#Fosterage in ASOIAF

[horizon-verizon]

Hello, I just found your blog and I am slowly going through the Characterizations Tag So sorry if you've already answered this but:

In a post that analyzes Corlys1x10 you analyze how grandchildren refers specifically to the girls Baela and Rhaena. That made me feel less crazy because it seems that because the show leaned so heavily on the "illegitimate" status of Rhaenyra's children and grouped the girls with their grandfather instead of their father... I never know how to read the dynamics of power between them.My questions are: Don't you think he was including the boys? and how do you see C&R's relationship with his FIVE grandchildren on the show and how much power did they have over them? For example, did they have a say in Baela's marriages since she was their pupil? What about Luke and Joff who would keep the Velaryon name? Is the head of their family Corlys or Rhaenyra?

Perhaps anon is talking about this post.

It's important to note that OFFICIALLY, the HotD writers consider their story "a different canon", especially after GRRM has recently conflicted against his earlier blog statement of that "only the books are canon" to say that the show and books are their own separate "canon" stories by not providing a breakdown of how this affects how people will look at the original story. I have described HotD as bad AU fanfiction trying to disguise itself as a new refreshing outlook of the original story.

A)

No, he wasn't including the 3 Velaryon boys. While their last names are "Velayron", his authority over their lives does not supersede Viserys' nor Rhaneyra's. Jace, Luke, and Joff are all technically a part of the Velaryon house AND a part of the Targaryen house simultaneously because of them being royal heirs--Jace definitely being the heir to the future Queen and the rest of the boys being "jic heirs" or spares while show!Luke was to inherit Driftmark. Book!Luke seemed that way as Corlys accepted him as his grandchild and married Laenor to Rhaenyra for the purpose of having two heirs through Laenor (male line) simultaneously: an heir for the throne and an heir to Driftmark. That's because the Targs outrank him, he himself seemed to negotiate w/Viserys for it, and the Targs needed heirs from Rhaenyra above all. Baela and Rhaena, however, cannot be understood as Velaryons. Though they have a Velaryon mother, Corlys obviously wanted male heirs, no royal proclamation announced that they should inherit before the Velaryon boys for the throne, AND it is custom and inherent to this society that when children are born they take their father's house' identity, are members of his house, take his surname and are a part of their father's lineage...not their mother's. The Velaryon boys are an exception in this patriarchal world. He definitely seemed to love all his grandkids, but when we are talking politics, nah he doesn't have the same type of authority over the boys' lives as Viserys does over Rhaenyra.

Corlys also never announced that either granddaughter would inherit Drfitmark independently in either book or show. And in the show, he explicitly says that Lucerys is his heir. In the book, while his granddaughters are alive, he wanted and got Rhaenyra to name his bastard "grandsons" Velaryons so that they could inherit Driftmark, showing his preference for males and not wanting his granddaughters to inherit. Girls are seen as "last resort" or "avenues" to succession of power most of the time.

Show!Baela wasn't a pupil, she was their ward. In real Western societies--not Westeros-- "wards" are those you take into your care as if you were their parent or main caregiver while a pupil is just a person you teach a skill, practice, etc. like a student. A pupil typically does not live with you and under your care.

*(Self Correction)* And having wards in the modern sense is not like the practice called "fosterage" in Westeros, where the fostered persons usually come from different houses for the sake of a future alliance. Westerosi people call those they foster "wards", but those kids whose parents gave them for alliances and deals and after losing certain confrontations are either still alive or the house of the child still exists. Whereas in modern societies, a ward has no potential caregiver or authority outside of the person/host taking care of them. "Wards" who are fosters in Westeros are supposed to be able to go back to their parents/houses at some point--they never lose their official tie and House name. Daenaera was not a true "foster-ward" in the Westerosi sense, just a ward in the real-life modern sense, of Baela and Alyn Velaryon bc her parents were dead and she is already a Velaryon. So again, she was their "ward" but not their foster-ward even when she is called a "ward" in canon.

Modern western societies' wards have no bio family who can take care of them, while fostered youths almost always have family/a house who could take care of them but they aren't under their roofs because the parents/adults/authorities arranged a deal for other political reasons (So Spake Martin).

