and they all already had dragons.

 

[Lord Varys]

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

So, they all married commoners?? And people fell for that?? Maege could get away with that shit, she is from a remore island of a remote kingdom, doubt the others would be half as fortunate. 

Not all. For those who didn't we can assume they married cousins who bore the same name. Problem solved.

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

I'm not ignoring the textual evidence to the contrary, since the point is that we don't know how it works for ruling ladies and her consorts.

Rhaenrya was specifically not a ruling lady, she was a heir apparent and her children could, and moret han likely would, chang their names if they ever got near the Iron Throne.

This is wrong. Rhaenyra was the Princess of Dragonstone, ruling the island and the houses sworn to it as their liege. She even dispensed justice when she had Vaemond Velaryon executed.

And she married Laenor Velaryon when she came of age and started to rule her own lordship/principality herself.

Again you repeat baseless claims. There is no indication that Rhaenyra's sons would have changed their names under any circumstances. If the king had Rhaenyra had wanted them to be Targaryens they would have made them such at birth. Just as you seem to claim the Royces would have seen to it that Daemon's children would have been born Royces, not Targaryens.

Or are you now moving goal posts and claim only the son or daughter succeeding Rhea would have taken the Royce name? But then they would have grown up as Targaryens, like the sons of Laenor Velaryon grew up as Velaryons and not as Targaryens (while their half-brothers and half-sisters on Daemon's side - Baela and Rhaena and Aegon and Viserys - grew up as Targaryens because they had a Targaryen father).

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

Just as i can claim that any proud house would care about its name going extinct. 

Who said anything about the name going extinct? Rhea Royce isn't House Royce, there were other Royces who inherited the name and they didn't marry a Targaryen prince as far as I know.

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

I know how traditions work, but that tells us nothing about how the arrangement about the names are made.

No reason to assume such arrangements were made, since there is not the slightest reason to assume the Royces had any way to convince the Targaryens to see their point of view.

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

And yes, the match was great for both parties, it would be less great for the Royces if their name were to disappear however.

Only if they gave a damn about their name. Why are you so obsessed with the idea that a Royce man would presume his daughter or sister could pass on her name when he presumed to give his children his name rather than the name of his wife?

And why do you think people would care about trivialities like names and not about realities like bloodlines and children and dragons. Those Targaryen sons of Daemon's would be Royces on their mother's side.

It might be difficult to grasp for you but this is how dynasties change. The man carries the name, the woman's name does not carry. And this is understood in Westeros. That's why nobody calls himself 'Gardener' or 'Hoare' these days, despite the fact that there are still descendants of those house through the female line around. Even Qhorin Volmark never changed his name to Hoare despite the fact that he was a great-nephew of Harwyn Hardhand and a second cousin of Harren the Black.

The Baratheons proudly bear the name of their baseborn father, an alleged bastard, while abandoning the royal name of Durrandon. Why do you fool yourself into believing anyone in this patriarchal world would put his mother's name before his father's?

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

Ofc people would have known how to deal with that, we don't however. And i'm not sure you understand what not a normal circumstance mean, but yes, a ruling lady marrying a highborn is not a normal circumstance.

That is nonsense. In the history of the Seven Kingdoms this would just be as normal a instance as anything else. It wouldn't have happened as often as other cases but it would have happened often enough. It is not that rare an occurrence that a man fails to father a son no matter how often he tries. And if that happens to a lord then you have to deal with that kind of thing.

Unless, we assume, that in most of the Seven Kingdoms women were regularly pushed aside and not allowed to succeed. Ruling queens are confirmed only for the Reach (and there is no indication that this Gardener queen had children or that the line of House Gardener continued through her), meaning that the five other kingdoms may have had neither ruling queens nor ruling ladies. And if that wasn't the case, then the question of whose name would prevail would have never arisen.

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

We did not learn much from them, precisely because Rhaenrya did not have children while being Queen, only while she was pincess. And because yes, the children would change their names more likely than not.

See above. And again: Baseless claim. You don't know who would want to change his name or not. You have no evidence of any kind to back up your claim.

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

There is no reason to expect the Royces would accept such deal.

There is no reason to assume they would even be asked, much less bring this issue up.

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

So you're arguing that the story would've been the exact same had Jon Arryn not died??  Incredible, that's just stupid.

