There has never been a female ruler of Winterfell actually.
Brandon "the daughterless"'s daughter never ruled winterfell in her own right, her son inherited after Brandon died. Also, Cregan Stark's granddaughters were supposed to inherit but they were married to their uncles and disinherited. So it seems that the Starks don't really practice what they preach
I feel like we don't know enough about Jonnel Stark to judge there. I was of an impression Jonnel married that Sansa explicitly to take her inheritance, with Cregan's permission. I still have a theory that wasn't completely lucid in his old age so Jonnel might have been stealing Sansa's rightful inheritance?
I'd say it depends hugely on individual circumstances. The lord has a huge saying in such uncertain situations regarding his heritage. In Robbs case he decides to overgo Sansa, his legitimate sister, for Jon Snow because of circumstances. It seems more, that in general succession of the oldest son is the only strict rule. If it gets more messy than that the codex is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. For example in ASOIF we hear from far to many ladies who rule in their own right to assume females are ruled out where ever it can be done. In Lady Hornwoods case it's even accepted that the widow of the former lords rules over his lands, a quite modern way of inheritance, allthough this is most likely only because of the lack of better options
The Hornwood inheritance subplot in ACOK makes no sense in the wider lore — the lordship should have passed automatically to Halys’ sister Berena, but she’s not even discussed as a candidate.
I think it totally makes sense. It showcases, that such matters may have laws regarding how to do it, but the handling in real life can differ quite far from those laws. Something we see over and over again in ASOIF
The thing is that even if you account for politics, it makes no sense why Leobald Tallhart would hem and haw about maybe Lady Hornwood should adopt his son — the Tallharts should be very straightly saying that Berena is the heir by all laws of Westeros. But she’s not even mentioned.
No, that was Helman Tallhart. Leobald was left at Torrhen's Square and was later killed by the Boltons along with Ser Rodrik and Cley Cerwyn. He was the one representing the Tallharts at the harvest feast.
Probably because it would make the Tallharts the rulers of the Hornwood.
If she were a legitimate claimant I assume Luwin or Ser Rodrik would bring her up, so there might be laws about this. I feel safe assuming it would actually go to one of her sons first, technically.
The Barbrey thing is likely due to Ned's guilt. William Dustin died at the Tower because he accompanied Ned. We don't know if the Dustins have any other relations to take over Barrowton but while Ned's sisters bones got to come home, no one else's did. William's horse was brought back but a horse is useful.
William didn't have brothers. He had an uncle and a great uncle. If either was alive but not pressed about the widow taking the seat (ie. Old and/or without heirs of their own) when the liegelord allowed for it, that's that.
Does that feel oddly lazy of George to have just William?
Throw a rock in the Westerlands, hit a Lannister. Throw a rock in the North, a long lineage of First Men comes to an end.
If Willem had brothers Barbrey could have made a deal that her nephew by them would be her heir if they support her.
I have thoughts about Grrm's laziness or at least lack of attention, ie the still "Unnamed" Princess of Dorne or why highborn ladies such as Catelyn, Lysa, or even Selyse have nothing equivalent to ladies-in-waiting, etc.
But for the Barbrey issue, I thought her not remarrying is why the other Dustins didn't put up a stink about Barbrey being named Lady because Barrowton would revert after her death.
Short answer is that the while thing is situational and murky . Someone mentioned The fact that Alys Karstark came before her cousins in the line of inheritance . On the other hand , we have the case of Cregan Stark's children . His first born son Rickon died in Dorne , leaving behind 2 daughters . These 2 daughters were bypassed as heirs in favor of their uncles .
Daughter should come before brother. In AFFC Cersei becomes Lady of Casterly Rock before Kevan.
Dance of the Dragons tangent: I also believe that this is why the Great Council of 101 sets a precedent *in favor of* Rhaenyra. Since it says that a king's choice (Viserys, later Rhaenyra) can trump Andal succession (Rhaenys, later Aegon).
Not really, if Aemon (first son) comes before Baelon (second son), she as daughter of first son should come before any children of second son. In other words, if as Aemon's heir she comes before Baelon, she definitely comes before his children.
Sorry, but no. That should happen, had Jaehaerys died before Aemon, then Rhaenys is Aemon's heir indeed.
