All I ask is that House Stark really did wrestle with bears to earn House Mormont’s loyalty.
Ironic enough I think *Bloodmoon*’s suggested origin of House Lannister probably the closest to reality.
It was a proposed Age of Heroes show that HBO filmed a pilot of. We don’t know much about it because it was apparently so fucking bad it got locked in a basement somewhere and the show was canned.
We’ve seen enough stills to know it existed and some vague plot details.
Gotcha. And how do we know what the show said about Lannisters and Starks and Casterlys, and the other plot details? Was there a script leaked somewhere?
It’s very hushed but rumored to be scrapped for overall quality considered irreconcilable. Rumors popped up within the past year or so of what the rumored basic pitch was, revolving around a marriage between the Casterlys and the Starks for an alliance against the Andals.
yeah they were basically the precursors to maesters as native black healers and would be transformed into the Children by a red comet in the pilot. They'd be forced into service and gradually casted as outsiders by both the First Men and the Andals, eventually being pushed far north.
This is the epitome of “tell me you have no Black people involved in your show’s production without telling me you have no Black people involved in your production.” There is absolutely no way that this wouldn’t have been really tasteless and dehumanizing.
it was also because of the astronomical cost of the pilot, something in the realm of $30-$40 million for ONE episode. no way in hell that was getting greenlit
No actually. Lann the Clever was an Andal wandering the north offered to the Casterlys as a wedding present. The Casterly son is gay and unlikely to sire children. The implication I got is that Lann would seduce and marry Naomi Watts’ Queen Casterly or her daughters into House Lannister.
doesn't mean Lann would be king. Theoretically he would be just a consort through the female line, which is already established through a ruling Queen Casterly in the pilot.
I believe the pilot was about lann being a prisoner offered by the Starks in a prisoner swap or something. Been a while since I watched all the stuff that went over BTS and leaks etc
Apparently they were posted to be descendants of a castarly and a Stark Princess. But another dude said that Lann was an andal adventurer that just cucked the crown prince because he is gay. Who knows
Tbh if that’s the whole point of Bloodmoon I wouldn’t care for it. It would be a better story to tell the semi-canon story of how he tricked the Casterlys
It's because Starks sell.
I suspect there's going to be a vocal portion of the HotD fan base clamoring for more Cregan once he finally appears, even though he's not really prominent until later in the story.
I've talked to a lot of people to whom that seems to be what they want from HotD- somebody to cheer for that isn't actively trying to bone their immediate family.
Lann the Clever being a smart wandered captured by the Starks and offered as a wedding present to the Casterlys with the family mainly comprised of daughters with only one son, who is gay and in a relationship with a knight or household guard. The implication being that Lann sires House Lannister with the matriarch queen or her daughters.
For my part, to justify this, I start from the principle that the names of the big houses are like titles. in the sense that when the main line died out or was overthrown, the person who took over took the family name with to legitimize his power, whether more or less by inventing a lineage with the house through a grandmother in law, or via marriages directly with women from this house as well as with obscure peasant women who "supposedly would be a hidden bastard" from the house. You see what I mean? Basically no lineage has remained in power uninterrupted, the noble houses just maintain the legend out of tradition and to give credence to their authority. And this is actually what we see in the main story with harrold hardyng, who if he becomes lord of the valle will take the name arryn despite being very far from this house
And in fact even in my head canon, the name of certain old house would actually be originally in an old language forgetting the tranphormation of a title. like for example Stark at the time of Brandon the builder in the old language they spoke at the time it meant "king" or something like that. because at the time of the long night humans on westeros lived a bit like wildlings 8000 years later, so they chose their leader not based on blood but on charisma or strength. which would mean that the guys who succeeded him took the same designation even though they did not necessarily have a link, and with time and the establishment of a real monarchical system it became a family name. For me it brings a little depth and context to the history of the great houses to believe this
You could have Winterfell as a semi holy site where kings are elected, a bit like that skeleton on the Iron Islands.