This is literature true, but it has its own laws and logics, and as we constantly see in the books, one factor being altered has massive effects on it. Saying, it's literature is an incredibly simplistic view, We don't expect Aegon 1 to be reborn again riding a direwolf because it's literature not reaility.

No, we don't see any of that, because we have simply one version of events - the ones in the story. And when we change an element we change precisely the element we want to change. When I say only one element changed in my scenario, and you do not agree, then we aren't talking about the same thing. I see no reason to care about your scenario if I want to talk about mine.

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

- Jeyne Arryn was not gay.

It is very much implied that she was. Even if she wasn't - she never married and I don't imagine a scenario where she was married. Not to mention that if she married a man who wasn't an Arryn himself her children wouldn't have been Arryns anymore.

15 minutes ago, frenin said:

I should make absolutisms like you do.

Vhagar was claimed without the Crown's approval, there is no guarantee that with Carasex things may go like that. Since we have no reason to believe how Viserys would've acted with Daemon and Rhaena, the Targs and Velaryons were kin and they all already had dragons.

Why shouldn't give Viserys I dragons to his nephews and nieces? He does do that in the book, and there is no reason he wouldn't do the same thing in a scenario where his brother had children with a different woman.

All I needed to establish to refute your falacious claim was to point out that there were dragons who were claimed without the Crown's leave.

On what do you base your falacious claim that the Velaryons only got dragons because they already had some? Rhaenys was a dragonrider - like Daemon - marrying a Velaryon who wasn't a dragonrider (like Daemon married Rhea) yet his children got dragons of their own, did they not? On what esoteric assumption do you base your claim some Royce-Targaryens wouldn't have been treated the same?

And, frankly, Viserys I was no dragonrider himself when his daughter Rhaenyra or his half-Hightower children were born - yet he allowed them all dragons. Why is that, when he himself and Alicent and Aemma (presumably) weren't dragonriders?

[frenin]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not all. For those who didn't we can assume they married cousins who bore the same name. Problem solved.

What if there are no cousins?? What if all the cousins are girls?? What happens if the ruling lady accesses to the lordship while already married what if...

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

This is wrong. Rhaenyra was the Princess of Dragonstone, ruling the island and the houses sworn to it as their liege. She even dispensed justice when she had Vaemond Velaryon executed.

And she married Laenor Velaryon when she came of age and started to rule her own lordship/principality herself.

It's not wrong, Prince of dragonstone is not an hereditary title, as it becomes with Robert. It's a Dauphiné. Not that what she did to Vaemond was dispensing justice, more like a para legal execution with the crownlooking the other way.

 

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Again you repeat baseless claims. There is no indication that Rhaenyra's sons would have changed their names under any circumstances. If the king had Rhaenyra had wanted them to be Targaryens they would have made them such at birth. Just as you seem to claim the Royces would have seen to it that Daemon's children would have been born Royces, not Targaryens.

The Throne is Targaryen, so it stands to reason that it continues to be like that, whomever sits in there. Changing gives the same result and only Jace would regardless.

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 Or are you now moving goal posts and claim only the son or daughter succeeding Rhea would have taken the Royce name? But then they would have grown up as Targaryens, like the sons of Laenor Velaryon grew up as Velaryons and not as Targaryens (while their half-brothers and half-sisters on Daemon's side - Baela and Rhaena and Aegon and Viserys - grew up as Targaryens because they had a Targaryen father).

No, i believe that all her children would be Royces, Royal families and their shenanigans tend to be different.

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Who said anything about the name going extinct? Rhea Royce isn't House Royce, there were other Royces who inherited the name and they didn't marry a Targaryen prince as far as I know.

If Harry goes by Hardyng instead of Arryn, there are still the Gulltowns Arryn.

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No reason to assume such arrangements were made, since there is not the slightest reason to assume the Royces had any way to convince the Targaryens to see their point of view.

And they could simply... balk at the bethrothal.

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Only if they gave a damn about their name. Why are you so obsessed with the idea that a Royce man would presume his daughter or sister could pass on her name when he presumed to give his children his name rather than the name of his wife?

Not obsessed, people usually care about that stuff. Proud and old famillies tend to give two damns about that.  A Royce man?? Don't know, a Royce lord however... because he wants Runestone still going by the Royces of Runestone.

