Inheritance: CK2 vs GoT vs Reality

[Yxklyx]

Has anyone posted a thread like this before? I think it belongs here because it touches on CK2's Inheritance design. I looked around other Paradox forums. One thing that bothers me about inheritance in GoT (Game of Thrones, I'm reading book 3 now) is that UNCLES AND COUSINS NEVER INHERIT! Martin doesn't seem to have a good grasp on Gens/Dynasties/Families - or is his view more realistic? I understand that GoT takes place in another world but Inheritance rules on this planet didn't come about arbitrarily - there's sense and logic to them. In the books it appears that House Stark has been around for over 1000 years with inheritance going from son to son generation after generation but that doesn't seem like it would ever happen in reality. In CK2 you will notice that uncles and cousins inheriting seems to be fairly normal. Many couples do not breed sons - and sons that live beyond childhood would be rarer, so it makes a lot of sense that uncles and cousins should inherit. Otherwise you have a chaotic society where lands are taken by force on a regular basis. The other thing to note in GoT is that uncles/cousins hang around their Lords even though they have no right to inherit. Why would they do that? Out of love? It seems that allowing Uncles/Cousins to inherit leads to a more stable dynasty where everyone has some interest in seeing the land prosper, because they might end up with it. Finally, GoT is all about intrigue and wouldn't more CK2-like inheritance lead to MORE intrigue?

 

[tsf4]

As for GoT, there is more to the story. All we have is the "son after son after son" but in reality, im sure there was cases where other branches of the families inherited, hence how the houses are able to make it through all those years and still be alive. Some times you have to realize GRRM is giving a "fabled" kinda view on it, in reality it was probably like ck2.

 

[jonjowett]

My 2 cents (which is probably inaccurate):

• CK2 doesn't model the fact that, IRL, non-inheriting uncles and cousins would probably be given a small estate somewhere. In CK2 terms, these estates would be much smaller than a barony. Even a CK2 count would probably own enough land that he wouldn't "run out" of small country estates for distant family members. (EDIT - Especially as new land was being cleared for agriculture throughout the period.)

• GoT has many implausibilities compared with real life - for example, that Westeros is a static world without economic or technological development which has been stuck in feudalism for literal millennia. The fact that every single major title has passed from father to son for all of recorded history is just one more implausibility.

 

[Serenity84]

MCK2 doesn't model the fact that, IRL, non-inheriting uncles and cousins would probably be given a small estate somewhere.

The sons too. Part of it was to prepare the heir for ruling by giving him some management experience. Part of it was taking care of additional sons.

Yes, there are penalties for unlanded sons, but prestige is so easily accumulated that it's easy to suck it up. And better. Landed sons just mess themselves up too easily.

 

[jwalche]

Can you imagine, in real feudal world, that a daughter of Duke or Essex is married to a pagan emperor's son for favor? And then, on her wedding day, she is given a small tribal county and called a queen?

And then she is murdered. Duke of Essex inherits his daughters tribal county and name-only kingdom, and becomes the pagan emperor's vassal. And England had just lost Essex without a war?

You can conquer the entire world this way, without any wars, given 1~200 years.

Well. CK2 is a game and a crude simulation.

 

[HandicapdHippo]

she is given a small tribal county and called a queen?

What?

inherits his daughters tribal county and name-only kingdom,

What kingdom? That's not how it works.

 

[jwalche]

What?
What kingdom? That's not how it works.

What, you didn't know?

Here is how inheritance works in CK2. If you inherit a title that is higher tiered than your current main title, you inherit the title's liege as well.

Let's say that the pagan emperor is Germanic emperor of Scandinavia. He created Kingdom of Finland, but all counts of Finland are vassals of his vassal duke of Sjalland. He reformed Germanic religion with Equality.

With the favor forced marriage, daughter of Duke of Essex is now the emperor's courtier. Due to Equality, the emperor can make her a count by granting her a tribal county, and make her a queen by granting her kingdom of Finland. Except that she doesn't get any vassal or land in Finland. So that's name only kingdom.

When she dies in any means, including outright imprisonment and execution on her wedding day, unless you blocked external inheritance, her heir - her father inherits all her titles.

Now her father is King of Finland, controlling both Essex and her daughter's tribal county. His top and main title becomes kingdom of Finland, and his new liege is Emperor of Scandinavia, his daughter's executioner.

To make it worse for him, the emperor plans to revoke his new kingdom title as well as duchy of Essex very soon. He can revolt. But not likely if Emperor of Scandinavia has 10x larger army than his. Even if he revolt, his former liege, King of England cannot do a shit to help him.

