A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / A Song of Ice and Fire / Jon and Catelyn

Next 20 Messages

Rania
User ID: 1711124 Jul 29th 11:57 AM
I was re-reading AGOT last night and I noticed that Jon blames Catelyn for Ned's death. He says (p. 470, US Hardback edition)

"Lady Stark is not my mother" Jon reminded him sharply. Tyrion Lannister had been a friend. If Lord Eddard was killed she would be as much to blame as the queen.

It got me thinking that any potential meeting is going between Catelyn and Jon is not going to be friendly (and that is putting it very mildly) with Jon blaming her for Ned's death and Catelyn probably enraged by the idea that of all Ned's sons the only one to survive was the bastards.

Andy P.
User ID: 2428534 Jul 29th 3:58 PM
I have often thought that the survival of the Starks will depend on Jon and Catelyn resolving their differences.

Rania
User ID: 1711124 Jul 29th 5:14 PM
Andy,
I think I agree, but I dont think that they will be easily or quickly resolved.

Bernie M.
User ID: 1689844 Jul 29th 6:27 PM
I think that if Jon were truly Lyanna's son instead of Ned's, and if Catelyn were to discover this, she would feel like a real heel for resenting Jon all these years. I could definitely see her apologizing in such a situation.

Rania
User ID: 1711124 Jul 29th 6:55 PM
Bernie,
I dont think that that is the point. Jon can't be blamed for the accident of his conception if his parents are Lyanna/Rhaegar or Ned/whoever.
If Catelyn was upset by the idea that her husband cheated on her and brought his illegitimate son to be brought up at Winterfell than she should have vented her anger at Ned. Jon is not to blame here.
I think that the only way that Jon and Catelyn can be truly reconciled is if Catelyn accepts him and starts treating him like a human being BEFORE the truth of his parentage comes out......

Bernie M.
User ID: 1689844 Jul 29th 7:46 PM
I'm not defending her behavior. I only seek to explain it. I agree that she shouldn't have vented her anger out on Jon. I'm sure that on some level, she doesn't feel that she should have vented her anger on Jon. However, I remember her expressing resentment that Ned raised Jon as if he were one of his own kids. She felt that he was flaunting his indiscretions for the world to see. I'm just saying that if she found out that this wasn't the case at all, that Jon was a reminder of his dead and beloved sister, rather than a reminder of the beautiful woman who tempted him into indiscretion, she would feel really bad. I think that if this happened, she would try to atone for her injustice to Ned (not necessarily her injustice to Jon) by trying to reconcile with Jon.

I don't think Jon is to blame at all. I think Catelyn is in the wrong, but I also know that they can never be reconciled if she doesn't make some sort of apology for her behavior. I feel that nothing short of this revelation could spur her on towards an apology.

I think you misworded your second sentence. It should read, "Jon *shouldn't* be blamed for the accident of his conception..." He can be (and has been) blamed for it. You don't see Robb or Bran on the Wall, do you?

One thing I like about GRRM's novels is how they imitate reality in that life isn't always fair. There are lots of other examples of this in the novels. Tyrion, for instance, is blamed for his mother's death. He didn't choose to cause her difficult birth, but he is mistreated by Cersei and Tywin anyways. Ned shouldn't be blamed because Cersei chose to permit Jaime to sire three illegitimate children, but he lost his head all the same.

I'm sorry for the long post... I tend to get sidetracked sometimes. To put things concisely, I'm not defending Catelyn, or condoning her behavior. However, I think that I can understand it. Sometimes we have to look beyond what is just, and settle for what is pleasant. A reconciliation between Jon and Catelyn, even if it occurs because she discovers that Jon isn't a symbol of Ned's infidelity, would be pleasant, if not necessarily just.