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 And why do you think people would care about trivialities like names and not about realities like bloodlines and children and dragons. Those Targaryen sons of Daemon's would be Royces on their mother's side.

Because names are not trivialities.

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 It might be difficult to grasp for you but this is how dynasties change. The man carries the name, the woman's name does not carry. And this is understood in Westeros. That's why nobody calls himself 'Gardener' or 'Hoare' these days, despite the fact that there are still descendants of those house through the female line around. Even Qhorin Volmark never changed his name to Hoare despite the fact that he was a great-nephew of Harwyn Hardhand and a second cousin of Harren the Black.

It's not difficult to grasp. Nobody calls themselves Hoares or Gardeners because they married into ruling lords, not the other way around. It seems that you're the one not getting it.

Qhorin Volmark never got to reign. Joffrey Lyndden however did change his name, as Harryis about to do.

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

 The Baratheons proudly bear the name of their baseborn father, an alleged bastard, while abandoning the royal name of Durrandon. Why do you fool yourself into believing anyone in this patriarchal world would put his mother's name before his father's?

And the Boltons and the Lannisters after they got rid of the Casterlys, don't you understand the difference between peaceful transition and violent change of regime??

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no reason to assume they would even be asked, much less bring this issue up.

There is every reason to assume they would ask, it's their name. And they would be asked, since Alyssane can't just force marriages without the parties consent.

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, we don't see any of that, because we have simply one version of events - the ones in the story. And when we change an element we change precisely the element we want to change. When I say only one element changed in my scenario, and you do not agree, then we aren't talking about the same thing. I see no reason to care about your scenario if I want to talk about mine.

I don't ask you to care, i ask you to understand thatone important change leads to more important changes.Your scenarion would simply not happen.

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It is very much implied that she was. Even if she wasn't - she never married and I don't imagine a scenario where she was married. Not to mention that if she married a man who wasn't an Arryn himself her children wouldn't have been Arryns anymore.

Is very much implied every women who was a bit masculine or dominant was.

And we got back to the circular argument.

 

 

16 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why shouldn't give Viserys I dragons to his nephews and nieces? He does do that in the book, and there is no reason he wouldn't do the same thing in a scenario where his brother had children with a different woman.

Why should Viserys want to give dragons to none dragonriders Houses?? He gives dragons to familes that lready have several dragonriders.

 

The rest is just the same.

 

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, frenin said:

What if there are no cousins?? What if all the cousins are girls?? What happens if the ruling lady accesses to the lordship while already married what if...

If there were no male cousins the children of Lady Oakheart and Lady Waynwood would have different names.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

It's not wrong, Prince of dragonstone is not an hereditary title, as it becomes with Robert. It's a Dauphiné. Not that what she did to Vaemond was dispensing justice, more like a para legal execution with the crownlooking the other way.

It doesn't have to be a hereditary title (although it was occasionally, for instance, when Jaehaerys I granted Dragonstone as seat to Rhaena her daughter Aerea would have inherited said seat from her if she had lived) to be a proper lordship. And it is that for the holders of the title when it is given. Like the Prince of Wales or the Prince of Dorne the Prince of Dragonstone rules his domain (or did so, when the title still had meaning, as it did when Edward II became the first Prince of Wales).

4 hours ago, frenin said:

The Throne is Targaryen, so it stands to reason that it continues to be like that, whomever sits in there. Changing gives the same result and only Jace would regardless.

The Iron Throne is not 'Targaryen'. The Iron Throne is a seat of power where the royal bloodline sits, and it doesn't matter what name they have when they sit there nor do they have to change it to fit.

There isn't the slightest indication that Jacaerys Velaryon or Joffrey Velaryon or Laenor Velaryon would have changed their names. That's just in your head.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

No, i believe that all her children would be Royces, Royal families and their shenanigans tend to be different.

No basis for that claim.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

If Harry goes by Hardyng instead of Arryn, there are still the Gulltowns Arryn.

Who doubted that?

4 hours ago, frenin said:

And they could simply... balk at the bethrothal.

But they did not, did they?

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Not obsessed, people usually care about that stuff. Proud and old famillies tend to give two damns about that.  A Royce man?? Don't know, a Royce lord however... because he wants Runestone still going by the Royces of Runestone.