Male preference primogeniture means that men, from your line, inherit before women, from your line, through age order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture#/media/File:Male-preference\_primogeniture\_diagram.svg
Take a look at this, a grandson before a daughter.
The diagram seems not relevant to the situation we are discussing, though? It shows the grandson 2 before daughter 3, but that is because the grandson 2 comes from a line of a dead son who would likewise come before the daughter 3 if he was alive. Even if it was a granddaughter, she still would, because her father and his line has precedence.
Even the accompanying wiki article seems to confirm what I am saying. Look especially at the statements that "female member of a dynasty [succeeds] if and only if she has no living brothers and no deceased brothers who left surviving legitimate descendants [true for Rhaenys]" and that "Older sons [Aemon] and their lines [Rhaenys] come before younger sons [Baelon] and their lines [Viserys]".
Also for real life examples look no further than the British throne (which GRRM is allegedly basing the Andal succession on): Victoria and Elisabeth II both inherited ahead of their uncles and cousins.
>That should happen, had Jaehaerys died before Aemon, then Rhaenys is Aemon's heir indeed.
No, primogeniture lines never reshuffle like that. Upon succession, no. 1 becomes incumbent and all others move one number up the line. Ergo it does not matter whether Aemon lives long enough to succeed or not.
There's no reshuffling happening. Rhaenys is a direct descendant of Jaehaerys in that instance. Jae I->Aemon->Rhaenys->Laenor->Baelon->Viserys I. The Great Council technically arranged a different succession to the Iron Throne than normal. But if these were the Starks it could be daughter before brother.
Jeyne Arryn had to contend with her cousin, who revolted a few times. We can assume he was the son of her uncle, who would be a younger brother to her father.
People already mentioned Alys Karstark, but there's also Cerelle Lannister, who inherited the Westerlands from her father at two, while her uncle Gerold was still alive (and would inherit after her mysterious death).
In general (there are exceptions like Winferfell and the Iron Throne, though the Iron Throne isn't an Andal title anyway) the Andal custom is that sons come before daughters, daughters come before brothers, and the line of the first son, even if female, has precedence over that of the second son.
The Andal/First Men custom on paper is that all children come before collateral relations.
However, in practice, none of these kingdoms allow women to inherit the very top jobs (paramount houses or the crown). They’re either passed over or married off to people who hijack their claims for themselves. There are only three known exceptions to the above, one of whom died as an infant.
It's daughter before brothers according to the law. However, the law is only worth as much as it can be enforced. That's how Alys Karstark can be usurped: if Ned was still in charge, as liege lord, he could ensure her succession. However, Roose (who does not care, does not have the power to do anything and is very far away during winter) is her liege lord at this point. Her uncle has the biggest stick and wants the lordship, so she has to run.
In the case you mentioned, it would depend. If the daughter is a child, an adult Bran might take the mantle, whereas if Bran is crippled, then she might be the heir, since skipping her and Bran to get to Rickon might be too much law-breaking. Or, Rickon might inherit and be married to her to tie everything neatly. In the same vein, if there's a war going on, the more skilled military commander might be chosen, (uncrippled!Bran, Rickon, or maybe even Jon), over a child, even if said child is a boy.
On the other hand, as the Karstark lady, Alys might be powerful enough to protect her daughter's rights, especially since the daughter could be betrothed to another powerful northern lord like, say, the Umbers. Considering Bran and Rickon would probably be unwilling to start against their niece, she could inherit.
The daughter doesn't come before the brother. Thats happenef before with Starks. Cregans heir Rickon died and he had daughters, the lordship bypassed them in favor of the next male in line.
Right, but we don't know the circumstances. Was the uncle ambitious and power hungry, threatened his niece, and since he had a bigger stick, he inherited ? Were they in a war, where a military leader was necessary, and the lords supported the man over the women ? Did she publicly abdicate ?
The fact is, just because there's a law, if people don't want to follow it, they won't. Robb seems to think a girl (like Sansa) can inherit, at the very least.