 

[Karlington]

I don't think inheritance in AGOT is that stable. We have plenty of examples of lines dying out (Hoare, Gardener, Durrandon, etc) and inheritance shenanigans (Karstark, Hornwood, etc).

Kevan Lannister deliberately hung around Tywin - the novels do go into this a bit.

Tywin's other brothers, Gerion and Tygett, did a bit more of their own thing.

I also think that @tsf4 has a point - the Starks have been around for around 8,000 years or so, for example. Do we really know with any certainty that they passed Winterfell from father to son for literally 400 generations? Not a single one was infertile, had a barren wife, died too young, or whatever else may happen? I'd say we don't have a clue and it may very well have happened at least once that it didn't go from father to son.

In terms non-inheriting sons, Ned says this to Bran:

One day, Bran, you will be Robb's bannerman, holding a keep of your own for your brother and your king, and justice will fall to you.
AGOT - Bran I

So there are provisions made for them, they just don't go into it in any detail in the books.

Also note that Ned says justice will fall to Bran, which means he would be a lord in his own right as only lords have the power of pit and gallows, and not just a landed knight or northern equivalent. I.e. it'd be a prestigious title, even if it were a small property.

When there are more major lands available they can also be given. For example when House Darry is wiped out the lands are given to Kevan's firstborn son, Lancel.

 

[Yxklyx]

There are a many cases in the books where when the sons die the line dies out and the lands are essentially up for grabs. It's mentioned when the Tarly's are burned to death, the woman who Ramsay marries early on, etc.. It's almost like a major theme in the books that we see houses dying when sons do - but in the real world there would be some distant relative somewhere who would inherit (they can't have ALL died). Like how inheritance for K. England passed at one point to a Stuart or what we see in Austen novels. In GoT the possibility of non immediate family relatives inheriting is NEVER once mentioned (so far near done with book 3) - it's strongly implied that they don't.

 

[Caeserion]

Many couples do not breed sons - and sons that live beyond childhood would be rarer, so it makes a lot of sense that uncles and cousins should inherit

Yes. This happens in GOT too. We have multiple instances of this in the GOT universe too. The Arryns have had the title jump from cousin to cousin multiple times. House Gardener died in the main line in the Field of Fire and would have been inherited by a 3rd cousin of the King had he survived his injuries. The Starks have many couples in their family tree who did not produce children (or they had only female children) leading to succession crises. The Targaryens themselves had some of their marriages not work out. Daemon and Lady Royce had no children, leading to her title going to a cousin on her death. Valarr and Kiera of Tyrosh had only stillborn children meaning that the line of Baelor Breakspear died when Valarr and Matarys did. Aerys and Rhaelle had fertility issues, Dany does right now as well. It seems like everyone in Westeros has children who survive them but that is only because GRRM wanted a rich cast of characters. Even then if you look you'll find many characters who do not have children/living children. Rodrik the Reader comes to mind, Jon Arryn (with the extended Arryn genealogy provided by Littlefinger giving enough details of infertility and death in childhood) had only one son, and the next heir is the only surviving son of one his NINE niblings.

The other thing to note in GoT is that uncles/cousins hang around their Lords even though they have no right to inherit. Why would they do that? Out of love? It seems that allowing Uncles/Cousins to inherit leads to a more stable dynasty where everyone has some interest in seeing the land prosper, because they might end up with it.

They do so because they want to get in their good graces, and get responsibilities and accrue influence and wealth. If the Lord likes you enough he may grant you a keep and lands of your own, as happened to Karlon Stark who founded the Karstarks. Lady Jeyne Arryn decided to circumvent the succession law and exclude her uncle in favour of a more distant cousin because her uncle was extremely vocal about his claim to the Arryn and her distant cousin helped. Maegor and Aegon II demonstrated that being in the capital while the heir is out gives you opportunity to usurp as well.

GoT has many implausibilities compared with real life - for example, that Westeros is a static world without economic or technological development which has been stuck in feudalism for literal millennia.

Not quite. It seems like that because the histories we receive are reimagined to make more sense to the 'modern' audience of the current roster of Westerosi characters. We know that the First Men went from the Bronze Age with a loose tribal political model (as evidenced by the few societies in Westeros who still follow the very old ways - the Mountian Men of the Vale, the Mountain Clans of the North, and the Freefolk). This society didn't even have writing. From there it shifted to an Iron Age when the Andals invaded, who also started recording history in text instead of just stories and runestones and then steel was introduced by the Rhoynish. Politically Westeros went from tribal clan-type societies (think Ireland and Scotland in the first millenium) to feudal kingdoms to an imperial system (given that the king in Westeros can and does interfere in the matters of vassals of vassals I'd argue that the IT is closer to the Imperial Persian model than feudal france/england). There has been social and political development in Westeros, its just hard to see because singers and storytellers confuse the timeline by making famous warriors from the Age of First Men serve Targaryen Kings and other similar weirdness. Humanity irl took longer than Westeros has.