Rania
User ID: 1711124 Jul 29th 9:13 PM
Bernie,
Agreed Jon has been blamed and punished for the circumstances surrounding his birth.
However, the treatment of bastard children of the high nobility and monarchs in medieval Europe is not anything like what GRRM has chosen to show us
in ASOIAF. I know that it is his choice, but it is not the real world, at least not medieval Europe.
For example, an illegitimate daughter of Henry I of England was Queen of Scotland.
An illegitimate brother of Henry II became Earl of Surrey, while two of his illegitimate sons became Earl of Salisbury and Archbishop of York respectively....
I agree with your summation.
I am worried though that the Catelyn/Jon hostilities are going to cause more harm and trouble for the Starks before this is all over.

labor
User ID: 0798784 Jul 29th 10:13 PM
Rania, IIRC in medieval Europe situations of the royal/highborn bastards were very much individual case affairs. Yes, there was William the Bastard, but he was extremely fortunate that his father didn't have any legitimate children or in fact other relatives. When the royal/noble father did have legitimate children, though, situation of the bastards depended mainly on his attitude and on social position of the mother.

Certainly, there were lots of royal bastards in England and elsewhere who always remained in relative obscurity, were quite modestly provided for, their names just appearing once or twice in official documents.

But the big differences between medieval Europe and Westeros is that in Westeros even those scions of noble Houses who don't hold land are allowed to marry, and in extreme cases women can inherit the title as well as carry on and transmit the family name. Land holdings aren't splitted either, the lord inherits all but apparently has the duty to support the other family members. It is of course only possible because of the very strong anti-kinslaying taboo. Anyway, Westerosi arrangement just doesn't leave much room for bastards.
It is quite rarely that a House is depleted so much that there isn't at least a female heir or heir through the female line. Through in somewhat better medicine and hygiene (maesters) and the custom of not splitting the family lands... and the possibility of a bastard aquiring land and title seems much slimmer than in RL.

Although it seems that bastards being raised in their father's House is not as rare an occurence as Cat would like us to believe (i.e. Freys, Aurane bastard of Driftmark, sons of some Tyrell etc), Westerosi society must necessarily bar them from inheritance more strongly than was the case in the real Middle Ages or their system would crumble.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jul 30th 5:46 AM
In general, I've found the suggestion that people were "allowed" or "not allowed" to marry a bet erroneous. Yes, technically, it's right -- but marriages did happen between landless knights and daughters of more established, landed gentry, for example, and of fifth or sixth sons of some lord to someone of a less wealthy or powerful family, and so on.

Almost everyone had the chance to memory, in the end -- it just usually took a longer-than-normal time for secondary sons or knights.

Also, not sure if you're saying it's a difference or not, but women did and could inherit titles in Europe, and rule more or less on their own -- there are both French and German examples of this, I believe.

The bastard of Driftmark (and the bastard of Harrenhall, mentioned at some other point) aren't any sort of information you can base anything on. Frankly, I suspect they were fostered elsewhere, but once grown came into the service of their fathers/half-siblings/whatever, and the name is of course quite appropriate then. It is not something new, in fact, since you saw that behavior in RL quite often.

And the Tyrell bastards? We don't know if they're being raised at Highgarden, in point of fact. If they're grown adults -- which no doubt they are, seeing as they're cousins to Mace Tyrell -- they may fall under the same as I suggest for above.

The Freys are the only other unusual ones, and Walder Frey is in a class of his own as well. SO ... far as we see, Ned really does seem to be the only "usual" lord who raises his own bastard as a son in his own castle. Of course, Ned isn't very usual either . . .

Bastards are kept from inheriting anything rather more sharply though, that's true. I suspect you might see some of them being given a towerhouse and some land by their relations, if those relations have plenty of wherewithal for it, but usually they seem consigned to the life of a landless knight or fighter.