On what do you base stuff like that? Has anyone in the books ever expressed sadness or concern that a particular noble name - not a bloodline, a name - died out? There are no such instances.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Because names are not trivialities.

They are. People and their ancestry matter, the heraldry matters, but not really their names.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

It's not difficult to grasp. Nobody calls themselves Hoares or Gardeners because they married into ruling lords, not the other way around. It seems that you're the one not getting it.

Well, if you are the descendant of a king and presume to have a claim to Highgarden it is silly to call yourself 'Florent', right?

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Qhorin Volmark never got to reign. Joffrey Lyndden however did change his name, as Harryis about to do.

Qhorin Volmark presumed to reign and ruled as a pretender for over a year. Joffrey Lydden did not change his name, a council changed his name and decided that he should rule, indicating that people do not just change their names on a whim.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

And the Boltons and the Lannisters after they got rid of the Casterlys, don't you understand the difference between peaceful transition and violent change of regime??

The Lannisters are named after their patriarch Lann - they honor him, not their female ancestors.

There was not necessarily a violent regime change in the case of House Casterly. If there was a peaceful transition then this would one of those cases where a great noble line dies out because the male line dies out and the female line descendants take the name of their male progenitor - as it should be and always was.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

There is every reason to assume they would ask, it's their name. And they would be asked, since Alyssane can't just force marriages without the parties consent.

There is no indication Alysanne had anything to do with that match.

Stop pulling shit out of your ass. There is no indication that anyone would bring up this issue and thus not indication that anyone would have to agree or disagree on anything.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

I don't ask you to care, i ask you to understand thatone important change leads to more important changes.Your scenarion would simply not happen.

It did, because it is my scenario. I brought it up. I don't care about your opinion on that one.

4 hours ago, frenin said:

Why should Viserys want to give dragons to none dragonriders Houses?? He gives dragons to familes that lready have several dragonriders.

LOL, Daemon was a dragonrider. He would have introduced a dragon to House Royce just as Rhaenys introduced a dragon to House Velaryon. And then Rhaenys' children got dragons like Daemon's would have gotten, too.

[frenin]

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If there were no male cousins the children of Lady Oakheart and Lady Waynwood would have different names.

Because you say so...

 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It doesn't have to be a hereditary title (although it was occasionally, for instance, when Jaehaerys I granted Dragonstone as seat to Rhaena her daughter Aerea would have inherited said seat from her if she had lived) to be a proper lordship. And it is that for the holders of the title when it is given. Like the Prince of Wales or the Prince of Dorne the Prince of Dragonstone rules his domain (or did so, when the title still had meaning, as it did when Edward II became the first Prince of Wales).

A dauphiné is not a principality, The title Prince of Dragonstone is the equivalent to the title of Prince of Wales, after Edward I conquered it, the title of Prince of Asturias in Spain or the title of Dauphin de France, it's a sign to acknowledge the heir apparent.

You're right that Jaeharys transformed Dragonstone to a lordship for Rhaena for a while but that idea died with her. The Princes of Dragonstone, be it Maegor or Aemon and the long co weren't lords nor it was Dragonstone considered a lordship then.

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Iron Throne is not 'Targaryen'. The Iron Throne is a seat of power where the royal bloodline sits, and it doesn't matter what name they have when they sit there nor do they have to change it to fit.

There isn't the slightest indication that Jacaerys Velaryon or Joffrey Velaryon or Laenor Velaryon would have changed their names. That's just in your head.

The Iron Throne is pretty much Targ and at that time the simbology was clearly Targ and the Targ name was the symbol of royal power.

There is no slightest indication because none of them ever lived enough to worry about it.

 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No basis for that claim.

That royalty follows different shenanigans?? That can be pretty much seen when none of the Queens ever got to adopt the King's name.

 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Who doubted that?

Then the in your opinion the name Arryn does not suffer any setback whatsoever??

 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But they did not, did they?

Sure, might it be because they actually got what they might wanted??

 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

On what do you base stuff like that? Has anyone in the books ever expressed sadness or concern that a particular noble name - not a bloodline, a name - died out? There are no such instances.

Sure, Harry the heir is the biggest exaple we have, that and the fact that we still call them Lannisters of Casterly Rock.

 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

They are. People and their ancestry matter, the heraldry matters, but not really their names.

Their names is what set one family apart from another, in an inbreeding society like Westeros in which everyone is everyone's cousin, names are important.