The fostered are also usually not closely blood-related to the host. In fact, it seems that the more distanced and unrelated, the better and sought-after wards, as the point is to make and encourage future better relations/an alliance between the two houses: the one giving the child and the one receiving them. Or the fostered child is given to appease the more powerful host after a conflict or confrontation or to demonstrate the giver's submission (the Stark and Theon Greyjoy).

Thus wards and fostered people have no real or accepted rights to inherit anything reserved to their host's family or house, much less the house & household or authority over it. Hosts do not have any official say as to who their fostered wards marry bc they are of different houses and they cannot supersede the head's wishes. They can definitely influence and if they are powerful enough or if the fostered child was given for appeasement/after a lost conflict then the host has more say, but their word is usually not final and they do not make the arrangements so much as probably suggest some. Fostered wards, once they go into their age of majority, can go and come as they please. At the same time, it isn't wise to go directly against your host/your child's host's political desires.

However, show!Baela is directly related to her "host", to Corlys by being his granddaughter. She has been fostered for no real, conventional, or logical explanation since Show!Corlys already assured a link b/t Velaryon and Targs through the marriage b/t Laenor & Rhaenyra, has male heirs through Lucerys and Joffrey, AND has visibly accepted them as his heirs. He had explicitly already arranged so with Viserys before their kids married. She also simply is not part of that house nor an actual member, even though she can trace her link to the Velaryons through her mother by merely one generation. All this and this never happened in the original story.

If we were to completely accept that Corlys felt that Baela should inherit despite all his actions showing that he wanted Luke, yeah it follows that he'd have more say than he'd actually have or should over who Baela marries. In fact, if he ever did name her with the monarch's/head of Targ's permission, he'd have more authority regardless of what Daemon said. HOWEVER, even in the show, it still doesn't make any sense because her father is still alive and is the customary person Corlys would have to look to decide things about bloodlines and inheritances regarding Baela (marriage is inherently tied to those things in such a feudal society, bc who you marry affects your access to positions and who your kids are also affects that) just as he had to with Rhaenyra through Viserys. In the book, no, he doesn't have an official say in who his granddaughters marry though he could have influenced the deciders through attractive suggestions, bribes, promises, etc. Regardless of royalty, Daemon is the twins' dad and they took his name. They are of House Targaryen, they "belong" to House Targaryen, and they are considered members of "House Targaryen" while also having "weaker" Velaryon claims from their mother being of Velaryon. Daemon is the one responsible and the one officially capable of allowing Baela & Rhaena to be married at all unless Viserys or Rhaenyra comes in and intercedes bc both outrank him (and I don't even think Daemon would care for that if he's convinced he knows better for his daughters, that's who Daemon is). Yes the twins can still theoretically inherit if Corlys names them, but they'd likely have to change their surnames and Daemon/Rhaenyra/Viserys would have to be part of the negotiations for their inheriting Driftmark and how and give enthusiastic permission. Jace would likely have changed his name to "Targaryen" once he actually ruled. If they ever were to inherit Driftmark, his brothers would keep their Velaryon names and Velaryon claims (look to #2 of point B below).

Even when Rhaenyra was married to Laenor, she never changed her name nor was she ever considered subordinate to Laenor because she was the heir to the throne. Even though princesses of the blood (Rhaenys, Rhaelle, etc.) have had the privileged option of changing their surname when marrying into a nonroyal house but still using and announcing themselves as "of" their maiden house, Rhaenyra being the heir had a status and a rank that both trump Laenor's. Noble women typically change their surnames to their husbands'. However, if their house happens to be of higher status or rank or whatever, they are more likely to just keep their names or keep them and take on their husbands simultaneously. Outside of Dorne, children do not typically take on their mother's surnames even when their mothers are heirs/ruling ladies. Rhaenyra is the exception bc a) heir-ness b) it was arranged for Jace to be king that way.

There are many Velaryon members who would theoretically inherit before either twin w/o there being negotiations. Yes, since his kids are marrying into the house AND the Targs are seeking an alliance w/him for the sake of Rhaenyra's birthright, Corlys had more influence in the arrangements over who will be named what and who will inherit what, etc. But since he's dealing with not only a separate house but the royal one, he also still cannot make certain demands without losing some privileges & benefits from marrying his kids into said house.