Rania
User ID: 1711124 Jul 30th 8:18 AM
Women inherited titles in Scotland and England as well.
As for second or third son not marrying the best example I can think of is William Marshal (Regent of England for Henry III), he was so far down the list of his father's sons that John Marshall (his father was quite willing to let King Stephen execute him when he-John Marshall- broke his pledge to the king while William was held as hostage, he still ended up marrying Isabella de Clare, the daughter of Richard de Clare, Earl of Pembroke (Strongbow)and future Countess of Pembroke and Lady of Leinster in her own right, her mother had been Diarmaid MacMurchada, King of Leinster's only child.
After William and Isabella's 5 sons all died childless the earldom of Pembroke passed to the de Valence family (half-brothers of Henry III through his mother's second marriage) through a daughter of William Marshall.

labor
User ID: 0798784 Jul 30th 8:27 AM
Ran, that is true, of course. Sometimes in RL a landless knight would marry (William Marshall?)... But very rarely and then the wife brought the "subsistance" dowry into the marriage. Not so in Westeros - in fact we haven't heard anything about dowries at all and Lord Freys's ah... family politics makes their existance pretty unlikely.

As a general rule in RL both (noble) bride and groom were supposed to bring enough land and other material goods into the marriage to maintain their position. That clearly isn't the way in Westeros, seeing how younger sons and daughters who aren't heirs don't own any land at all, but still routinely marry.

And while women could inherit some titles in Europe, they could only transmit others to their male offspring and there also was the system of majorat when the estates and title echeated to the crown if there was no male offspring. IIRC it was quite common in England for instance, that with female heiresses primogeniture didn't count - they were all co-heiresses until one gave birth to a boy and then _he_ inherited, etc.

All of this isn't the case in Westeros, and morever the female heirs can also transmit the House name to their offspring. What I am getting at, is that the system makes it harder for a Westerosi House to become extinct, which is almost the only case when a bastard may inherit. Endowments of land are also quite difficult, since the House lands are apparently never splitted in Westeros.
OTOH, looking at the list of Westerosi noble Houses heraldry, there are a few which incorporate bend sinister and a nod to more powerful House in their arms. Maybe they descend from some fortunate bastard?

As to the bastards who apparently live and serve with their parental House, what difference is there concerning were they were raised? Cat wouldn't have tolerated Jon as an adult in service of House Stark, I am sure... The fact is, having a bastard living with his father's House isn't nearly as extraordinary for Westerosi as Cat would like.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jul 30th 11:33 AM
Not, in fact, very rarely. That's the trouble. ;)

It has been blown out of proportion because of earlier scholars who categorized facets of medieval society in extremes. Marriage for landless men was not "rare." It just wasn't much recorded or considered, because it was a rather minor thing which had little impact on the usual flow of life in medieval society.

As to dowries, I am of the belief that they do indeed exist, given GRRM's reply to your question (as I recall, it was "What about them?") Maybe not a matter for discussion in the books, which might be what you and others would like to see, but the fact that he asks what you want to know rather than just saying they don't exist suggests to me that they're there.

As to not owning any land, well. Bran might have held a holdfast with whatever land was granted him. Certainly would have maintained his position, and of course the familial connection meant that under normal circumstances he'd do more than well enough.

The problem was Ned raising the boy as one of his sons at Winterfell, not that Jon was actually at Winterfell, in any case. Accepting him as a vaguely-related man-at-arms would have been an extremely different proposition.

And, indeed, I do not believe Catelyn would have been nearly as troubled, because by the time Jon showed up, he'd be in a position where he was not a man raised to think himself an equal of his half-siblings. Further, she would have had 16-20 years of happy, secure married life with Ned, so she could be that much more sure of his love of her when Jon appeared.

As for the arms, I do believe GRRM has stated that the bend sinisters refer to bastardy, so (like in House Vikary), I think we are indeed seeing a house descended from a bastard. :)

I agree that some of the changes he has made explain the long life of houses, but I'm not quite of the belief that his changes are so very wide-ranging. :)

labor
User ID: 0798784 Jul 30th 12:29 PM
IIRC marriages for the landless men were indeed very rare until the late Middle Ages when rich merchants began to push their way into nobility/gentry this way. William Marshall was quite an extraordinary man, celebrated knight, general and royal advisor. He got his marriage via a direct royal patronage, IIRC. Of course, some of the younger sons who married in RL weren't actually landless since the laws did allow the splitting of inheritance to some degree.