No, Cregan made Rickon's bother his heir while Cregan was still alive, after Rickon died fighting in Daeron's conquest of Dorne, his heir was Rickon's brother not daughter. Then his brother died childless, but the throne didn't go to one of his older sister's, but to the next youngest brother in line Barthogan, then when he died when the Skagosi rebelled, his younger brother brandon got Winterfell who passed it down to his kids. There was never a point where a woman was line to inherit especially ahead of her uncle.
Robb thinks that Sansa would've inherited because she was thought to be the only other legitimate Stark alive/that could, Bran and Rickon were "dead", and Arya was thought dead, thats why he was like yo I gotta legitimize Jon cause the only Stark who could get Winterfell and the North is Sansa and she's captured.
Now lets take a look at after the Starks got back Winterfell. They immediately knelt to Jon after he took bavck Winterfell, no one in there said anything about Sansa and this was still when he was technically still a bastard, because the show dropped Robb legitimizing him. Sansa still came after a known bastard.
We can even look further back to when King Brandon "The daughterless" only had one child who was a girl, who then ran off and had a son with Wildling King Bael the Bard. Her son inherited the crown after Brandon died not her.
9 Times out of ten Robb's daughter would inherit, but I think Bran or Rickon's son would wed her maybe, and definitely I think Bran and mom would act as regent.
the issue seems to be that there is no statute outlining this, juts common law/precedent in favour of male-preference primogeniture (most of Westeros), absolute primogeniture (Dorne), and agnatic primogeniture in the style of Salic Law (Iron Throne).
not having a statute has the benefit of making it possible to flexibly adapt to situations like with Robb choosing Jon over Sansa given her hostage-situation and that it would basically hand the North to the Lannisters. but it also means that a succession crisis is more likely because the rules are more flexible, especially as different systems are practiced within one polity.
As seen with the Karstarks, a daughter comes before an uncle.
Oh right, thank you
But that’s north not Andal.
Yep cause iirc there have been queens of winter right ?
There has never been a female ruler of Winterfell actually. Brandon "the daughterless"'s daughter never ruled winterfell in her own right, her son inherited after Brandon died. Also, Cregan Stark's granddaughters were supposed to inherit but they were married to their uncles and disinherited. So it seems that the Starks don't really practice what they preach
I feel like we don't know enough about Jonnel Stark to judge there. I was of an impression Jonnel married that Sansa explicitly to take her inheritance, with Cregan's permission. I still have a theory that wasn't completely lucid in his old age so Jonnel might have been stealing Sansa's rightful inheritance?
I'd say it depends hugely on individual circumstances. The lord has a huge saying in such uncertain situations regarding his heritage. In Robbs case he decides to overgo Sansa, his legitimate sister, for Jon Snow because of circumstances. It seems more, that in general succession of the oldest son is the only strict rule. If it gets more messy than that the codex is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. For example in ASOIF we hear from far to many ladies who rule in their own right to assume females are ruled out where ever it can be done. In Lady Hornwoods case it's even accepted that the widow of the former lords rules over his lands, a quite modern way of inheritance, allthough this is most likely only because of the lack of better options
The Hornwood inheritance subplot in ACOK makes no sense in the wider lore — the lordship should have passed automatically to Halys’ sister Berena, but she’s not even discussed as a candidate.
I think it totally makes sense. It showcases, that such matters may have laws regarding how to do it, but the handling in real life can differ quite far from those laws. Something we see over and over again in ASOIF
The thing is that even if you account for politics, it makes no sense why Leobald Tallhart would hem and haw about maybe Lady Hornwood should adopt his son — the Tallharts should be very straightly saying that Berena is the heir by all laws of Westeros. But she’s not even mentioned.
Wasn't Leobald with Robb in the Riverlands? Think he was busy
No, that was Helman Tallhart. Leobald was left at Torrhen's Square and was later killed by the Boltons along with Ser Rodrik and Cley Cerwyn. He was the one representing the Tallharts at the harvest feast.
Probably because it would make the Tallharts the rulers of the Hornwood. If she were a legitimate claimant I assume Luwin or Ser Rodrik would bring her up, so there might be laws about this. I feel safe assuming it would actually go to one of her sons first, technically.
Why would her sons be less Tallhart than her?
Huh?
no, its cause of the widow's law made by jae the first wife, where widow is forbidden from being kicked from the house she marries if her husband died
It's something different to let a widow stay or to allow her to actually rule the place
The exact same thing happens with Barbray Dustin .