The fact that every single major title has passed from father to son for all of recorded history is just one more implausibility.

It hasn't. The male Lannister line has died out. A female Lannister married a Lydden, who took her name and 'adopted' himself into the Lannister. Sweetrobin is probably going to die due to being poisoned repeatedly so the next Arryn is in fact a Waynwood, who is Arryn in the female line only. He will adopt the Arryn sigil and words. Neither of these are commented upon as being unusual practices in Westeros so it probably happens a lot when a house is facing extinction. Hell Bronn is calling himself Lord Stokeworth as of ADWD. Its just better sounding to say "My sire and his and theirs before them held this seat from the Dawn Age and so me and my heirs will never surrender!" than to say "My ancestors have held this keep ever since one of them married a woman of the previous house and adopted the house so as to cement our own legitimacy and prevent rebellion in 548BC and so will me and my heirs"

 

[Azsouth]

The show was fan fiction the last few season, don't let that influence your responses here, House Tarly wasn't done if Dickon died, his sisters could inherit and there where fleshed out family trees for major houses like that, so there where cousins and uncles available. Kevan Lannister is the obvious one as he knew Tywin would never let Tyrion inherit and Jaime was in the Kingsguard. Early in Lannister history, during the Andal invasion, the male Lannister line died out and House Lyden, matrallinally married or changed their name after marring one of the surviving daughters of House Lannister, into the house so the line continued under the Lannister name and solidified that Lydens right to rule, was one Lyden, not his whole family. We know in the North a Stark only had a daughter which was seduced by the Wildling king Bael the Bard, she had a son, the son was legitimized and he ended up killing his own father when the Wildlings invaded. House Gardener gets wiped out in the field of fire, the books say that all male heirs including cousins and uncles died, think one made it back to Highgarden but died after a day and Harlan Tyrell bent the knee to House Targaryen and was then lifted up as Lords Paramount of the Reach. The Hornwood inheritance is a huge problem for the north after both the Lord and his son die in The War of the Five Kings. The Red Wedding is a big deal because it killed tons of heirs to many houses meaning the succession had to change if the houses where to retain their lands in some cases. in the Iron Island, plenty of cousins and uncles of kings have been elected even in recent GoT history. House Bracken of the Riverlands will probably have to go to a cousin because all he has is daughters, his bastard and son both died. House Arryn, when Lord Robert Arryn dies, will go to Harry the Heir, Harold Hardgyn which is his cousin.

 

[Will Steel]

Why wouldn't uncles and family members hang around? As noblemen with good education, they are usually good assets to their lords as long as they are loyal.

The Starks have the holdfast tradition, where minor sons are sent to hold forts on various borders of the North and serve as minor wardens. Tywin Lannister has his brothers and cousins fulfill the role of military marshals of Westerlands, and some of them act as governors for territories he conquered to his personal domain in special cases (like Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion). Tyrell family members are usually involved in some sort of nobility profession as well, as is House Florent on both sides of the conflict.

Targaryens were wiped out twice (or almost thrice) to the point where only one branch of the family remained. It was a big factor in turning Aerys II mad.

Brothers and uncles don't usually have big chances in life other than military, administration, Citadel, or the Wall. Most of them stick around because going elsewhere is less viable than just staying with whoever their current lord is. House Frey is a big example of this - the humongous number of Frey men should simply leave according to CK2 logic, but they stick around The Twins because they are at least welcomed there, fed, sheltered and have a chance of murdering their way to something.

Minor sons also become adventurers in some cases, either in Westeros or in Essos as mercenaries. They aren't kicked out if they are loyal, for example Oberyn Martell.

Brynden "Blackfish" Tully is actually one of the rare cases where brother/uncle doesn't stay, but that is because of personal tensions between Hoster and Brynden.

I understand that GoT takes place in another world but Inheritance rules on this planet didn't come about arbitrarily - there's sense and logic to them. In the books it appears that House Stark has been around for over 1000 years with inheritance going from son to son generation after generation but that doesn't seem like it would ever happen in reality.

You are forgetting a major point - this is from the Maester's point of view. GRRM has repeatedly confirmed this.

