The ASOIAF wiki thread

[The Wondering Wolf]

@Thomaerys Velaryon

I think you are confusing the two Alans. The MUSH only includes Alan Beesbury. 

There are a few possibilities for the Tarly family tree, but in the end it comes down to the fact that Donald could have ruled after the Dance, as well.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

11 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I think you are confusing the two Alans. The MUSH only includes Alan Beesbury. 

You're right, my bad.

11 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

There are a few possibilities for the Tarly family tree, but in the end it comes down to the fact that Donald could have ruled after the Dance, as well.

OK. If Alan came after Donald, I'm guessing they are father-son since Donald's daughters did not succeeded him.

[The Wondering Wolf]

24 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

If Alan came after Donald, I'm guessing they are father-son since Donald's daughters did not succeeded him.

Maybe, but I think even if Alan had succeeded Donald, he could have been a nephew or younger brother, because the Marcher lords prefer male heirs, but that's only guesswork. Easiest solution would be that one was the son of the other (although Donald could have been the younger brother of Alan, too). Maybe we meet Lord Tarly in F&B 2.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

13 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

because the Marcher lords prefer male heirs, but that's only guesswork.

Do they ? Or is it more a Randyll Tarly thing ? We have Lady Ellyn Caron as a counter argument.

It still seems weird to me Gyldayn did not mentioned Alan Tarly at the end of the war when we know 1) Alan was a Hightower hostage and 2) Samantha Tarly was instrumental in Lyonel Hightower accepting Corlys Velaryon' offer of peace.

[The Wondering Wolf]

42 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Do they ? Or is it more a Randyll Tarly thing ? We have Lady Ellyn Caron as a counter argument.

I thought about her, too, but at least it would not surprise me if there had been women in the Marches who were passed over because of their gender. Actually I just wanted to make the point that there are so many possibilities that it's impossible to tell which one ist the likeliest of them.

49 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

It still seems weird to me Gyldayn did not mentioned Alan Tarly at the end of the war when we know 1) Alan was a Hightower hostage and 2) Samantha Tarly was instrumental in Lyonel Hightower accepting Corlys Velaryon' offer of peace.

Sure, but this happens all the time in the book. Characters get introduced and we have no idea what happens to them later.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

17 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Sure, but this happens all the time in the book. Characters get introduced and we have no idea what happens to them later.

Unfortunately yes.

[Isobel Harper]

Raymund Frey is listed as the son of Amerei Crakehall in the wiki, but Lothar Frey (son of Alyssa Blackwood) mentions to Catelyn that they shared a mother.  I don't have a book handy, so I can't look up the appendix.  

Which is correct?

For your reference: 

Quote

Lord Walder's black oak throne was empty when she entered the hall, but some of his sons were drinking by the fire. Lame Lothar rose clumsily when he saw her. "Lady Catelyn, I thought you would be resting. How may I be of service?"

"Are these your brothers?" she asked.

"Brothers, half-brothers, good brothers, and nephews. Raymund and I shared a mother. Lord Lucias Vypren is my half-sister Lythene's husband, and Ser Damon is their son. My half-brother Ser Hosteen I believe you know. And this is Ser Leslyn Haigh and his sons, Ser Harys and Ser Donnel."

 

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

@Isobel Harper Lothar is wrong here. This error has been listed in the errata.

[direpupy]

14 hours ago, Corvus Black said:

False.

The war is not being fought in Catelyn's name. It's a false equivalence. 

You are just being stubborn now, you are they only one who thinks this so maybe you should take that as a hint that your wrong.

[The Wondering Wolf]

The page of Bill Burley states he possibly was a member of House Burley. In any other case a historical character has a family name of a known house, he or she is associated with that house, so I am not sure why there are reservations in this case.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

28 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The page of Bill Burley states he possibly was a member of House Burley. In any other case a historical character has a family name of a known house, he or she is associated with that house, so I am not sure why there are reservations in this case.

I think the reservation are due to the fact that he would be a Northmen from the mountain clans in service to a Riverlands House. This is not impossible of course, but rather unusual.

[The Wondering Wolf]

1 minute ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

I think the reservation are due to the fact that he would be a Northmen from the mountain clans in service to a Riverlands House. This is not impossible of course, but rather unusual.

Why wouldn't he, though? The Blackwoods themselves descend from the north and still worship the old gods, so there is not even a huge cultural difference in that regard. And I think it makes sense for a younger son of the mountain clans to leave his home. If you go by the 'we can not say for sure' approach there are a lot of pages that would need to be revised.

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The page of Bill Burley states he possibly was a member of House Burley. In any other case a historical character has a family name of a known house, he or she is associated with that house, so I am not sure why there are reservations in this case.

I think its because he is never stated to be a member of the northern house Burley and there are examples of houses with the same name from different regions. Like house Wells which is the name of a house in both the North and in Dorne, Shell which is a name of a house in both the Vale and in Dorne, Fisher which is the name of a house in both the Riverlands and in the North and Lake which is a house in both Dorne and in the North.

He might therefore be a member of a Riverland house of the same name, thus the reservation.

[The Wondering Wolf]

11 minutes ago, direpupy said:

I think its because he is never stated to be a member of the northern house Burley and there are examples of houses with the same name from different regions. Like house Wells which is the name of a house in both the North and in Dorne, Shell which is a name of a house in both the Vale and in Dorne, Fisher which is the name of a house in both the Riverlands and in the North and Lake which is a house in both Dorne and in the North.

