On the longevity of noble houses

[James Steller]

I know it’s an old topic, but it still puzzles me when I really think about it. Noble houses have an incredible resilience in Westeros, even when the family seems to survive through one successful breeding pair at a time. House Frey is considered an upjumped house even though they’ve been established for hundreds of years. Most of the noble houses in European history didn’t last half as long as House Frey has. Hell, House Baratheon and Velaryon are literally half as old as House Frey, but nobody gives them any trouble, even after their great benefactors - the Targaryens - are out of the picture.

But that’s deviating from my main issue - the ability for all the noble houses to endure down the millennia. We only ever hear of a house failing through losing a war or becoming attainted. Not even a plague is enough to wipe out a noble house, even when that happened so many times in our actual history. And yes, I’m aware of the fantasy setting, this isn’t something I’d use to justify giving up on the books, but it was on my mind.

 

[Alyn Oakenfist]

I would add that there are two more problems here. 

- It would make sense if everybody was as fertile as the Freys, Tullys or Lannisters, but that's really not the case. In fact a lot of noble houses seem to have only one line, with no cadet branches, Which makes it even more puzzling that they survives that long on a single branch.

- It's also even weirder that the same houses keep the same castles. Like not one ruler had only daughters, leading to the castle changing dynasties?

[The Merling King]

It’s plot device and the fact that last names mean more to GRRM then they did in the Middle Ages. If your named after your feudal territory like William of Normandy or Henry of Anjou or Edward of York its easier for houses to pass outside the family. The Starks, Lannister's, Arryns etc. all have meaningful names that are important to the story despite the fact it’s unrealistic they would last for thousands of years. Plagues could have wiped out smaller house, we don’t know about but none of the major players seem to be effected. 

GRRM definitely thinned out the Targaryens, Starks, Arryns and Baratheon's before the main series. Before that the houses could have been larger and healthier with more members and cadet branches.

Occasionally houses get replaced, obviously the Gardeners, Durandons and Hoars durring the conquest and this happened recently with the Lannister’s of Darry replacing the actual Darry line but outside of Harrenhall, it looks like the house generally stay in the family, like when Andal warrior Joffrey Lydon marries the only daughter of a Lannister king, he takes the Lannister last name. Imagine if a Gardener king married her instead and united the the 2 kingdoms? The great game would be over over.

 It also helped limit power during the Targaryens rule by not allowing heirs to multiple estates like how currently king Tommen has a claim to both Storm Ends and Casterly Rock and people believe Sansa has a claim to both Winterfell and Riverrun. If Euron kills all the Hightowers, Willas Tyrell would have a claim to both Highgarden and Oldtown. GRRM and the Targaryens did not want an Angevin Empire popping up in Westeros with a lord in control of more then one kingdom. 

But generally the houses stay in the family like if a lord only has daughters, the husband take the ancestral family name or the house passes to a distant male relative. You would however think with the rule of daughters before uncles and males cousins we would have more name changes.

[The Young Maester]

54 minutes ago, The Merling King said:

It’s plot device and the fact that last names mean more to GRRM then they did in the Middle Ages. If your named after your feudal territory like William of Normandy or Henry of Anjou or Edward of York its easier for houses to pass outside the family. The Starks, Lannister's, Arryns etc. all have meaningful names that are important to the story despite the fact it’s unrealistic they would last for thousands of years.

I most agree with this. Its all for the convenience of plot. George wants familys to rule the same seats for thousands of years.

Great houses arent the only ones. Every kingdom has a couple houses that have ruled from their respective seats for thousands of years. 

I definitely wouldve liked it more if the kings of each kingdom were replaced by other houses. This could be either through usurping or inheritance of kingship through the female line. Like lets say a cadet branch like the Karstark couldve overthrown the Starks and taken winterfell as kings. Or a house in the vale inherits the eyrie along with kingship due to the death of the house or because the line of succession went through a female line. 

[Tywin Manderly]

1 hour ago, The Merling King said:

 GRRM and the Targaryens did not want an Angevin Empire popping up in Westeros with a lord in control of more then one kingdom. 

The same applies to lords and kings having holdings in multiple kingdoms and the complexity of owing allegiance to multiple liege lords. Like the Kings of England being vassals of the King of France in respect of their French feudal holdings.

[Loose Bolt]

I assume that names of great houses had became brands. Or when lucky warlords succeeded replacing old ruling dynasties they just started to use those names. After all names like Arryn, Lannister and Stark and some others would be very valuable and useful to possible usurpers.