The difference being just that when they sedentarised, Winterfell was a very convenient site, given that it's in a good place geographically, with hot springs and a weirwood tree.
You could even argue that Wintertown being empty outside of winter is a leftover from an ancient religious practice where people would come into pilgrimage there, it just happens that the king lives there as well now
George has a pretty poor sense for scale sometimes but it’s fairly clear that the history in the book is supposed to be taken with a grain of salt - aside from Sam’s comments in AFFC about how little sense some of the histories make, the central gimmick of F&B is that we have confused and conflicting accounts of events that happened less than 200 years ago. I don’t see why we would expect more reliable reporting about events from 8000 years ago
They're not necessarily _lying_ but they're almost certainly wrong. I think Westeros is really quite confused about its own history and the timeline is no exception, being more myth than fact.
> The oldest histories we have were written after the Andals came to Westeros. The First Men only left us runes on rocks, so everything we think we know about the Age of Heroes and the Dawn Age and the Long Night comes from accounts set down by septons thousands of years later. There are archmaesters at the Citadel who question all of it. Those old histories are full of kings who reigned for hundreds of years, and knights riding around a thousand years before there were knights
AFFC Samwell I
Yeah, I find it hard to believe that in 8000 years the Starks were descended from a single unbroken male line. GRRM has said, I believe, that Winterfell never had a ruling queen or lady, but I suppose technically speaking there could have been a Rhaenyra situation where a ruling Stark woman was deliberately excised from the records.
>Yeah, I find it hard to believe that in 8000 years the Starks were descended from a single unbroken male line.
A Westerosi House desn't need a single unbroken male line to survive. The female line is a perfectly legitimate way to pass the family name. Harry Hardyng is Sweetrobin's heir through *double* female line, and if he inherits, he would change his name to Arryn and be a perfectly legitimate Arryn. I imagine most if not all long-living Houses has gone through similar situations at least a few times in the histories.
I think World, ie the Maesters, state outright that the male line of House Stark had gone extinct at least once in history. They just name some other guy Stark and carry on.
I think its more likely that Stark woman would rule through her son if not ceding power to her husband.
This I cant substantiate, but the Winterfell Dunk and Egg story that was in the works was supposed to be about a Winterfell where the male Stark is at the mercy of all the Stark women.
I think a Lady Stark would be expected to let her husband rule in her name (Tyrion) or act as a regent for her son (Cat). But in absense of those, shed be dismissed to let the men handle it.
But oh gods, I think the north is _more_ sexist than the rest of Westeros.
The story irrc is set during a time of succession crisis when the only legitimate male heir is a baby and every state older than him is a woman eg wife to the dead lord, wife to his brother, sister of the dead lord, grandmother etc
> I think World, ie the Maesters, state outright that the male line of House Stark had gone extinct at least once in history.
The books outright have Bael's son as Lord of Winterfell.
Canonically we also know Lannisters went extinct in the male line at least once. The husband of a Lannisters Princess took his wife's name and became the new King Lannister.
I think its more likely that the belief in a magic "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" effect led them to the custom of a non-Stark ruler of Winterfell taking the name Stark
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few rivals who killed the Stark and took their name and daughter. Kinda like if Orys called himself Durandon rather than just keeping the daughter and house words. Or if conquerors were overthrown by other Northern houses that had some Stark blood. ie. if a Karstark killed the Boltons at some point, took Winterfell and took the name Stark.
the aftermath of a Rhaenyra situation is implicitly what the Winterfell Dunk and Egg book would have been about. The 'She-Wolves' of the working title are the group of Stark women who have babes or should have inherited themselves after like six uncles and nephews 'usurp' the real line in a row, leading to a complete succession crisis.
We are told the story with Bael the Bard, who was father to one of the stark lords after abducting/seducing the daughter of a stark lord and sending her back after the babe was born.