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, if you are the descendant of a king and presume to have a claim to Highgarden it is silly to call yourself 'Florent', right?

Don't know why, since they never got near around Highgarden in the first place, you know, get the seat first worry about the rest later.

 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Qhorin Volmark presumed to reign and ruled as a pretender for over a year. Joffrey Lydden did not change his name, a council changed his name and decided that he should rule, indicating that people do not just change their names on a whim.

Qhorin Volmark spent an entire year warring the rest of the pretenders, he did not rule over anything, he is not even counted as King.

Sure Lydden got to change his name by the same people who made him King, they did not decide to start a new House, House Lydden of Casterly Rock, but people for some ethereal reason decide that such an ancient name should not disappear if could be avoided. Nor there is any whim in the decision, avoiding a name from going extinct is not a whim. Btw, Lydden did change his name.

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The Lannisters are named after their patriarch Lann - they honor him, not their female ancestors.

There was not necessarily a violent regime change in the case of House Casterly. If there was a peaceful transition then this would one of those cases where a great noble line dies out because the male line dies out and the female line descendants take the name of their male progenitor - as it should be and always was.

Makes complete sense that the Lannisters are named after their patriarch Lann, Lann took over Casterly Rock, there was no peaceful transition there.

I don't know why you say that it's as it should be and as it always was, the Lannisters are not called Lyddens.  The Lannisters come all from the female line since who knows when.

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

There is no indication Alysanne had anything to do with that match.

Stop pulling shit out of your ass. There is no indication that anyone would bring up this issue and thus not indication that anyone would have to agree or disagree on anything.

 ?????? Targ matches were Alysanne's thing for a while, we're told that the one marrying Rhea and Daemon, what are the odds that she had nothing to do with the match?? If we go by that flimsy assumption, perhaps no one had anything to do with that match...

I love how the absence of evidence only works for you, never against.

 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

It did, because it is my scenario. I brought it up. I don't care about your opinion on that one.

Why you argue then?? We are all bored by the confinement but if you don't want to read disagreement nor are you willing to  not argue in bad faith is as simple as stop replying.  If there are dragonriding offsprings of Daemon in the Vale, how no one has claimed the Iron Throne but are about to claim the Eyrie?? So many questions....

Your scenario is ludicrous because it ignores many factors, that's all. 

 

20 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

LOL, Daemon was a dragonrider. He would have introduced a dragon to House Royce just as Rhaenys introduced a dragon to House Velaryon. And then Rhaenys' children got dragons like Daemon's would have gotten, too.

When did Daemon become dragonrider again??

[Ellaena]

On 3/26/2020 at 1:51 AM, Lord Varys said:

I'm pretty sure any child of Daemon Targaryen's would have been named Targaryen. Anything else is pretty much inconceivable. Meaning that Rhea's heirs would have been no longer the Royces of Runestone but the Targaryens of Runestone.

And that would have been clear when this marriage was made.

Honestly, I have to agree with the other comments. While we don't know what the arrangement was in regards to the name of Rhea's children, same as Rhaenyra's, I find it hard to believe that the heir would keep the name of the father and not the house which he/she inherits. Rhaenyra's boys were named Velaryon, true, but one would think that the heir would take the throne under Targaryen. I don't think any Targaryens and for that matter any Royces would accept for the throne/ancestral seat to switch to a new dynasty. 

Now, true, this is never addressed in the text so it's all speculation, but going by what we know of Westeros, the Targaryens, and their customs I doubt any house would concede their titles and lands to a different name unless they were forced by a series of circumstances where they had no other choice, nor enough power to prevent it. 

To me the easiest solution to the problem would be that the heir carries on the name of the house he/she inherits and the other children get to keep daddy's name.

[Lord Varys]

24 minutes ago, Ellaena said:

Honestly, I have to agree with the other comments. While we don't know what the arrangement was in regards to the name of Rhea's children, same as Rhaenyra's, I find it hard to believe that the heir would keep the name of the father and not the house which he/she inherits. Rhaenyra's boys were named Velaryon, true, but one would think that the heir would take the throne under Targaryen. I don't think any Targaryens and for that matter any Royces would accept for the throne/ancestral seat to switch to a new dynasty. 

