Another Heirs question

[Zorbeltuss]

Dim for a Lannister?

We really don't have much evidence to suggest this. He is Tywin's sidekick, true, but what is also apparent is that if there is anyone that Tywin ever has taken council from, it is from Kevan. In one of the Tyrion chapters in SoS, Tyrion manages to see how Tywin and Kevan have planned how to get Lords Rowan, Tyrell and Redwyne to agree with what Tywin already have decided on.

He seemed rather reasonable in the one PoV we got from him, and he also is among those who actually maintains a spine when confronting Cercei in Feast.

Tywin and Tyrion are probably among the most brilliant minds in the entire series, so comparing with them is rather unfair.

Compared to Daven, Cercei, Lancel, Joffrey, Jaime and Stafford, I think Kevan manages fairly well.

[coldwind]

Kevan is not dim. He's pretty cagey, just not as cagey as Tywin. And being the loyal brother, he decided to work with Tywin rather than muck up House Lannister with petty internal squabbles.

I did say "relatively dim for a Lannister". He's not stupid, indeed he was smart enough to learn from Tywin. I find he lacks that essential brilliance that Tywin and his children possess. Tywin and Tyrion have their minds, Cercei has her looks and her own mind, and frankly Jaime is an abberition since his brilliance is all martial.

Kevan let Jaime know that he knew a heck of a lot more of what was going on than Tywin's kids thought. Personally, I found very little brilliance in Cersei's mind; I can't think of any real play she made that required brilliance that wasn't undermined by someone else playing her better.

[Kruger]

Again though, Cersei being the Lady of Casterly Rock doesn't make her, nor any of her future children, the heirs. The Lannister family power wouldn't be so precariously positioned to be on the precipice of being eliminated by a single marriage. Myrcella will never inherit Casterly Rock. That's a silly Dornish ideal, that, honestly, doesn't really make all that much sense in the context of the world either. But, then again, tings in ASoIF don't always have to make sense. I mean, why would the Greyjoys have been allowed to continue to exist if they were going to go right back to being ocean going nuisances? Why was Theon given over to House Stark if his being a hostage apparently did nothing to pacify the Iron Islanders aside from getting him to "accept the king" (well, as long as bending the knee to Robert meant that Iron Islanders could apparently still raid the coasts and such)? Though, that's besides the point.

In the end, like Cersei was allowed to be Queen Regent in the place of Tommen while he was still a boy, and while she might be allowed to rule Casterly Rock after her father's death (though we know Damion was named castellan), her line ends with her. Her children are Baratheons. They are heirs to the Stormlands, not the Westerlands. If she were to marry again, he children would be the heirs of whatever house they came from. Women have no real rights, nor own any property in most of Westeros. The line of succession in House Lannister went on to Kevan once Tywin was dead, and on to his sons when Kevan died. How do we know this? Kevan sent Cersei packing, and Tywin was going to force her to marry again. Cersei may be smart, and she may be grasping for power, but in the end, she has none if the men of her family decide she doesn't. Her power in Kings Landing lied in her control and influence over her sons. Even she admitted that.

I mean, don't get me wrong, certainly Cersei would have plans and desires to take control of Casterly Rock and the Lannister family, in the end, neither she, nor Myrcella, have any claim to it. Myrcella was a political move to cement the loyalty of Dorne to the crown. There was never any implication that it would lead Dorne to the crown, and especially not to lead House Martell to the ownership of Casterly Rock and the Westerlands. And certainly absolutely no reason to think that it would.

The most powerful noble houses didn't get to be the most powerful noble houses by throwing outcomes to the wind and hoping in fortune. Though sometimes it makes you wonder how, with all the background planning Martin did, why there aren't plenty of minor branches of the other Houses plotted out. The fact that there are dozens of Lannisters mentioned, but only one family of Starks seems a bit odd. Especially given the fact that we know Ned had three (legitimate) sons, and had at least two brothers. While we know Ned's brothers died or took the Black, what happened to all the other families from the generations prior to that? Was it Stark tradition to die or take the Black? Certainly we don't ever get told that Ned was destined to take the Black when his brother inherited Winterfell, and he tells Bran how one day he'll be a minor lord in the service of his brother. Eh. Perhaps not worth worrying about. After all, more Starks would gum up the plot more than it already is, and certainly I don't want George readinfg this thread and having to push the series out to eight or nine novels.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Was it Stark tradition to die or take the Black?

This is not as unrealisitc as it might seem at first glance.
In Germany a lot of families practiced another 'rule of three':
One heir, one son for the military and one for the church.
The son in the military often either produced only bastards or had the courtesy to die off or made a fortune for himself thus not needing the family inheritance anymore, while the son for the church was completly out of line of inheritance if catholic faith was practiced but less so in case of protestant families.
There also families with standing traditions of 'superfluous' sons joining the Teutonic order or other celibate knightly orders.