It is heavily implied that "House Stark lasted for a thousand years" or "Valyria rose 5,000 years ago" and such long timelines are a result of Maesters approximations, lack of sources, and inaccuracies when they write their books...and that things aren't actually that long even in ASoIaF world. It is implied that timelines are not actually in thousands of years, for example ruins of towns and villages from Stark-Bolton wars of the old are still actively visible, even though a thousand years would mostly erase their trace for a premodern society.

It is kinda similar to how some medieval European/Middle Eastern writers thought about the planet Earth beginning a few thousand years ago.

 

[fourworlds]

Having just gone through all the books, and Fire and Blood, and a World of Ice and Fire, I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about. There are many cases where distant relatives inherit following deaths (or at least are considered).

And ignoring the books that are all world building and looking at only the main books, there is literally and entire plot to get Sansa married to a distant cousin who is heir to the Vale. That sounds exactly like what you mentioned was lacking. Also, there are many examples of cousins and uncles inheriting. When Jon Conington was exiled, it was an uncle who inherited. When the Karstark Lord was killed, the uncle claimed inheritance. He wasn’t denied by some because he was an uncle, but because a son still lived, and a daughter comes before an uncle (though some in Westeros would dispute this). In fact, phrases like “a daughter comes before an uncle” show that uncles and cousins are not out of line for succession, just further down. So i’m not sure where people are getting the idea that they aren’t in the line of succession. And as mentioned by others, the Vale has often passed to more distant branches of the family.

So inheritance is rarely a simple thing in GoT, and has even been the cause of wars and all sorts of dramatic events. Especially for the Targaryen dynasty.

 

[Yxklyx]

Having just gone through all the books, and Fire and Blood, and a World of Ice and Fire, I genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about. There are many cases where distant relatives inherit following deaths (or at least are considered)....

I'm only on Book 3. Maybe someone taught him about Inheritance in the intervening years (decades?)

 

[fourworlds]

I'm only on Book 3. Maybe someone taught him about Inheritance in the intervening years (decades?)

I mean, Book 1 and 2 involve the war of the 5 Kings, where 2 uncles both wish to claim the Iron Throne. They aren’t told that they have no valid claim because they’re brothers of the King, they’re told their claims aren’t valid because their brother had 2 sons and a daughter (supposedly). That’s the entire basis of Stanis’ claim, that his brother didn’t have any true born children so therefore he was next in line.

And going even further, the justification for making Robert king was that he was a distant relative of the Targaryen through his grandma. It was just an excuse, but it shows that distant relatives do in fact have a claim.

So the idea of succession other than from father to son has been a part of A Song of Ice and Fire since the beginning.

 

[Duuk]

I'm glad someone else chirped in with the fact that matrilineal marriages and men assuming the House of a strong female to legitimize themselves is WELL known in ASOIAF/AGOT. House Lannister does it all the time, which is why Cersei was going to be married off (again). If Tywin wouldn't have had his way (with Jamie setting aside the Kingsguard) you can safely assume that Cersei's marriage would have made her husband a Lannister to continue the line, because Tywin wasn't about to let Tyrion's kids be the last surviving Lannisters of his line unless he had to.

And Sansa's kids will 100% be of House Stark.

 

[Chlodio]

House Lannister does it all the time, which is why Cersei was going to be married off (again).

Can you pinpoint direct a quote? I'm fairly certain Tywin just wanted to seperate her from her children and Jaime:

Tywin bends Cersei to his will and makes it clear his daughter is no longer wanted on the small council. Against her wishes, he plans for her to marry her again, considering Balon Greyjoy (whose elderly wife Alannys has failing health), Oberyn Martell, Horas or Hobber Redwyne, Theon Greyjoy, Quentyn Martell, and Willas Tyrell as potential matches.​

 

[sparta105]

What, you didn't know?

Here is how inheritance works in CK2. If you inherit a title that is higher tiered than your current main title, you inherit the title's liege as well.

Let's say that the pagan emperor is Germanic emperor of Scandinavia. He created Kingdom of Finland, but all counts of Finland are vassals of his vassal duke of Sjalland. He reformed Germanic religion with Equality.

With the favor forced marriage, daughter of Duke of Essex is now the emperor's courtier. Due to Equality, the emperor can make her a count by granting her a tribal county, and make her a queen by granting her kingdom of Finland. Except that she doesn't get any vassal or land in Finland. So that's name only kingdom.

When she dies in any means, including outright imprisonment and execution on her wedding day, unless you blocked external inheritance, her heir - her father inherits all her titles.

Now her father is King of Finland, controlling both Essex and her daughter's tribal county. His top and main title becomes kingdom of Finland, and his new liege is Emperor of Scandinavia, his daughter's executioner.