Now, true, this is never addressed in the text so it's all speculation, but going by what we know of Westeros, the Targaryens, and their customs I doubt any house would concede their titles and lands to a different name unless they were forced by a series of circumstances where they had no other choice, nor enough power to prevent it. 

To me the easiest solution to the problem would be that the heir carries on the name of the house he/she inherits and the other children get to keep daddy's name.

You see how it goes with the Baratheons. Orys claimed the last Durrandon, but he didn't give her children her name, did he?

If they had cared about preserving 'house names', Rhaenyra's sons would have been Targaryens because all her sons were immediate heirs to the throne, not just Jace.

And the point with Daemon's match was to ensure that he had a seat and his sons after him, too. The Targaryens were taking over Runestone there, and it makes no sense they would defer to the wiles of the woman there. Rhea could rule Runestone as long as she lived, of course, but after her a Targaryen son of hers and Daemon would take over. That's how these things go, the Targaryens had dragons at the time and they were the royals. Nobody has to assume they gave two cents about the Royce name.

It is just very unusual that a son takes the name of his mother (outside Dorne).

[Ellaena]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

And the point with Daemon's match was to ensure that he had a seat and his sons after him, too. The Targaryens were taking over Runestone there, and it makes no sense they would defer to the wiles of the woman there. Rhea could rule Runestone as long as she lived, of course, but after her a Targaryen son of hers and Daemon would take over. That's how these things go, the Targaryens had dragons at the time and they were the royals. Nobody has to assume they gave two cents about the Royce name.

There is no textual evidence for this statement. All we know is the match was made and we can safely assume Daemon was marrying an heiress because she came with lands and a seat while he had no right to any as a 2nd son. We know nothing about how the succession of their heirs would have been handled and I'm happy to agree to this.

But I do find it curious that you would think the Targaryens would so publicly demand the Royces give up their ancestral seat (in name) to a Targaryen cadet branch because they wanted to take over Runestone but at the same time be happy for the crown to transfer to the Velaryon name. The two ideas just do not marry.

Also, the idea that Jaehaerys or Viserys could publicly annexe a house of the age and prestige of the Royces of Runestone without any pushback doesn't sit well with me, because on one hand Jaehaerys understood the importance of diplomacy and Viserys was a man averse to conflict. Neither of them strike me as the type to seize a noble houses lands in this manner (forming a Targaryen cadet branch of Runestone would implicitly do exactly this as the Royces will no longer be the ruling lords although the bloodline would continue). Nor do I think the Royces would happily agree to this.

As for the case of Orys Baratheon, again speculating, his name took precedence because the Durrandons were conquered. I don't think Argella had much say in the match or what happened to her house afterwards, which is not the case with the Royces or the Targaryens at the time of Viserys I. As I have said previously, I don't see any Westerosi house, be it small or big, willingly transferring their ancestral seat to another dynasty that does not bear their name IF they can help it. 

Your statement that this is just standard has no basis in the text because truth be told there is no mention whatsoever to this conundrum so we are all left speculating.

Lastly, just to clarify, I was speculating that all the children would automatically have the father's name, however when it came time for one of them to inherit they would do so under the ancestral home name and not before that; in the same manner a monarch would change or choose their regal name upon ascending the throne in our real world (Queen Victoria). So there is no need to have all children bear the ancestral name from birth. This, I think, would be more consistent with the Westerosi society we know. 

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Ellaena said:

There is no textual evidence for this statement. All we know is the match was made and we can safely assume Daemon was marrying an heiress because she came with lands and a seat while he had no right to any as a 2nd son. We know nothing about how the succession of their heirs would have been handled and I'm happy to agree to this.

We see Daemon trying to lay claim to Runestone as Rhea's widower after her death. It doesn't work but this shows what this whole thing was about - a way to ensure that Daemon (or his sons) had a lordship of their own.

1 hour ago, Ellaena said:

But I do find it curious that you would think the Targaryens would so publicly demand the Royces give up their ancestral seat (in name) to a Targaryen cadet branch because they wanted to take over Runestone but at the same time be happy for the crown to transfer to the Velaryon name. The two ideas just do not marry.

My point is that this is a patriarchal and patrilinear world. The men command, the women obey, even if they are ruling ladies they swear to obey their lord husband as part of their wedding vows. They nearly got Daenerys to submit to Hizdahr as her lord husband.