[Kruger]

Acknowledged. However, the problem is that it's directly conflicting with what we know of the fluff. Bran and Rickon were destined to be bannermen of Robb. We're told this explicitly. And there was no mention of Ned being destined to be anything else. From what we know, Benjen's decision to take the black was of his own accord. Even Jon, the bastard, is discouraged from doing it, though not vehemently. While Ned mentions that Starks have served on the wall for centuries, there's not been any suggestion that there was a mechanism in place for it.

That's why I mentioned it with tongue firmly in cheek. It really does just seem that there's no explanation as to why there are no other Starks left. Just as there was no explanation in The Sworn Sword as to why Lady Rohanne's father would doom his own family line by passing off inheritance to his daughter when there was still a male Webber who could assume control. Maybe he was just senile or something.



Edit: Fixed the wording in the first paragraph for accuracy.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Well, in Johns case that might have more to do with the fact that he is the lovechild of one Rhaegar and one Lyanna, thus being a royal Targaryen Bastard.
But yes, it would be interesting where exactly Ed would have put his sons or if they were supposed to be part of their brothers household.

[Zorbeltuss]

Westeros inheritance works like this:

The eldest son of Lord Red comes first.
The eldest daughter of Lord Red comes after her brothers.
The eldest brother of Lord Red comes after Lord Red's children.
The eldest sister of Lord Red comes after her brothers.

So essentially, example of the Lannisters:
Tywin is Lord, once he dies, you have:
Jaime, kingsguard so passed over.
Tyrion, sentenced to death in absentia and also disinherited before that, so passed over.
Cersei, which is now Lady of Casterly Rock.
Her children: Joffrey, dead and also King, Tommen, now king so passed over. Leaving us with Myrcella.
Tywin's brother, Kevan, now dead.
His son, Lancel, joined the faith or so it might seem, so may be passed over. Martyn and then Janei stands next in line.

That's how it works in theory. Truth is that it might very well come down to whichever of them that commands the loyalty of the Lannister swords. Odds are that if Cersei kicks the bucket, someone like Daven might take control.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Westeros inheritance works like this:

The eldest son of Lord Red comes first.
The eldest daughter of Lord Red comes after her brothers.
The eldest brother of Lord Red comes after Lord Red's children.
The eldest sister of Lord Red comes after her brothers.

So essentially, example of the Lannisters:
Tywin is Lord, once he dies, you have:
Jaime, kingsguard so passed over.
Tyrion, sentenced to death in absentia and also disinherited before that, so passed over.
Cersei, which is now Lady of Casterly Rock.
Her children: Joffrey, dead and also King, Tommen, now king so passed over. Leaving us with Myrcella.
Tywin's brother, Kevan, now dead.
His son, Lancel, joined the faith or so it might seem, so may be passed over. Martyn and then Janei stands next in line.

That's how it works in theory. Truth is that it might very well come down to whichever of them that commands the loyalty of the Lannister swords. Odds are that if Cersei kicks the bucket, someone like Daven might take control.

Why would being the king disqualify you from inheriting?

[Zorbeltuss]

Should Tommen live long enough to have more than one child, sure, his second son would probably get Casterly Rock if no other Lannister secured it for himself prior to this.

It's the general rule that you do not divide up or combine holdings and domains. Robert wasn't King of the Seven Kingdoms and Lord of Storm's end. He gave Storm's end to his brother. So being both King and Lord of Casterly Rock, warden of the west and so on is kinda unheard of.

[Eisen]

Here's a fun one for you guys.

House Madgul- Minor House in the Westerlands
House Marstin- Minor House in the Vale

Everyone in house Marstin dies except a 13 year old daughter. The heir of house Madgul comes in and marries her. Who gets what title?

Normally I'd say House Marstin would simply be absorbed into Madgul but in this situation the lands are not contiguous. We're also dealing with two different leige lords. I somehow doubt John Arran would sit still while some of his lands are annexed buy a Lanister vassel...

Have at it!

[Zorbeltuss]

That's where the right of giving her hand away in marriage kicks in.

In the absence of a father or other "guardian", it falls to the liege lord to arrange for a marriage, Lord Arryn would then find someone to marry her. Likely some second son of a house he wishes to reward.

[Kajani]

In reality there was often no problem for nobles to have different liege-lords, sometimes even long time enemies. That have caused troubles several times, but it happened as far as I know more than once. It comes to the question how the local lord is seeing that thing. You could write it down that the houses would be separated again in the next generation, or that the new lord must install a loyal (loyal to Arryn) steward or so. Actually house Arryn surely would not be afraid of one or two minor houses in the Vale which have strong ties to other houses. Of course who wants to hold land in the Vale must swear loyalty to the local big power.

[DaimosofRedstone]

It's the general rule that you do not divide up or combine holdings and domains. Robert wasn't King of the Seven Kingdoms and Lord of Storm's end. He gave Storm's end to his brother. So being both King and Lord of Casterly Rock, warden of the west and so on is kinda unheard of.