And then, the Church and monasteries/nunneries were a good way to get rid of superfluos sons/daughters one didn't want to spend wealth on to allow marriage/dowry according to their station. While admittance into religious institutions wasn't free either, it was much cheaper and a popular way to conserve family wealth.

Well, GRRM didn't say that dowries existed in Westeros. Nor are they _ever_ mentioned as consideration in the books. I.e. for instance Sansa's dowry-less state, etc.

And in fact if they did, lord Frey probably wouldn't be so eager to marry all his daughters/granddaughters off at any price (one of them was married to a hedge knight and a few to landless service gentry), but rather would try to give most of them to the Faith. I mean, he scarcely could have afforded so many dowries! And who in their right mind would want to marry their daughter/sister/relative to a Frey if they had to _pay_ for the privilege ;)?

As to bastards, IIRC Bastards of Harrenhal, Driftmark, Frey bastards etc. were clearly considered more than just "related man-at-arms". Maybe they weren't considered equal to their legitimate relatives (but neither was Jon, really), but they were clearly important.

Hm... maybe Cat would have felt better if Jon only showed up as a teenager to serve in his father's household. OTOH, since Ned undoubtedly would have visited Jon (and I don't think that it would have been very unusual for Westeros), she might also have imagined that Ned's secret love was alive and well and felt worse.

Rania
User ID: 0638514 Jul 30th 12:51 PM
About dowries is it at all possible that as in the case of the Frey proposed marriages to the Robb and Arya Stark, the dowry is actually the political and military alliegance that they would bring?

labor
User ID: 0798784 Jul 30th 1:00 PM
But Sansa's, Margaery's, etc. dowries were never discussed either! And even in case of Robb and Arya they should have been at least mentioned during the negotiations, IMHO. In RL dowries were a very important subject in marriage negotiations, indeed.

Besides, while I can see how Walder Frey might be willing to provide a dowry for his grandaughter to marry someone as influential as Robb Stark or Roose Bolton, that wouldn't be the case with most of people his other daughters/grandaughters married, the bulk of whom were either younger sons of smaller Houses or service gentry and IIRC even at least one hedge knight!

Also, again who would dowry a female relative to mary a male Frey who is xx-th in line of succession?

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jul 30th 1:15 PM
No need to get worked up about this. ;)

Sansa's marriage to Joffrey was one created by men who didn't care for business matters and who were next to brothers, and Margaery's was a marriage of necessisity to create alliance, where calling for a dowry of proper worth might be just a little ... uh, grasping. ;)

And I'm not sure if all of it is simply dowry. Yes, it's unusual that dowry does seem to be waived to some degree in certain cases (Walder Frey's get.) But pointing to Walder Frey and his family is pointing to a group that is, obviously, not at all anything near the norm.

labor
User ID: 0798784 Jul 30th 1:25 PM
Yes, but Frey's progeny still had to marry normal people... I am not getting worked up ;), but it is definitely a question I would need to pose again if it isn't explained in ASOS.

I mean me - "What about the dowries?" GRRM - "What about them?" doesn't seem very informative ;).

And frankly, I don't see how they would work in Westrosi society, where most noble grooms don't bring any property into marriage.

Ran
User ID: 0867924 Jul 30th 1:48 PM
Of course they bring property. I imagine they all have allowances, and moneys from any offices they might hold, either familial or regional, and money from other paths, and of course their equipment, utensils, horses, etc.

It's just that they don't (necessarily) bring land with them.

Rania
User ID: 0638514 Jul 30th 1:48 PM
Okay we know that in the case of the Freys promised to Robb and Arya Stark the dowries are
political and military that the Freys are bringing to the Starks?

Kadence
User ID: 2324014 Jul 30th 5:44 PM
A military alliance certainly can't be classified as a dowry. They are merely two-sided pacts for political and military support, though they often don't bring the sides as close as intended. Of course nearly all marriages between the nobility are like this, ie arranged marriages.

IMHO, GRRM's response "What about them?" in no way implies that they actually exist in Westeros. One supposes they may exist but to a lesser extent than in RL, however this quote by itself says nothing one way or the other. I believe it was merely his tongue-in-cheek way of saying, "be clearer with you questions," rather than "they exist, so what is it you want to know?"