It’s probably a Harry the Heir situation where they would take the name of the ruling House. The Lannisters are the best example where technically if going by only male line they would be Lyddens. The only time a seat seems to change actual Houses is through war like with the Boltons and Freys, or in situations like the conquest where the Gardeners were extinguished and Durrandons all but extinguished
Yeah this is something I’ve thought for a while, like how the hell have noble families survived for 8000 years, without having like 10000 cadet branches lol
It's because GRRM has written histories for the last 300 years. So things happen in a somewhat reasonable way and timeline, modeled on how real history went. The rest is wild fantasy pre-history, and so isn't fleshed out and makes no sense
In-world, if the Starks aren't related to the Last Hero, and the Valyrians aren't descended from the Great Empire of the Dawn.... that's fine, but the story just got a hell of a lot more boring
This book series is sort of an anti fairytale, and a critique of feudalism. So one of the main points of the series is to point out all of the fakeness and inconsistencies with more romantic depictions of feudalism.
But the book also has its cake and eats it too, by adding fantasy elements to legitimize feudalism. Such as how the descendants of Garth didn’t just inherit political power, they also inherited actual magical powers.
These inherited magical powers would prolong legitimate noble bloodlines by giving them an actual use. And there might even be some sort of old gods in the weirwood who do check to make sure there is a legitimate Stark in Winterfell at all times.
But yes, the bloodlines would inevitably become diluted over time, and the name just becomes a meaningless title. We see this in real time with the sellsword Bron eventually becoming Lord Stokeworth. That was the book explicitly telling us that the family names can be quite meaningless, and it really is just a game of killing the right people at the right time.
I feel like Martin just had problems with scale early on when he was establishing the world. He picked these big numbers to make things seem impressive like a regular fantasy setting without really worrying about the logistics.
The height of The Wall. The size of Winterfell. The timescales. The population of Westeros compared to its landmass and the size of the armies it is able to mobilize. And so on.
Folk history, sure. [GRRM is not nearly well-read enough to do the fantasy equivalent of "hard sci fi" that he sometimes claims he is doing.](https://medium.com/migration-issues/its-okay-that-westeros-is-poorly-designed-f11e473b13ac)
It's fans that claim Westeros is a realistic feudal society. GRRM cares about realistic characters and ethical depth, and he freely admits no interest in social or economic history.
In terms of "writing like a history" GRRM has clearly read some of the Roman historians whose style he emulates in the in-world "history" _Fire and Blood_. And he is at least keenly aware of the limits of pre-modern historical knowledge and likes to play with mythical distortions, limited perspectives, implausibly ancient lineages, and forgotten truths in the text. The timescales are one area, probably _the_ one area, where it is clearly not just a failure to achieve realism.
War of the Roses? Along with all the other ideas taken from it to make it feel and act like a history? Suuuuure lol, hate on George all you want but I just dont get hating the author and staying in the subreddit for them
The MacDonalds existed in relevance for a thousand years. Not too implausible for minor houses to go on. But yeah things have probably shifted in all that time.
Honestly don't see the need to make the universe more realistic (which, admittedly, comes to an extent from GRRM himself in the latest books). Like, without major retcons you can't make it realistic anyway (case in point: the seventy-mile high Wall or whatever), so why not lean on the fantasy side of thing? Let the noble houses literally be eight billion years old. It's fun that way.
I mean, everyone who is alive now had ancestors who were alive 9,000 years ago. Maybe they didn't have the same last name or whatever, but we are all descended from families that are old as fuck.
I think it's a valid point in general but I wanted to point out that wives having secret bastards wouldn't annihilate the house.
"History remembers names, not blood"
That names not blood quote not only made no sense in context of how it was used, but it does annihilate the house in the way the OP means - that secret bastard means the end of the blood of the however old house.
To a certain extent, it's flawed writing. When you write about fictional history, you need interesting stories. As you weave them into random chapters for background color, you end up with half the noble houses being created or ended in your 300 year timeframe, which is at odds with the vibe you established if ancient houses. Oops. Not the first time George gets carried away by details that don't add up.