That is the reason why Rhaenyra Targaryen's sons got the name of their father, not the more prestigious name of their mother. It is also the reason why Princess Rhaenys' children were named Velaryon rather than Targaryen despite the fact that it was clear even before Laena's birth that Rhaenys and Corlys wanted their children to take the Iron Throne.

And it is also the reason why we should assume that Daemon would have passed his name to his children ... because he was the man. And chances are about zero, in my opinion, that any child of Rhea's and Daemon's would have thought they would need to call themselves 'Royce' to rule at Runestone. They are Targaryens on their father's side, they can become dragonriders and stuff, they even have a weak claim to the Iron Throne.

The Royces can not possibly think they have the nobler and more prestigious name than the Targaryens ... who rule all of Westeros. Everybody having the legal right to the Targaryen name should want to have it ... and the trueborn sons of a Targaryen prince do have that right.

1 hour ago, Ellaena said:

Also, the idea that Jaehaerys or Viserys could publicly annexe a house of the age and prestige of the Royces of Runestone without any pushback doesn't sit well with me, because on one hand Jaehaerys understood the importance of diplomacy and Viserys was a man averse to conflict. Neither of them strike me as the type to seize a noble houses lands in this manner (forming a Targaryen cadet branch of Runestone would implicitly do exactly this as the Royces will no longer be the ruling lords although the bloodline would continue). Nor do I think the Royces would happily agree to this.

They agreed to the match, and the standard procedure in this world is that the children go by the name of the father. There may be exceptions, but we have no indication that the case of Rhea and Daemon was such an exception.

1 hour ago, Ellaena said:

As for the case of Orys Baratheon, again speculating, his name took precedence because the Durrandons were conquered. I don't think Argella had much say in the match or what happened to her house afterwards, which is not the case with the Royces or the Targaryens at the time of Viserys I. As I have said previously, I don't see any Westerosi house, be it small or big, willingly transferring their ancestral seat to another dynasty that does not bear their name IF they can help it.

In a sense, the Royces are also conquered, if they are down to a woman and don't marry her to a Royce cousin, right? If they marry her to a man from another house they have to live with a new male line taking over their house.

Most arguments in favor of sticking to the name of the woman is tradition and ancient house ... which both are a given with the Durrandon vs. the Baratheon name (the latter is the name of a baseborn alleged bastard, basically).

It is a huge stretch to assume Rhea Royce wasn't perfectly happy with her children bearing the name of her lord husband because that's how she would have been raised. Even Rhaenyra Targaryen went along with that, after all.

1 hour ago, Ellaena said:

Lastly, just to clarify, I was speculating that all the children would automatically have the father's name, however when it came time for one of them to inherit they would do so under the ancestral home name and not before that; in the same manner a monarch would change or choose their regal name upon ascending the throne in our real world (Queen Victoria). So there is no need to have all children bear the ancestral name from birth. This, I think, would be more consistent with the Westerosi society we know. 

There is one precedent for a name change, and not for a child but rather the consort of a Lannister princess (Joffrey Lydden changed his name to Lannister when he became King of the Rock) but that needed the decision of a council.

If it were to turn out that Harrold Hardyng is going to call himself Lord Harrold Arryn if/when Lord Robert Arryn dies and he succeeds him ... then we would have a precedent for such a name change. Then I could also see Laenor and Jacaerys Velaryon changing their names to Targaryen if they had taken the throne.

But until then I go with how things seem at this point.

[The Young Maester]

The world of Westeros isn’t so different to our own medieval world.

Throughout Christendom you rarely had a case where a ruling women of her own lands would be able to pass down her family name to her children.

This was the case with Mary queen of Scots, her son was given the name of her husband Lord Darnley of Stuart. Same would have happened to queen Mary of England (daughter of Henry viii). She married the Habsburg Spanish king and England was very close to becoming another Habsburg satellite. Thankfully Mary never had children.

North of dorne, the only case in which a women can pass down her name to her sons is probably when they marry someone of much lower birth (lowly knightly house). 

[BlackLightning]

On 12/31/2020 at 11:19 AM, The Young Maester said:

North of dorne, the only case in which a women can pass down her name to her sons is probably when they marry someone of much lower birth (lowly knightly house). 

Yep.

Lowly knights, wealthy merchants, bastards and peasants.

Oh and sellswords I suppose.