Next 20 Messages

Rania User ID: 1711124	Jul 29th 11:57 AM I was re-reading AGOT last night and I noticed that Jon blames Catelyn for Ned's death. He says (p. 470, US Hardback edition) "Lady Stark is not my mother" Jon reminded him sharply. Tyrion Lannister had been a friend. If Lord Eddard was killed she would be as much to blame as the queen. It got me thinking that any potential meeting is going between Catelyn and Jon is not going to be friendly (and that is putting it very mildly) with Jon blaming her for Ned's death and Catelyn probably enraged by the idea that of all Ned's sons the only one to survive was the bastards.
Andy P. User ID: 2428534	Jul 29th 3:58 PM I have often thought that the survival of the Starks will depend on Jon and Catelyn resolving their differences.
Rania User ID: 1711124	Jul 29th 5:14 PM Andy, I think I agree, but I dont think that they will be easily or quickly resolved.
Bernie M. User ID: 1689844	Jul 29th 6:27 PM I think that if Jon were truly Lyanna's son instead of Ned's, and if Catelyn were to discover this, she would feel like a real heel for resenting Jon all these years. I could definitely see her apologizing in such a situation.
Rania User ID: 1711124	Jul 29th 6:55 PM Bernie, I dont think that that is the point. Jon can't be blamed for the accident of his conception if his parents are Lyanna/Rhaegar or Ned/whoever. If Catelyn was upset by the idea that her husband cheated on her and brought his illegitimate son to be brought up at Winterfell than she should have vented her anger at Ned. Jon is not to blame here. I think that the only way that Jon and Catelyn can be truly reconciled is if Catelyn accepts him and starts treating him like a human being BEFORE the truth of his parentage comes out......
Bernie M. User ID: 1689844	Jul 29th 7:46 PM I'm not defending her behavior. I only seek to explain it. I agree that she shouldn't have vented her anger out on Jon. I'm sure that on some level, she doesn't feel that she should have vented her anger on Jon. However, I remember her expressing resentment that Ned raised Jon as if he were one of his own kids. She felt that he was flaunting his indiscretions for the world to see. I'm just saying that if she found out that this wasn't the case at all, that Jon was a reminder of his dead and beloved sister, rather than a reminder of the beautiful woman who tempted him into indiscretion, she would feel really bad. I think that if this happened, she would try to atone for her injustice to Ned (not necessarily her injustice to Jon) by trying to reconcile with Jon. I don't think Jon is to blame at all. I think Catelyn is in the wrong, but I also know that they can never be reconciled if she doesn't make some sort of apology for her behavior. I feel that nothing short of this revelation could spur her on towards an apology. I think you misworded your second sentence. It should read, "Jon shouldn't be blamed for the accident of his conception..." He can be (and has been) blamed for it. You don't see Robb or Bran on the Wall, do you? One thing I like about GRRM's novels is how they imitate reality in that life isn't always fair. There are lots of other examples of this in the novels. Tyrion, for instance, is blamed for his mother's death. He didn't choose to cause her difficult birth, but he is mistreated by Cersei and Tywin anyways. Ned shouldn't be blamed because Cersei chose to permit Jaime to sire three illegitimate children, but he lost his head all the same. I'm sorry for the long post... I tend to get sidetracked sometimes. To put things concisely, I'm not defending Catelyn, or condoning her behavior. However, I think that I can understand it. Sometimes we have to look beyond what is just, and settle for what is pleasant. A reconciliation between Jon and Catelyn, even if it occurs because she discovers that Jon isn't a symbol of Ned's infidelity, would be pleasant, if not necessarily just.
Rania User ID: 1711124	Jul 29th 9:13 PM Bernie, Agreed Jon has been blamed and punished for the circumstances surrounding his birth. However, the treatment of bastard children of the high nobility and monarchs in medieval Europe is not anything like what GRRM has chosen to show us in ASOIAF. I know that it is his choice, but it is not the real world, at least not medieval Europe. For example, an illegitimate daughter of Henry I of England was Queen of Scotland. An illegitimate brother of Henry II became Earl of Surrey, while two of his illegitimate sons became Earl of Salisbury and Archbishop of York respectively.... I agree with your summation. I am worried though that the Catelyn/Jon hostilities are going to cause more harm and trouble for the Starks before this is all over.