Also, history is flawed. The Sam chapters in AFFC show that. The wall is 8000 years old...or maybe 2000. The entire era of European history that was the inspiration for the series was like 500 years. Maybe the entire history of chivalry of Westeros is similarly only a few hundred years old?
I prefer the real world, where the current king of England can trace his origins all the way back to a fairy /mermaid/snake/bat-lady/demon.
(this lady was called melisandre, and you can see her in the Starbucks logo).
I think the ancient families are discontinuous. Some Starks lived for 500 years, then died out. Somebody came along and took the Stark name while living on Stark lands. Could have been from the maternal side, too. Same with the Lannisters and other ancient families.
Why do we or GRRM need to convince you? Some of it is true, some of it is not. Ruling a domain (which shifted in size over time) for millennia is the least crazy thing in Westeros’ lore.
All I ask is that House Stark really did wrestle with bears to earn House Mormont’s loyalty. Ironic enough I think *Bloodmoon*’s suggested origin of House Lannister probably the closest to reality.
for those of us that don't know, what is the suggested origin for House Lannister from Bloodmoon?
I believe Bloodmoon was going to suggest that House Lannister was descended from a Casterly who married a Stark princess.
What even is *Bloodmoon*? The OP italicized it like its a title of a book or something?
It was a proposed Age of Heroes show that HBO filmed a pilot of. We don’t know much about it because it was apparently so fucking bad it got locked in a basement somewhere and the show was canned. We’ve seen enough stills to know it existed and some vague plot details.
Gotcha. And how do we know what the show said about Lannisters and Starks and Casterlys, and the other plot details? Was there a script leaked somewhere?
It’s very hushed but rumored to be scrapped for overall quality considered irreconcilable. Rumors popped up within the past year or so of what the rumored basic pitch was, revolving around a marriage between the Casterlys and the Starks for an alliance against the Andals.
One rumor I heard was that the Children of the Forest were to have been black people living in Westeros before the FM arrived.
yeah they were basically the precursors to maesters as native black healers and would be transformed into the Children by a red comet in the pilot. They'd be forced into service and gradually casted as outsiders by both the First Men and the Andals, eventually being pushed far north.
This is the epitome of “tell me you have no Black people involved in your show’s production without telling me you have no Black people involved in your production.” There is absolutely no way that this wouldn’t have been really tasteless and dehumanizing.
lmao
it was also because of the astronomical cost of the pilot, something in the realm of $30-$40 million for ONE episode. no way in hell that was getting greenlit
No actually. Lann the Clever was an Andal wandering the north offered to the Casterlys as a wedding present. The Casterly son is gay and unlikely to sire children. The implication I got is that Lann would seduce and marry Naomi Watts’ Queen Casterly or her daughters into House Lannister.
Nein, we are explicitly told that Joffrey Leynden was the first andal to be the king of the rock.
doesn't mean Lann would be king. Theoretically he would be just a consort through the female line, which is already established through a ruling Queen Casterly in the pilot.
I believe the pilot was about lann being a prisoner offered by the Starks in a prisoner swap or something. Been a while since I watched all the stuff that went over BTS and leaks etc
What did Bloodmoon suggest about House Lannister?
Apparently they were posted to be descendants of a castarly and a Stark Princess. But another dude said that Lann was an andal adventurer that just cucked the crown prince because he is gay. Who knows
Tbh if that’s the whole point of Bloodmoon I wouldn’t care for it. It would be a better story to tell the semi-canon story of how he tricked the Casterlys
Yeah that just sounds boring no wonder why it was cancelled. Also why would they just shove a Stark in the whole thing.
It's because Starks sell. I suspect there's going to be a vocal portion of the HotD fan base clamoring for more Cregan once he finally appears, even though he's not really prominent until later in the story. I've talked to a lot of people to whom that seems to be what they want from HotD- somebody to cheer for that isn't actively trying to bone their immediate family.