[Lord Varys]

That is one of the most ridiculous world-building details in Westeros. In a world where people like Littlefinger, Varys, Euron Greyjoy, Roose Bolton, etc. vie for power with their peers there is pretty much no chance that a dynasty lasts thousands of years.

It didn't help at all that many a noble house actually has First Men roots and apparently got through the Andal invasions without being extinguished. The Lannisters should have been founded only after the Andal invasion, for instance.

[Angel Eyes]

4 hours ago, Alyn Oakenfist said:

I would add that there are two more problems here. 

- It would make sense if everybody was as fertile as the Freys, Tullys or Lannisters, but that's really not the case. In fact a lot of noble houses seem to have only one line, with no cadet branches, Which makes it even more puzzling that they survives that long on a single branch.

- It's also even weirder that the same houses keep the same castles. Like not one ruler had only daughters, leading to the castle changing dynasties?

Well there was Brandon the Daughterless...

Also, it seems the Starks aren’t particularly fond of clan branches after the Greystark rebellion, nobody speaks of anybody founding Stark branches after that point, and Ned allowed Benjen to take the Black rather than found a house of his own. 

[Pdor]

It is absurd, I agree, but what I find even more absurd is that after surviving for thousands of years, so many of these ancient and everlasting houses are now at the brink of extinction. Starks, Targaryens, Arryns, Baratheons, etc. all are risking to disappear at the same time.

[Vaith]

Yes, it is pretty unrealistic. If you compared Europe in 1050 to Europe in 1350, the only dynasty that would be in power in the same country would be the House of Estridsen in Denmark. The oldest dynasty in our world is the Japanese Royal Family, and they largely stayed that way due to being more religious and spiritual rulers instead of true political players for the majority of their existence. Apparently most houses in Westeros have been going on even longer than them, though.

House names being very intimately connected to their castles makes some sense. So if there was a female inheritance, something would happen where one of her sons would adopt the family name to get the holding. That is not even unheard of in our world (e.g. Isabella, Countess of Foix's sons adopting her name after her inheritance) so being widely practised makes sense.

However, the idea that wars have only displaced houses very rarely in millennia is hard to believe. Even in terms of plain inheritance, we see in the books themselves that a cunning dynasty can try to displace another during time of chaos -- Lancel was going to be Lord Lannister of Darry, not adopt the Darry name to continue the dynasty, for example.

But I suppose part of ASOIAF's charm is how accessible it can be to everyone. There are a lot of things that have been simplified from our real world, e.g. the Faith not really having any temporal lands, foreign policy hardly being important in the main series, everyone being "Lord"... the idea that houses have been in power for millennia makes it easy to navigate the histories of Westeros, and I imagine, creates a bit less work for Martin, too.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Well there was Brandon the Daughterless...

Also, it seems the Starks aren’t particularly fond of clan branches after the Greystark rebellion, nobody speaks of anybody founding Stark branches after that point, and Ned allowed Benjen to take the Black rather than found a house of his own. 

No indication that this branch of House Stark continued. Bael's son was allegedly skinned alive by a Bolton, meaning a cousin may have continued House Stark.

[Alyn Oakenfist]

2 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Also, it seems the Starks aren’t particularly fond of clan branches after the Greystark rebellion, nobody speaks of anybody founding Stark branches after that point, and Ned allowed Benjen to take the Black rather than found a house of his own. 

Yeah well this is insanity. If there are no cadet houses, in order for house Stark to survive it means that for countless generations a boy was born to the current King, without exception. Or heck, a child regardless. If a ruler was infertile then bye bye Starks.

[Wolf's Bane]

The nobility of House Velaryon date farther back from before the conquest.  It is right to see them as an old, established house. 

The disregard for House Frey is partially if not largely due to snobbery on the part of the Tullys.  Running the business of collecting toll from everybody who uses the bridge made the Freys unpopular too. 

[Lord Varys]

The Valyrian houses might be as old as the Andal houses considering they are Valyrian. They just don't go all that far back in Westeros.

[frenin]

8 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Well there was Brandon the Daughterless...

Since that story is more fake than anything else.

 

8 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Also, it seems the Starks aren’t particularly fond of clan branches after the Greystark rebellion, nobody speaks of anybody founding Stark branches after that point, and Ned allowed Benjen to take the Black rather than found a house of his own. 