The show would have us think that Baela being sent to "assist" Corlys and Rhaenys is some sort of "backup". The show contradicts itself by trying to provide "complexities", which is why you're probably having a tougher time reading the situation.

B)

1.

Viserys is both the head of state (Westeros) and the head of the Targaryen House. Corlys was the head of the entire house of Velaryon, but not the Targaryen House. There is Viserys/Rhaenyra's house and there is Corlys' house, who happen to share relatives and ancestors, but they do not occupy nor lead the same house.

While I can say that a "family" makes a feudal "house", it is still different from the type of "family" you are used to as a digital-age citizen. Whereas a "clan" is a collection of families who may or may not be related to the head/chieftain/etc. and have a broader sense of community, a "house" is from a much more hierarchal system whereby the "house" is of the main hereditary "family" and its subordinates. A "house" is made up of a hereditary head (lord or lady) with a title and land while having a lot of power and influence within the "family". A "house" maintains its overlordship over nearby lands and vassals who swear to follow the head of the house's military (& otherwise) orders and pay them some tax, and has an established "household": the social unit of not just blood relatives but the servants and other officers working for the head and their family. Therefore, "family" and "house" don't always mean the same thing, even with the many crossovers.

Corlys--as NOT the person who leads house Targaryen and is in charge of what their bloodline looks like--doesn't have the final say over said Targ bloodline and neither Rhaenyra nor Viserys gets the final, independent say over who inherits the Velaryon Driftmark seat (unless there's literally no one else).

2.

In Westeros, there is a custom of having a shared relative/outsider/official or prospective heir's surname changed to the surname of the house they are arranged to rule or have conquered/conquered by. Examples are Joffrey Lydden taking on the Lannister name from his wife so he could rule the house/the Kingdom of the Rock but not change its "identity" and recognized lineage (AWoIaF -- "The Westerlands") AND the accepted possibility of Beren Tallhart getting the Hornwood name upon inheriting the Hornwood lands (A Clash of Kings -- Chapter 16, Bran II).

It's not common, because people prefer to have a male heir born into the family to inherit the leadership of the said family and thus they will create/have other customs to direct events towards that end (limiting female mobility and sexual autonomy through virginity/chastity principles, the concept of bastardy, children taking the father's surname automatically, etc.).

#asoiaf asks to me #corlys velaryon (dance)'s characterization #hotd writing #fire and blood characters #baela rhaena and driftmark seat #baela and rhaena #driftmark claim #westeros succession #corlys velaryon #asoiaf fosterage #westerosi society #the velaryon boys

[fedonciadale]

Re the wards and bastards ask.

I might be totally in the wrong here, disregard if I am.

Yet I cannot think of any children in the book series that are fostered away. Ned and Robert were fostered away notably.

But no other mention of noble sons being fostered away. I would have thought there would at least be a mention on that. Sweetrobin is mentioned to have dodged this. Robb was not sent away to be fostered (which I can see why, since he is the heir. Then again I have in my head that even heirs were fostered away for a time in the medieval times).

Hi there!

A ward is a bit different, I'd say because Theon is basically staying at Winterfell to ensure that Balon behaves. He is a hostage, but since he is a noble hostage he is treated with respect and along the other children of the Stark household.

I honestly think that GRRM did not think through this whole system of fosterage, hostages, wards and bastards and to me that is o.k. because in the Middle Ages the amount of fostering was different in different countries and a ward could easily become a hostage and a hostage could become an ally, and a ward could become a prisoner.

Fosterage happened a lot in the Celtic countries up to a point where children would not really know their biological parents and have a far stronger bond with their adoptive parents and their adoptive siblings. In Ireland or Wales or Scotland heirs could be raised elsewhere, but in Wales and Ireland it could be debated of who even is an heir, because inheritance is different there.

But it's far rarer in the other countries in Europe. Wards happen quite a lot though. Orphans who are taken in by either close relatives or even the king. Older teenager boys (over 14) might squire to close allies of their family and girls might be sent to their future in-laws if they were betrothed early. Such wards could easily become hostages if the political situation changed. I think Robert and Ned being fostered to the Eyrie (at a rather late age) is more a situation of getting the last polishing to their education at the hands of a close ally of their father than actual fosterage.