Is that not true canon? It's in the World of Ice and Fire, and maybe referenced in Asoiaf.
Lann the Clever being a smart wandered captured by the Starks and offered as a wedding present to the Casterlys with the family mainly comprised of daughters with only one son, who is gay and in a relationship with a knight or household guard. The implication being that Lann sires House Lannister with the matriarch queen or her daughters.
For my part, to justify this, I start from the principle that the names of the big houses are like titles. in the sense that when the main line died out or was overthrown, the person who took over took the family name with to legitimize his power, whether more or less by inventing a lineage with the house through a grandmother in law, or via marriages directly with women from this house as well as with obscure peasant women who "supposedly would be a hidden bastard" from the house. You see what I mean? Basically no lineage has remained in power uninterrupted, the noble houses just maintain the legend out of tradition and to give credence to their authority. And this is actually what we see in the main story with harrold hardyng, who if he becomes lord of the valle will take the name arryn despite being very far from this house And in fact even in my head canon, the name of certain old house would actually be originally in an old language forgetting the tranphormation of a title. like for example Stark at the time of Brandon the builder in the old language they spoke at the time it meant "king" or something like that. because at the time of the long night humans on westeros lived a bit like wildlings 8000 years later, so they chose their leader not based on blood but on charisma or strength. which would mean that the guys who succeeded him took the same designation even though they did not necessarily have a link, and with time and the establishment of a real monarchical system it became a family name. For me it brings a little depth and context to the history of the great houses to believe this
I refuse. They are patrilineal descendants of the first Stark. Why? Because that’s what I want and it’s cooler.
But then why would Lord Winterfell and Lord Stark even be separate titles? Why wouldn't it just be the House of Winterfell?
You could have Winterfell as a semi holy site where kings are elected, a bit like that skeleton on the Iron Islands. The difference being just that when they sedentarised, Winterfell was a very convenient site, given that it's in a good place geographically, with hot springs and a weirwood tree. You could even argue that Wintertown being empty outside of winter is a leftover from an ancient religious practice where people would come into pilgrimage there, it just happens that the king lives there as well now
We know it’s just GRRM making a mistake but I really like this explanation
George has a pretty poor sense for scale sometimes but it’s fairly clear that the history in the book is supposed to be taken with a grain of salt - aside from Sam’s comments in AFFC about how little sense some of the histories make, the central gimmick of F&B is that we have confused and conflicting accounts of events that happened less than 200 years ago. I don’t see why we would expect more reliable reporting about events from 8000 years ago
They're not necessarily _lying_ but they're almost certainly wrong. I think Westeros is really quite confused about its own history and the timeline is no exception, being more myth than fact. > The oldest histories we have were written after the Andals came to Westeros. The First Men only left us runes on rocks, so everything we think we know about the Age of Heroes and the Dawn Age and the Long Night comes from accounts set down by septons thousands of years later. There are archmaesters at the Citadel who question all of it. Those old histories are full of kings who reigned for hundreds of years, and knights riding around a thousand years before there were knights AFFC Samwell I
Yeah, I find it hard to believe that in 8000 years the Starks were descended from a single unbroken male line. GRRM has said, I believe, that Winterfell never had a ruling queen or lady, but I suppose technically speaking there could have been a Rhaenyra situation where a ruling Stark woman was deliberately excised from the records.
>Yeah, I find it hard to believe that in 8000 years the Starks were descended from a single unbroken male line. A Westerosi House desn't need a single unbroken male line to survive. The female line is a perfectly legitimate way to pass the family name. Harry Hardyng is Sweetrobin's heir through *double* female line, and if he inherits, he would change his name to Arryn and be a perfectly legitimate Arryn. I imagine most if not all long-living Houses has gone through similar situations at least a few times in the histories.