To make it worse for him, the emperor plans to revoke his new kingdom title as well as duchy of Essex very soon. He can revolt. But not likely if Emperor of Scandinavia has 10x larger army than his. Even if he revolt, his former liege, King of England cannot do a shit to help him.

This happens because the game cannot simulate somebody being the vassal of two different rulers. IRL, feudal relations were a lot more complicated than "I have one liege and one liege only". The most notorious example I can think of is the relationship between the king of England and the king of France. Technically, the English king was the vassal of the French king because of Normandy, Aquitaine and Gascogne. In CK2 terms, this means that England owns half of France and 100 years later, those duchies will be de jure parts of England. IRL, the first 100 years war (1156-1256) was fought precisely because of this strange relationship.

 

[Karlington]

I'm glad someone else chirped in with the fact that matrilineal marriages and men assuming the House of a strong female to legitimize themselves is WELL known in ASOIAF/AGOT. House Lannister does it all the time, which is why Cersei was going to be married off (again). If Tywin wouldn't have had his way (with Jamie setting aside the Kingsguard) you can safely assume that Cersei's marriage would have made her husband a Lannister to continue the line, because Tywin wasn't about to let Tyrion's kids be the last surviving Lannisters of his line unless he had to.

And Sansa's kids will 100% be of House Stark.

House Lannister does it all the time? Uhm, not trying to be a jerk here, but can you give any examples? The example given above with House Lydden was a subservient house marrying one of their knights to a Lannister woman and taking their name in order to ensure the survival of the house and name, true, but that seems a rare exception to me. When women marry men they nearly always take the name of their husband's house*.

In the case of Cersei her father Tywin seemed to intend to wed her to Willas Tyrell or Oberyn Martell. Willas Tyrell is the heir to Highgarden and the Tyrell name, so I think it's safe to say that he was not going to adopt another house's name. And as Doran's brother Oberyn Martell is "only" fourth in line to the seat of Sunspear, true, but he is a prince. Titles matter in Westeros, and the princely titles of Dorne are a matter of great prestige and pride to them. I have a hard time imagining that one of them would surrender their princely name to adopt the name of another house. There's just no benefit in it for either the Tyrells or the Nymeros Martells.

*The exception is when marrying into the royal family. Women who marry royals seem to keep their own house's name, though the children of the marriage all carry the father's name.

 

[Caeserion]

The example given above with House Lydden was a subservient house marrying one of their knights to a Lannister woman and taking their name in order to ensure the survival of the house

They were not subservient. The marriage happened during the height of the Andal invasion when the power balance everywhere save the North was undeniably in the Andal's favour.

When women marry men they nearly always take the name of their husband's house

Not quite its a matter of rank, familiarity, and protocol. Catelyn is referred to as Lady Catelyn, Lady Stark, and Lady Tully depending on the person who speaks to her (with her father's bannermen and retainers leaning towards Lady Tully before Robb was crowned King of the North and Riverlands). Catelyn herself calls herself Catelyn Stark as an identifier when meeting people but in her internal monologue she thinks of herself as a Tully. Delena Florent, mother of Edric Storm by Robert Baratheon retains her house name because she is wedded to a lower-ranked knight. In general, you refer to the wife of a ruling lord as Lady <Lord's House> when being proper. Cersei is a special case because of her intense hatred for Robert. She cloaks herself in Lannister words, styles, etc to distinguish herself and mark herself as separate. In Westeros marriage does not permanently change either spouse's name as it does for us. People can and have been referred to by multiple house names.

And yes Tywin wanted to wed Cersei off not to get a Lannister heir to Casterly Rock but so that (1) she would be away from the capital and (2) to silence the rumours of bastardy and incest surrounding the ruling family.

For other examples of children taking the name of their mothers (or mothers family) so as to rule a seat look to:

1. Harrold Waynwood (Arryn)
2. Laena Velaryon (she was in the womb when Aemon died but he expected a son of Rhaenys and Corlys Velaryon to follow him as king and given the prestige of the Targaryen name at the time any child of Rhaenys who ascended the throne would be Targaryen not Velaryon)
3. The 3 children of Rhaenyra - they called themselves Targaryens in F&B even though legally they were Velaryons
4. Beren Tallhart is pushed forward as heir to Hornwood with even the boys father saying that Beren will take the Hornwood name and words for himself
5. Maege and Alysane Mormont who's children have taken the Mormont name (albeit the fathers are unknown)
6. The Vale cousins put forth by Catelyn as alternative heirs to the Starks when discussing Robb legitimising Jon.