labor User ID: 0798784	Jul 29th 10:13 PM Rania, IIRC in medieval Europe situations of the royal/highborn bastards were very much individual case affairs. Yes, there was William the Bastard, but he was extremely fortunate that his father didn't have any legitimate children or in fact other relatives. When the royal/noble father did have legitimate children, though, situation of the bastards depended mainly on his attitude and on social position of the mother. Certainly, there were lots of royal bastards in England and elsewhere who always remained in relative obscurity, were quite modestly provided for, their names just appearing once or twice in official documents. But the big differences between medieval Europe and Westeros is that in Westeros even those scions of noble Houses who don't hold land are allowed to marry, and in extreme cases women can inherit the title as well as carry on and transmit the family name. Land holdings aren't splitted either, the lord inherits all but apparently has the duty to support the other family members. It is of course only possible because of the very strong anti-kinslaying taboo. Anyway, Westerosi arrangement just doesn't leave much room for bastards. It is quite rarely that a House is depleted so much that there isn't at least a female heir or heir through the female line. Through in somewhat better medicine and hygiene (maesters) and the custom of not splitting the family lands... and the possibility of a bastard aquiring land and title seems much slimmer than in RL. Although it seems that bastards being raised in their father's House is not as rare an occurence as Cat would like us to believe (i.e. Freys, Aurane bastard of Driftmark, sons of some Tyrell etc), Westerosi society must necessarily bar them from inheritance more strongly than was the case in the real Middle Ages or their system would crumble.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jul 30th 5:46 AM In general, I've found the suggestion that people were "allowed" or "not allowed" to marry a bet erroneous. Yes, technically, it's right -- but marriages did happen between landless knights and daughters of more established, landed gentry, for example, and of fifth or sixth sons of some lord to someone of a less wealthy or powerful family, and so on. Almost everyone had the chance to memory, in the end -- it just usually took a longer-than-normal time for secondary sons or knights. Also, not sure if you're saying it's a difference or not, but women did and could inherit titles in Europe, and rule more or less on their own -- there are both French and German examples of this, I believe. The bastard of Driftmark (and the bastard of Harrenhall, mentioned at some other point) aren't any sort of information you can base anything on. Frankly, I suspect they were fostered elsewhere, but once grown came into the service of their fathers/half-siblings/whatever, and the name is of course quite appropriate then. It is not something new, in fact, since you saw that behavior in RL quite often. And the Tyrell bastards? We don't know if they're being raised at Highgarden, in point of fact. If they're grown adults -- which no doubt they are, seeing as they're cousins to Mace Tyrell -- they may fall under the same as I suggest for above. The Freys are the only other unusual ones, and Walder Frey is in a class of his own as well. SO ... far as we see, Ned really does seem to be the only "usual" lord who raises his own bastard as a son in his own castle. Of course, Ned isn't very usual either . . . Bastards are kept from inheriting anything rather more sharply though, that's true. I suspect you might see some of them being given a towerhouse and some land by their relations, if those relations have plenty of wherewithal for it, but usually they seem consigned to the life of a landless knight or fighter.
Rania User ID: 1711124	Jul 30th 8:18 AM Women inherited titles in Scotland and England as well. As for second or third son not marrying the best example I can think of is William Marshal (Regent of England for Henry III), he was so far down the list of his father's sons that John Marshall (his father was quite willing to let King Stephen execute him when he-John Marshall- broke his pledge to the king while William was held as hostage, he still ended up marrying Isabella de Clare, the daughter of Richard de Clare, Earl of Pembroke (Strongbow)and future Countess of Pembroke and Lady of Leinster in her own right, her mother had been Diarmaid MacMurchada, King of Leinster's only child. After William and Isabella's 5 sons all died childless the earldom of Pembroke passed to the de Valence family (half-brothers of Henry III through his mother's second marriage) through a daughter of William Marshall.