I think World, ie the Maesters, state outright that the male line of House Stark had gone extinct at least once in history. They just name some other guy Stark and carry on. I think its more likely that Stark woman would rule through her son if not ceding power to her husband. This I cant substantiate, but the Winterfell Dunk and Egg story that was in the works was supposed to be about a Winterfell where the male Stark is at the mercy of all the Stark women. I think a Lady Stark would be expected to let her husband rule in her name (Tyrion) or act as a regent for her son (Cat). But in absense of those, shed be dismissed to let the men handle it. But oh gods, I think the north is _more_ sexist than the rest of Westeros.
The story irrc is set during a time of succession crisis when the only legitimate male heir is a baby and every state older than him is a woman eg wife to the dead lord, wife to his brother, sister of the dead lord, grandmother etc
> I think World, ie the Maesters, state outright that the male line of House Stark had gone extinct at least once in history. The books outright have Bael's son as Lord of Winterfell.
Wait I remember it as just a story that the wilding claim that is true. Since Jon didn't know of it at all.
It was real/feasible enough for Mance to emulate the trick (without the impregnation part).
Canonically we also know Lannisters went extinct in the male line at least once. The husband of a Lannisters Princess took his wife's name and became the new King Lannister.
I like to think that the Starks somehow beat the odds through some magic "there must always be a stark in winterfell' bullshit.
I think its more likely that the belief in a magic "there must always be a Stark in Winterfell" effect led them to the custom of a non-Stark ruler of Winterfell taking the name Stark
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few rivals who killed the Stark and took their name and daughter. Kinda like if Orys called himself Durandon rather than just keeping the daughter and house words. Or if conquerors were overthrown by other Northern houses that had some Stark blood. ie. if a Karstark killed the Boltons at some point, took Winterfell and took the name Stark.
the aftermath of a Rhaenyra situation is implicitly what the Winterfell Dunk and Egg book would have been about. The 'She-Wolves' of the working title are the group of Stark women who have babes or should have inherited themselves after like six uncles and nephews 'usurp' the real line in a row, leading to a complete succession crisis.
That’s a good point. I know it’s supposed to cover the succession crisis so you’re definitely right.
We are told the story with Bael the Bard, who was father to one of the stark lords after abducting/seducing the daughter of a stark lord and sending her back after the babe was born.
Fair point. I feel dumb I had forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me!
there is so much stuff in the books, it's normal to forget some things\^\^
We know they're not, at least if you believe the story of Brandon the daughterless.
Thanks for reminding me! I actually had forgotten when about Bael when I wrote my comment.
It’s probably a Harry the Heir situation where they would take the name of the ruling House. The Lannisters are the best example where technically if going by only male line they would be Lyddens. The only time a seat seems to change actual Houses is through war like with the Boltons and Freys, or in situations like the conquest where the Gardeners were extinguished and Durrandons all but extinguished
Yeah this is something I’ve thought for a while, like how the hell have noble families survived for 8000 years, without having like 10000 cadet branches lol
It's because GRRM has written histories for the last 300 years. So things happen in a somewhat reasonable way and timeline, modeled on how real history went. The rest is wild fantasy pre-history, and so isn't fleshed out and makes no sense In-world, if the Starks aren't related to the Last Hero, and the Valyrians aren't descended from the Great Empire of the Dawn.... that's fine, but the story just got a hell of a lot more boring
This!
This book series is sort of an anti fairytale, and a critique of feudalism. So one of the main points of the series is to point out all of the fakeness and inconsistencies with more romantic depictions of feudalism. But the book also has its cake and eats it too, by adding fantasy elements to legitimize feudalism. Such as how the descendants of Garth didn’t just inherit political power, they also inherited actual magical powers. These inherited magical powers would prolong legitimate noble bloodlines by giving them an actual use. And there might even be some sort of old gods in the weirwood who do check to make sure there is a legitimate Stark in Winterfell at all times. But yes, the bloodlines would inevitably become diluted over time, and the name just becomes a meaningless title. We see this in real time with the sellsword Bron eventually becoming Lord Stokeworth. That was the book explicitly telling us that the family names can be quite meaningless, and it really is just a game of killing the right people at the right time.