He might therefore be a member of a Riverland house of the same name, thus the reservation.

I see your points (and also the one made by Thomaerys). But as I said, if you followed this way accurately, many pages would need to be revised. For example, you could not associate most of the Kingsguard members with a house, because you never know if Maladon Moore and Jon Tollett actually were from the Vale houses or maybe from a house of the same name in another region. Taking this further, many historical characters who get mentioned only once or twice could not be associated with a house or a region, because the text does not explicitly say so. This would make it unnecessarily complicated, though, so I think when a character with the name of a known family is mentioned, he or she should be associated with that house by default - except there are good reasons not to do so. And in my opinion, serving a house in a different region is none. There are two Burleys mentioned in F&B, and I see no reason why only one of them would belong to House Burley.

[direpupy]

1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I see your points (and also the one made by Thomaerys). But as I said, if you followed this way accurately, many pages would need to be revised. For example, you could not associate most of the Kingsguard members with a house, because you never know if Maladon Moore and Jon Tollett actually were from the Vale houses or maybe from a house of the same name in another region. Taking this further, many historical characters who get mentioned only once or twice could not be associated with a house or a region, because the text does not explicitly say so. This would make it unnecessarily complicated, though, so I think when a character with the name of a known family is mentioned, he or she should be associated with that house by default - except there are good reasons not to do so. And in my opinion, serving a house in a different region is none. There are two Burleys mentioned in F&B, and I see no reason why only one of them would belong to House Burley.

That's a valid point to be sure and in most cases i would agree with you, but having given it some further thought i realized that in this case things are further complicated by the fact that Burley is not really a house but a clan. In clans everybody uses the clan name as a surname so he might not actually be related to the ruling family who would be what we would consider a house since as clan-leaders they would be considered lords.

[The Wondering Wolf]

2 minutes ago, direpupy said:

having given it some further thought i realized that in this case things are further complicated by the fact that Burley is not really a house but a clan. In clans everybody uses the clan name as a surname so he might not actually be related to the ruling family who would be what we would consider a house since as clan-leaders they would be considered lords.

Sure, but this actually does not apply only to clan members, but you could always ask if this Moore or that Tollett really belong to the main line or maybe rather to a knightly side branch we have not learned about so far, one could even ask if the guy is still considered noble at all because he might be so far removed from the main line he never met the current head of the house (like a Lothor Brune situation). My main point is: If you like, you can find a lot of reasons why the association of this or that character with this or that house or region is not sure.

Maybe in this particular case we can find some compromise. What about:

Billy Burley was a longbowman in the service of House Blackwood during the Dance of the Dragons.^[1][2] His name indicates some relationship to House Burley, a mountain clan in the north.

[direpupy]

13 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Sure, but this actually does not apply only to clan members, but you could always ask if this Moore or that Tollett really belong to the main line or maybe rather to a knightly side branch we have not learned about so far, one could even ask if the guy is still considered noble at all because he might be so far removed from the main line he never met the current head of the house (like a Lothor Brune situation). My main point is: If you like, you can find a lot of reasons why the association of this or that character with this or that house or region is not sure.

Maybe in this particular case we can find some compromise. What about:

Billy Burley was a longbowman in the service of House Blackwood during the Dance of the Dragons.^[1][2] His name indicates some relationship to House Burley, a mountain clan in the north.

In the case of a Moore or Tollett there is a blood relation however far back it may be, in the case of a clan with everybody using the clan name there may be no blood relation. However that does not defeat your point about there being a (potential) relation it would just not be a blood relation so i think your compromise is a good one.

I have made the change to the page.

[The Wondering Wolf]

25 minutes ago, direpupy said:

In the case of a Moore or Tollett there is a blood relation however far back it may be, in the case of a clan with everybody using the clan name there may be no blood relation.

Hm, is it actually the case that any clan member can bear the name of the clan? I don't remember that from the books.

Thanks for editing the article.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

@The Wondering Wolf I don't really know how the clans structure works as well. Apparently the Flints of Flint's Finger and Widow's Watch come from Flints younger son that left the mountains and settled elsewhere. Billy Burley fits that mould, and perhaps simply left the north to find a stable job in the riverlands.
It is not like we haven't seen "long lost cousin" of noble descent with very low status (more or less indistinguishable from regular smallfolk if it wasn't for their noble name) in the story before: Podrick Payne, Brown Ben Plumm, Lothor Brune, Eddison Tollett, Nimble Dick Crabb, ...

[Nittanian]

3 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Hm, is it actually the case that any clan member can bear the name of the clan? I don't remember that from the books.

 

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_clan#Clan_membership

Historically, a clan was made up of everyone who lived on the chief's territory, or on territory of those who owed allegiance to the said chief. Through time, with the constant changes of "clan boundaries", migration or regime changes, clans would be made up of large numbers of members who were unrelated and who bore different surnames. Often, those living on a chief's lands would, over time, adopt the clan surname. A chief could add to his clan by adopting other families, and also had the legal right to outlaw anyone from his clan, including members of his own family. Today, anyone who has the chief's surname is automatically considered to be a member of the chief's clan. Also, anyone who offers allegiance to a chief becomes a member of the chief's clan, unless the chief decides not to accept that person's allegiance.

We don't know if GRRM envisions the same for Westerosi clans, however.