Well, they did created  the Karstarks, anyway Ned pretended  did that for his sons anyway.

 

 

16 hours ago, James Steller said:

Hell, House Baratheon and Velaryon are literally half as old as House Frey, but nobody gives them any trouble, even after their great benefactors - the Targaryens - are out of the picture.

Well, the Velaryons were already noble, just valyrian, and the Baratheon are Durrandons with a cooler name, besides those two Houses are/were far more powerful and distinguished that the Freys would likely ever be... And they weren't merchants either.

 

 

16 hours ago, James Steller said:

But that’s deviating from my main issue - the ability for all the noble houses to endure down the millennia. We only ever hear of a house failing through losing a war or becoming attainted. Not even a plague is enough to wipe out a noble house, even when that happened so many times in our actual history. And yes, I’m aware of the fantasy setting, this isn’t something I’d use to justify giving up on the books, but it was on my mind.

Does not Martin said that he likes things King size?? It's not very realistic but then again, there are a lot of things not very realistic in the books.

[Hugorfonics]

The longevity for some houses, mainly Stark, have an obvious answer on why theyre older then recorded history. Magic. 

Houses can also trace their ancestry back to some bastard who was legitimized when succession was in danger, like Jon Snow. Theres also a likelihood that many houses trace their ancestry back to an imposter, like Young Griff.

Its not impossible to imagine. Great lords live in fortresses constructed by spells and giants, social distancing themselves from their upjumped rebellious constituents. 

[Lion of the West]

I think its primary comes down to practicality. If noble houses would only last as long as they normally did, with many exceptions of course, in real history then GRRM would likely have had to invent thousands of houses instead of two to three hundred and then shift through them at a rapid pace.

The benefit of longevity of houses is that there's a less workload for GRRM and that readers can recognize houses and that noble houses are not in general a "flash in the pan" but something that we can recognize and remember as we read the story of Westeros, thus form a relation with and they can be characterized way more than can happen with houses that only show up once or twice in the history of Westeros.

Hence I think that GRRM did the right, if the not the realistic, decision here.

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Lion of the West said:

I think its primary comes down to practicality. If noble houses would only last as long as they normally did, with many exceptions of course, in real history then GRRM would likely have had to invent thousands of houses instead of two to three hundred and then shift through them at a rapid pace.

The benefit of longevity of houses is that there's a less workload for GRRM and that readers can recognize houses and that noble houses are not in general a "flash in the pan" but something that we can recognize and remember as we read the story of Westeros, thus form a relation with and they can be characterized way more than can happen with houses that only show up once or twice in the history of Westeros.

Hence I think that GRRM did the right, if the not the realistic, decision here.

Not sure how this makes sense. I mean, George never did give us a complete and unabridged history of Westeros from the Dawn Age to the present, did he?

The Starks, for instance, could easily enough be the last of a score or a hundred noble houses who ruled the North or parts of it from Winterfell. And if it is somehow relevant for the plot - which I doubt it is - that they are descended from crucial players during the Long Night, then this could be easily accomplished by them being somehow descended from those heroes.

The fact remains that the realistic power play stuff of Martin's world makes it all but impossible that longlived dynasties could establish themselves. Especially not everywhere. And especially not back in the days from before the Andal kingdoms had consolidated themselves. If what we know about the wildlings is also representative in no small part for the ancient First Men, then they were about following a strong leader, not about procedure and primogeniture and succession by lineage.

Meaning anyone living back in the day where petty kings and petty lords where killing each other all the time wouldn't have been able to establish a lasting dynasty. That would have been the people after that era.

[James Steller]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If what we know about the wildlings is also representative in no small part for the ancient First Men, then they were about following a strong leader, not about procedure and primogeniture and succession by lineage.

The First Men weren’t wildlings, though. GRRM established that many of the noble houses were originally First Men houses and they clearly established themselves around this social structure. The Andals didn’t bring civilization, all they really brought was a new religion and pretty much the only advance in technology which gets a serious reference. Even the old mountain clans and the Skagosi in the North practice primogeniture.

[frenin]

4 minutes ago, James Steller said:

The First Men weren’t wildlings, though. GRRM established that many of the noble houses were originally First Men houses and they clearly established themselves around this social structure. The Andals didn’t bring civilization, all they really brought was a new religion and pretty much the only advance in technology which gets a serious reference. 

Well they did bring the writing.