labor User ID: 0798784	Jul 30th 8:27 AM Ran, that is true, of course. Sometimes in RL a landless knight would marry (William Marshall?)... But very rarely and then the wife brought the "subsistance" dowry into the marriage. Not so in Westeros - in fact we haven't heard anything about dowries at all and Lord Freys's ah... family politics makes their existance pretty unlikely. As a general rule in RL both (noble) bride and groom were supposed to bring enough land and other material goods into the marriage to maintain their position. That clearly isn't the way in Westeros, seeing how younger sons and daughters who aren't heirs don't own any land at all, but still routinely marry. And while women could inherit some titles in Europe, they could only transmit others to their male offspring and there also was the system of majorat when the estates and title echeated to the crown if there was no male offspring. IIRC it was quite common in England for instance, that with female heiresses primogeniture didn't count - they were all co-heiresses until one gave birth to a boy and then _he_ inherited, etc. All of this isn't the case in Westeros, and morever the female heirs can also transmit the House name to their offspring. What I am getting at, is that the system makes it harder for a Westerosi House to become extinct, which is almost the only case when a bastard may inherit. Endowments of land are also quite difficult, since the House lands are apparently never splitted in Westeros. OTOH, looking at the list of Westerosi noble Houses heraldry, there are a few which incorporate bend sinister and a nod to more powerful House in their arms. Maybe they descend from some fortunate bastard? As to the bastards who apparently live and serve with their parental House, what difference is there concerning were they were raised? Cat wouldn't have tolerated Jon as an adult in service of House Stark, I am sure... The fact is, having a bastard living with his father's House isn't nearly as extraordinary for Westerosi as Cat would like.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jul 30th 11:33 AM Not, in fact, very rarely. That's the trouble. ;) It has been blown out of proportion because of earlier scholars who categorized facets of medieval society in extremes. Marriage for landless men was not "rare." It just wasn't much recorded or considered, because it was a rather minor thing which had little impact on the usual flow of life in medieval society. As to dowries, I am of the belief that they do indeed exist, given GRRM's reply to your question (as I recall, it was "What about them?") Maybe not a matter for discussion in the books, which might be what you and others would like to see, but the fact that he asks what you want to know rather than just saying they don't exist suggests to me that they're there. As to not owning any land, well. Bran might have held a holdfast with whatever land was granted him. Certainly would have maintained his position, and of course the familial connection meant that under normal circumstances he'd do more than well enough. The problem was Ned raising the boy as one of his sons at Winterfell, not that Jon was actually at Winterfell, in any case. Accepting him as a vaguely-related man-at-arms would have been an extremely different proposition. And, indeed, I do not believe Catelyn would have been nearly as troubled, because by the time Jon showed up, he'd be in a position where he was not a man raised to think himself an equal of his half-siblings. Further, she would have had 16-20 years of happy, secure married life with Ned, so she could be that much more sure of his love of her when Jon appeared. As for the arms, I do believe GRRM has stated that the bend sinisters refer to bastardy, so (like in House Vikary), I think we are indeed seeing a house descended from a bastard. :) I agree that some of the changes he has made explain the long life of houses, but I'm not quite of the belief that his changes are so very wide-ranging. :)