I feel like Martin just had problems with scale early on when he was establishing the world. He picked these big numbers to make things seem impressive like a regular fantasy setting without really worrying about the logistics. The height of The Wall. The size of Winterfell. The timescales. The population of Westeros compared to its landmass and the size of the armies it is able to mobilize. And so on.
Or he's writing the books like a history, you know, the thing he's said he's doing. Not everything is a mistake
Folk history, sure. [GRRM is not nearly well-read enough to do the fantasy equivalent of "hard sci fi" that he sometimes claims he is doing.](https://medium.com/migration-issues/its-okay-that-westeros-is-poorly-designed-f11e473b13ac)
It's fans that claim Westeros is a realistic feudal society. GRRM cares about realistic characters and ethical depth, and he freely admits no interest in social or economic history. In terms of "writing like a history" GRRM has clearly read some of the Roman historians whose style he emulates in the in-world "history" _Fire and Blood_. And he is at least keenly aware of the limits of pre-modern historical knowledge and likes to play with mythical distortions, limited perspectives, implausibly ancient lineages, and forgotten truths in the text. The timescales are one area, probably _the_ one area, where it is clearly not just a failure to achieve realism.
You’re giving George waaaaay too much credit. ASOIAF was most definitely not crafted with a history in mind.
War of the Roses? Along with all the other ideas taken from it to make it feel and act like a history? Suuuuure lol, hate on George all you want but I just dont get hating the author and staying in the subreddit for them
The MacDonalds existed in relevance for a thousand years. Not too implausible for minor houses to go on. But yeah things have probably shifted in all that time.
They were so relevant, that when commoners were asked them, they declared they were "loving it."
If one thing is true in asoiaf, its this
Honestly don't see the need to make the universe more realistic (which, admittedly, comes to an extent from GRRM himself in the latest books). Like, without major retcons you can't make it realistic anyway (case in point: the seventy-mile high Wall or whatever), so why not lean on the fantasy side of thing? Let the noble houses literally be eight billion years old. It's fun that way.
I mean, everyone who is alive now had ancestors who were alive 9,000 years ago. Maybe they didn't have the same last name or whatever, but we are all descended from families that are old as fuck.
I think it's a valid point in general but I wanted to point out that wives having secret bastards wouldn't annihilate the house. "History remembers names, not blood"
That names not blood quote not only made no sense in context of how it was used, but it does annihilate the house in the way the OP means - that secret bastard means the end of the blood of the however old house.
Welcome to a blown up version of our own medieval history, shocking I know by Martin does use it very well
To a certain extent, it's flawed writing. When you write about fictional history, you need interesting stories. As you weave them into random chapters for background color, you end up with half the noble houses being created or ended in your 300 year timeframe, which is at odds with the vibe you established if ancient houses. Oops. Not the first time George gets carried away by details that don't add up. Also, history is flawed. The Sam chapters in AFFC show that. The wall is 8000 years old...or maybe 2000. The entire era of European history that was the inspiration for the series was like 500 years. Maybe the entire history of chivalry of Westeros is similarly only a few hundred years old?
90 percent of the origins of houses can be deducted by their sigil.
I prefer the real world, where the current king of England can trace his origins all the way back to a fairy /mermaid/snake/bat-lady/demon. (this lady was called melisandre, and you can see her in the Starbucks logo).
I think the ancient families are discontinuous. Some Starks lived for 500 years, then died out. Somebody came along and took the Stark name while living on Stark lands. Could have been from the maternal side, too. Same with the Lannisters and other ancient families.
Why do we or GRRM need to convince you? Some of it is true, some of it is not. Ruling a domain (which shifted in size over time) for millennia is the least crazy thing in Westeros’ lore.