So, if there had been no war, Theon probably would have married a Northern Girl and at some point be allowed to return to Pyke with the full expectation to be an ally and friend rather than an enemy. This is how slow change can happen after all.

If Balon had rebelled again it is even questionable if Theon had been killed as a hostage. The situation usually plays out differently: The rebellion is put down and the heir and hostage replaces the father. He will be even more estranged from him after a rebellion because the father obviously did not care about his life. His guardians however did. And they were the people he stayed with for the last decade or so.

Hostages are rarely actually killed (although you could argue that this is why there are given after all). When Llywelyn ap Iorwerth rebelled against John Lackland, King John (of evil fame) actually killed all the hostages Llywelyn had given him after his last rebellion and people were quite appalled, because they were children. John only spared Llywelyn's eldest son (to force him to yield I guess).

Another famous case is young William Marshall (who became at a later time a really famous knight). He was given as a hostage to King Stephen, his father rebelled again and Stephen wanted to hang him, but did not pull through when he saw that William was just a boy. Guess how good William's relationship to his father was.... (well, we don't really know).

Sansa who is a ward of the crown is a hostage and a prisoner as well and the king being her guardian is a position Joffrey clearly disabuses. In a cold and calculating way Robb is right to not consider her situation or to consider her while he wages war with the Lannisters. He cannot allow himself to be pressured after all, not from his enemy.

So, although children might be called wards, hostages, fosterchildren, the reality is often somewhere in between and can shift easily if politics change. If Jon Arryn had delivered Robert and Ned to Aerys in a political move to secure his own position, the rebellion against Aerys would have been ended very early on. And Robert and Ned would have changed from fostersons to prisoners very easily.

So, I hope you can makes some sense from my ramblings. lol

Thanks for the ask!

#anon ask #ASOIAF world building #Fosterage in ASOIAF #Hostages in ASOIAF #wards in ASOIAF #ASOIAF #Theon Greyjoy #Sansa Stark #Ned Stark #fostered at the Eyrie

[horizon-verizon]

Do you think that it makes any difference that all of the Rhaenys involvement at the Painted Table, where she uses "we" and does the dragon count, she is already sworn to Rhaenyra and her husband is there? Whereas what we get is these conversations all happened *before* Rhaenys and Corlys declare for Rhaenyra and she was not a "part" of the Black Council yet? Do you still think she could have said those lines?

Coming from this post.

I'm confused with this question.

Like I said in that post, all of those present knew that even being in this council would alert the greens and make them go against them since they already received letters from the greens. Yet Rhaenys and Corlys appear...

If you are trying to say that Rhaenys wasn't a part of the black council...yes, she was? The "council" is the gathering of the blacks, not the blacks themselves. She was talking and deliberating w/them, therefore, she was a part of the black council. And yeah, she'd say those lines because she had to have thought about them before even coming to the council, thus we see her intent towards supporting Rhaenyra and ALL her grandkids.

Are you asking whether or not Rhaenys swore herself to Rhaenyra? Corlys did. Rhaenys is the "consort" of a ruling lord. She is not the type of lady who has the same authority or abilities as a ruling lady like Rhaenyra for Dragonstone, so she does not have the same powers as Corlys is the lord or how Rhaenyra is the "lady" of Dragonstone. She does not make the official final decisions for her husband's house unless he is totally out of commission or it is her son/child who is heir but cannot rule as an adult yet. Customarily, she would follow her husband's command in regards to who he decides to fight for, and what battles he'd fight. But for Rhaenys herself, I doubt that she would ever try to convince her husband to not fight for the people they both have the more emotional and political interests and investments in. Plus, House Targaryen is her maiden house. Theoretically, if Corlys were to not follow through with supporting Rhaenyra, Rhaenys (as a royal, she never lost that title) could just fight for Rhaenyra herself, esp since she has her own dragon. Would she, though? Mmmm, dicey. If it were anyone besides Corlys (which isn't likely to happen since Rhaneys chose Corlys herself and for a reason, that reason being he would more likely consider her ideas than others and "tolerate" her more independent thinking) maybe, but nah.