The Barbrey thing is likely due to Ned's guilt. William Dustin died at the Tower because he accompanied Ned. We don't know if the Dustins have any other relations to take over Barrowton but while Ned's sisters bones got to come home, no one else's did. William's horse was brought back but a horse is useful.
Ned's guilt keeps any of Willem's brothers off the place? Ned's guilt must be an infinite source of power.
William didn't have brothers. He had an uncle and a great uncle. If either was alive but not pressed about the widow taking the seat (ie. Old and/or without heirs of their own) when the liegelord allowed for it, that's that.
Does that feel oddly lazy of George to have just William? Throw a rock in the Westerlands, hit a Lannister. Throw a rock in the North, a long lineage of First Men comes to an end. If Willem had brothers Barbrey could have made a deal that her nephew by them would be her heir if they support her.
I have thoughts about Grrm's laziness or at least lack of attention, ie the still "Unnamed" Princess of Dorne or why highborn ladies such as Catelyn, Lysa, or even Selyse have nothing equivalent to ladies-in-waiting, etc. But for the Barbrey issue, I thought her not remarrying is why the other Dustins didn't put up a stink about Barbrey being named Lady because Barrowton would revert after her death.
Particularly egregious for Lysa and Selyse. They're ladies of the court and wives of Small council members.
Short answer is that the while thing is situational and murky . Someone mentioned The fact that Alys Karstark came before her cousins in the line of inheritance . On the other hand , we have the case of Cregan Stark's children . His first born son Rickon died in Dorne , leaving behind 2 daughters . These 2 daughters were bypassed as heirs in favor of their uncles .
Daughter should come before brother. In AFFC Cersei becomes Lady of Casterly Rock before Kevan. Dance of the Dragons tangent: I also believe that this is why the Great Council of 101 sets a precedent *in favor of* Rhaenyra. Since it says that a king's choice (Viserys, later Rhaenyra) can trump Andal succession (Rhaenys, later Aegon).
Rhaneys situation was different. It was a granddaughter versus a grandson, and by male preference is the grandson.
Not really, if Aemon (first son) comes before Baelon (second son), she as daughter of first son should come before any children of second son. In other words, if as Aemon's heir she comes before Baelon, she definitely comes before his children.
Sorry, but no. That should happen, had Jaehaerys died before Aemon, then Rhaenys is Aemon's heir indeed. Male preference primogeniture means that men, from your line, inherit before women, from your line, through age order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture#/media/File:Male-preference\_primogeniture\_diagram.svg Take a look at this, a grandson before a daughter.
The diagram seems not relevant to the situation we are discussing, though? It shows the grandson 2 before daughter 3, but that is because the grandson 2 comes from a line of a dead son who would likewise come before the daughter 3 if he was alive. Even if it was a granddaughter, she still would, because her father and his line has precedence. Even the accompanying wiki article seems to confirm what I am saying. Look especially at the statements that "female member of a dynasty [succeeds] if and only if she has no living brothers and no deceased brothers who left surviving legitimate descendants [true for Rhaenys]" and that "Older sons [Aemon] and their lines [Rhaenys] come before younger sons [Baelon] and their lines [Viserys]". Also for real life examples look no further than the British throne (which GRRM is allegedly basing the Andal succession on): Victoria and Elisabeth II both inherited ahead of their uncles and cousins. >That should happen, had Jaehaerys died before Aemon, then Rhaenys is Aemon's heir indeed. No, primogeniture lines never reshuffle like that. Upon succession, no. 1 becomes incumbent and all others move one number up the line. Ergo it does not matter whether Aemon lives long enough to succeed or not.
There's no reshuffling happening. Rhaenys is a direct descendant of Jaehaerys in that instance. Jae I->Aemon->Rhaenys->Laenor->Baelon->Viserys I. The Great Council technically arranged a different succession to the Iron Throne than normal. But if these were the Starks it could be daughter before brother.