labor User ID: 0798784	Jul 30th 12:29 PM IIRC marriages for the landless men were indeed very rare until the late Middle Ages when rich merchants began to push their way into nobility/gentry this way. William Marshall was quite an extraordinary man, celebrated knight, general and royal advisor. He got his marriage via a direct royal patronage, IIRC. Of course, some of the younger sons who married in RL weren't actually landless since the laws did allow the splitting of inheritance to some degree. And then, the Church and monasteries/nunneries were a good way to get rid of superfluos sons/daughters one didn't want to spend wealth on to allow marriage/dowry according to their station. While admittance into religious institutions wasn't free either, it was much cheaper and a popular way to conserve family wealth. Well, GRRM didn't say that dowries existed in Westeros. Nor are they _ever_ mentioned as consideration in the books. I.e. for instance Sansa's dowry-less state, etc. And in fact if they did, lord Frey probably wouldn't be so eager to marry all his daughters/granddaughters off at any price (one of them was married to a hedge knight and a few to landless service gentry), but rather would try to give most of them to the Faith. I mean, he scarcely could have afforded so many dowries! And who in their right mind would want to marry their daughter/sister/relative to a Frey if they had to _pay_ for the privilege ;)? As to bastards, IIRC Bastards of Harrenhal, Driftmark, Frey bastards etc. were clearly considered more than just "related man-at-arms". Maybe they weren't considered equal to their legitimate relatives (but neither was Jon, really), but they were clearly important. Hm... maybe Cat would have felt better if Jon only showed up as a teenager to serve in his father's household. OTOH, since Ned undoubtedly would have visited Jon (and I don't think that it would have been very unusual for Westeros), she might also have imagined that Ned's secret love was alive and well and felt worse.
Rania User ID: 0638514	Jul 30th 12:51 PM About dowries is it at all possible that as in the case of the Frey proposed marriages to the Robb and Arya Stark, the dowry is actually the political and military alliegance that they would bring?
labor User ID: 0798784	Jul 30th 1:00 PM But Sansa's, Margaery's, etc. dowries were never discussed either! And even in case of Robb and Arya they should have been at least mentioned during the negotiations, IMHO. In RL dowries were a very important subject in marriage negotiations, indeed. Besides, while I can see how Walder Frey might be willing to provide a dowry for his grandaughter to marry someone as influential as Robb Stark or Roose Bolton, that wouldn't be the case with most of people his other daughters/grandaughters married, the bulk of whom were either younger sons of smaller Houses or service gentry and IIRC even at least one hedge knight! Also, again who would dowry a female relative to mary a male Frey who is xx-th in line of succession?
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jul 30th 1:15 PM No need to get worked up about this. ;) Sansa's marriage to Joffrey was one created by men who didn't care for business matters and who were next to brothers, and Margaery's was a marriage of necessisity to create alliance, where calling for a dowry of proper worth might be just a little ... uh, grasping. ;) And I'm not sure if all of it is simply dowry. Yes, it's unusual that dowry does seem to be waived to some degree in certain cases (Walder Frey's get.) But pointing to Walder Frey and his family is pointing to a group that is, obviously, not at all anything near the norm.
labor User ID: 0798784	Jul 30th 1:25 PM Yes, but Frey's progeny still had to marry normal people... I am not getting worked up ;), but it is definitely a question I would need to pose again if it isn't explained in ASOS. I mean me - "What about the dowries?" GRRM - "What about them?" doesn't seem very informative ;). And frankly, I don't see how they would work in Westrosi society, where most noble grooms don't bring any property into marriage.
Ran User ID: 0867924	Jul 30th 1:48 PM Of course they bring property. I imagine they all have allowances, and moneys from any offices they might hold, either familial or regional, and money from other paths, and of course their equipment, utensils, horses, etc. It's just that they don't (necessarily) bring land with them.
Rania User ID: 0638514	Jul 30th 1:48 PM Okay we know that in the case of the Freys promised to Robb and Arya Stark the dowries are political and military that the Freys are bringing to the Starks?
Kadence User ID: 2324014	Jul 30th 5:44 PM A military alliance certainly can't be classified as a dowry. They are merely two-sided pacts for political and military support, though they often don't bring the sides as close as intended. Of course nearly all marriages between the nobility are like this, ie arranged marriages. IMHO, GRRM's response "What about them?" in no way implies that they actually exist in Westeros. One supposes they may exist but to a lesser extent than in RL, however this quote by itself says nothing one way or the other. I believe it was merely his tongue-in-cheek way of saying, "be clearer with you questions," rather than "they exist, so what is it you want to know?"