Says who?
I agree that the King would not claim the title of Warden, but why wouldn't he claim Casterly Rock and hand of the Wardenship to any other major noble in the Westerland?!

[Zorbeltuss]

It's the general rule that you do not divide up or combine holdings and domains. Robert wasn't King of the Seven Kingdoms and Lord of Storm's end. He gave Storm's end to his brother. So being both King and Lord of Casterly Rock, warden of the west and so on is kinda unheard of.

Says who?
I agree that the King would not claim the title of Warden, but why wouldn't he claim Casterly Rock and hand of the Wardenship to any other major noble in the Westerland?!

So Spake Martin. And as evident of what Robert did. Also, such as Brightwater keep to Garlan Tyrell, Riverrun to Emmon Frey etc, second sons being given newly taken seats. Darry to Lancel, the son of a second son. It's just the way of things, the eldest keeps the most prestigious place, and a brother or nephew gains the other.

[Eisen]

That's where the right of giving her hand away in marriage kicks in.

In the absence of a father or other "guardian", it falls to the liege lord to arrange for a marriage, Lord Arryn would then find someone to marry her. Likely some second son of a house he wishes to reward.

I actually forgot about that little twist Zorbeltuss. But in our situation the young lady has already been married to the Madgul heir. We didn't exactly give John Arryn a chance to weigh in

[Zorbeltuss]

If I were your narrator, the heir of Madgul might find himself on the way to the wall, or Lord Arryn produces a writ from the high septon annulling the marriage.

Remember what happened to Ramsay after forcefully marrying Lady Hornwood without the consent of her liege? (well, supposedly, anyway). There's a few ways to undo a marriage if you have the power to do so.

[Aran MacFiona]

Exactly what Zorbeltuss wrote.
The Magdul Heir needs the consent of his future bride liege Lord for the marriage to be legal. Or he must bed her and make her pregnant before the liege Lord could get the Septons to annul the marriage. And that might not be enough to stop the liege Lord to have him killed if he's really pissed by this marriage.
On second thought that might the best move if it's a boy who's born from this marriage and the father dies, then guess who is the new heir of both land in the Vale and the Westerland ?

[vonpenguin]

Exactly what Zorbeltuss wrote.
The Magdul Heir needs the consent of his future bride liege Lord for the marriage to be legal. Or he must bed her and make her pregnant before the liege Lord could get the Septons to annul the marriage. And that might not be enough to stop the liege Lord to have him killed if he's really pissed by this marriage.
On second thought that might the best move if it's a boy who's born from this marriage and the father dies, then guess who is the new heir of both land in the Vale and the Westerland ?

I'm a player in the aforementioned game and we resolved this. Our Liege pulled strings to get us an official hearing with the small council instead of having our heir's head deliver to Jon Ayrrn like he asked. We had a witness from another house that was involved testify in our defense and while we weren't able to keep the land the GM was nice enough to say that one of our neighbors had a legitimate claim in the vale and were willing to trade their Westerland territory for our new one. Our kind and lovely Heir then demanded that the small council annul his marriage now that the girl was no use to him and we had to drag him bodily from the chamber. One bribe to a septon later and we have one homeless thirteen year old former noblewoman and one royally pissed hand of the king.

And this character has the honor-bound flaw.

[Paedrig]

Did not sound honorable at all - at least how i understand the drawback.
I know, honor is allways also a matter of what you see as honorable but such an acting...

Bus as i read you the 'punishment' for his (i.m.o. not so honorable) deeds might come anyway - a pissed hand of the king...

[Kajani]

Perhaps this could end in a drawback for the heir (like nemesis if the house of the former bride had any people who could vow revenge) or similar...

[Eisen]

Everything turned out fine for our honorable heir. Anyone from the other house who could have sworn revenge was swiftly killed off. I have a feeling the Hand of the King will soon suffer a similar fate

[Kajani]

That let the question open what IS honorable in this case. I mean, if someone has the drawback (out of free will, I guess), his char should at least a little bit act as such - not only that "re-roll 6 on deception" but also the description... And I think so much killings did often not go unpunished if there is not a very good cover-up or a very good justification or a great advantage in status against the victims.

[DaimosofRedstone]

Well, bad deeds sometimes go unpunished, which is kinda what i like about AGOT.
Thats however not to mean that they are without consequences.
Smaller houses and this point will likely be VERY careful about marriage pacts with this house (fearing otherwise everybody with a better claim that the to-be-husband will experience a severe case of death) and certain houses will frown upon this and not deal favourable with them.
All the reletations of this former noblewoman?
Expect icy courtesy at best (even if they did not like her it cost the family name) and plots to get even at worst.

Justice is not fast and narrow in the 7 kingdoms.
But there always consequences.
Sometimes the reward is its own punishment. I could very well see the young heir catch the eye of Cersei the First.