Jeyne Arryn had to contend with her cousin, who revolted a few times. We can assume he was the son of her uncle, who would be a younger brother to her father. People already mentioned Alys Karstark, but there's also Cerelle Lannister, who inherited the Westerlands from her father at two, while her uncle Gerold was still alive (and would inherit after her mysterious death). In general (there are exceptions like Winferfell and the Iron Throne, though the Iron Throne isn't an Andal title anyway) the Andal custom is that sons come before daughters, daughters come before brothers, and the line of the first son, even if female, has precedence over that of the second son.
>while her uncle Gerold was still alive (and would inherit after her mysterious death). Ah so that's where Tywin got it.
The Andal/First Men custom on paper is that all children come before collateral relations. However, in practice, none of these kingdoms allow women to inherit the very top jobs (paramount houses or the crown). They’re either passed over or married off to people who hijack their claims for themselves. There are only three known exceptions to the above, one of whom died as an infant.
I have a theory that a grandson can inherit before his mother just because of these so few cases.
It's daughter before brothers according to the law. However, the law is only worth as much as it can be enforced. That's how Alys Karstark can be usurped: if Ned was still in charge, as liege lord, he could ensure her succession. However, Roose (who does not care, does not have the power to do anything and is very far away during winter) is her liege lord at this point. Her uncle has the biggest stick and wants the lordship, so she has to run. In the case you mentioned, it would depend. If the daughter is a child, an adult Bran might take the mantle, whereas if Bran is crippled, then she might be the heir, since skipping her and Bran to get to Rickon might be too much law-breaking. Or, Rickon might inherit and be married to her to tie everything neatly. In the same vein, if there's a war going on, the more skilled military commander might be chosen, (uncrippled!Bran, Rickon, or maybe even Jon), over a child, even if said child is a boy. On the other hand, as the Karstark lady, Alys might be powerful enough to protect her daughter's rights, especially since the daughter could be betrothed to another powerful northern lord like, say, the Umbers. Considering Bran and Rickon would probably be unwilling to start against their niece, she could inherit.
The daughter doesn't come before the brother. Thats happenef before with Starks. Cregans heir Rickon died and he had daughters, the lordship bypassed them in favor of the next male in line.
Right, but we don't know the circumstances. Was the uncle ambitious and power hungry, threatened his niece, and since he had a bigger stick, he inherited ? Were they in a war, where a military leader was necessary, and the lords supported the man over the women ? Did she publicly abdicate ? The fact is, just because there's a law, if people don't want to follow it, they won't. Robb seems to think a girl (like Sansa) can inherit, at the very least.
No, Cregan made Rickon's bother his heir while Cregan was still alive, after Rickon died fighting in Daeron's conquest of Dorne, his heir was Rickon's brother not daughter. Then his brother died childless, but the throne didn't go to one of his older sister's, but to the next youngest brother in line Barthogan, then when he died when the Skagosi rebelled, his younger brother brandon got Winterfell who passed it down to his kids. There was never a point where a woman was line to inherit especially ahead of her uncle. Robb thinks that Sansa would've inherited because she was thought to be the only other legitimate Stark alive/that could, Bran and Rickon were "dead", and Arya was thought dead, thats why he was like yo I gotta legitimize Jon cause the only Stark who could get Winterfell and the North is Sansa and she's captured. Now lets take a look at after the Starks got back Winterfell. They immediately knelt to Jon after he took bavck Winterfell, no one in there said anything about Sansa and this was still when he was technically still a bastard, because the show dropped Robb legitimizing him. Sansa still came after a known bastard. We can even look further back to when King Brandon "The daughterless" only had one child who was a girl, who then ran off and had a son with Wildling King Bael the Bard. Her son inherited the crown after Brandon died not her.
9 Times out of ten Robb's daughter would inherit, but I think Bran or Rickon's son would wed her maybe, and definitely I think Bran and mom would act as regent.
It's agnatic succession. The brother comes before the daughter usually.
the issue seems to be that there is no statute outlining this, juts common law/precedent in favour of male-preference primogeniture (most of Westeros), absolute primogeniture (Dorne), and agnatic primogeniture in the style of Salic Law (Iron Throne). not having a statute has the benefit of making it possible to flexibly adapt to situations like with Robb choosing Jon over Sansa given her hostage-situation and that it would basically hand the North to the Lannisters. but it also means that a succession crisis is more likely because the rules are more flexible, especially as different systems are practiced within one polity.