If you are asking whether we can find any strong material for Rhaenys' thoughts and regards towards the V boys and Rhaenyra BEFORE she and Corlys appeared at the black council, eh, not really. We never got any specific details about her interacting with Daemon and Rhaenyra in the interim between Laena's death and the greens usurping Rhaenyra. All of Laena-Rhaenyra-Daemon's kids live and grow under her and Daemon's authority/parentage from the moment she married Daemon and we can only assume that Rhaenys & Corlys visited their grandkids when they felt like it and were free. We do not have any proof or indication of their dislike or hatred or whatever against the married couple nor their willingness to let the V boys go for their bio granddaughters. None. If anything, Rhaenys' words at the council indicate her long intention to back Rhaenyra and her identity as a black herself.

It is about the likelihood--Occam's razor.

HotD made a Rhaenys that was totally and absolutely against being involved in the green vs black conflict, leaving her V grandsons out for her bio-Targaryen granddaughters, or not supporting Rhaenyra. And by all means, she could never stand out of the conflict, esp if we argue that she loved her granddaughters alone.

Their granddaughters, once more, were betrothed to each of the older boys--they also only stood to gain in protections for the dragon twins, wealth, and prestige (side-note: which is what Corlys wanted in the first place when he married Laenor to Rhaenyra!).

We also never had Baela become Corlys or Rhaenys' ward/a Velaryon ward like Daenaera became the ward of Baela & Alyn Velaryon after her father and immediate family died. Baela becoming a Velaryon ward or foster or anything like that is purely a HotD invention and doesn't make any sense for the situation then.

Fostered kids are called "wards" but they are not the same kind or have the same context as modern "wards". Even if Baela ever became a Velaryon "ward", Baela should never been described as Rhaenys' ward anyway--she'd be Colrys's ward bc it is Corlys who is the ruling lord of the Velaryons. even with Rhaneys married to Corlys and thereby being a part of his house, she would "lead" Baela as a caregiver in the name and authority under his rule and authority, not her own. Officially. Which is why I keep saying "Velaryon ward" and not "Rhaenys' ward". In practice, Rhaenys is Baela's grandmother. That's enough for Baela to follow her directions. Baela is not a true fostered child of the Velaryons because a fostered child is not exactly the same as a true "ward" in the sense of the modern meaning.

#asoiaf asks to me #the velaryons #rhaenys targaryen #rhaenys targaryen's characterization (meleys' rider) #fire and blood characters #the black council #asoiaf fosterage

[horizon-verizon]

When I think of Ned, all I can think of is the old “Aesop’s Fables” adage: “A man is known by the company he keeps.”

Response to this post & this post, likely.

Ned & Robert were both wards of Lord Jon Arryn, and both were fostered by this lord. Their friendship was encouraged mainly for politics and the interest of their respective houses and both understood that from the time that they were old enough to understand "duty" and "honor", and were trained to be warriors.

I imagine that Ned--the more dutiful, practical one AS WELL AS a person who isn't much of a philosophical thinker or a "humanist" (and doesn't have to be bc he is a lord/was a lord's son)--was able to put aside even his sister's worry over Robert Baratheon for the sake of the alliance even in his younger years when everyone was still alive, including his older brother and father.

So the "Company" Ned keeps was first pushed onto him and in one sense he had to keep relations with Robert friendly. Even in AGoT we see this relationship deteriorate the more Ned witnesses Robert's careless depravity and its threat against the realm and his own family.

BUT there was also this thread of what Ned would/does think of Cersei and those who do not act "better" to the letter of "honor" and "duty". Ned's problem is that he hasn't really investigated, to himself, how "love" can disrupt and even when it must disrupt "duty" because he thought and convinced himself that the latter will ensure the first's continuance.

The reasons why he was allowed to "fool" himself? Male aristocratic privilege, distance, and the larger social motivation/actions of his forefathers and direct relations to upkeep male aristocratic privilege & power whether it was to survive or to just accrue power. Because the purpose defines and means just as much as the intentions. At least this is me explaining it very broadly.

#ned stark's characterization #ned stark #agot characterization #agot #asoiaf #asoiaf fosterage

[horizon-verizon]

Could a regent or steward take a ward? Just thinking about Baela and Rhaenys.

There's no known precedent for regents--royal or noble--taking wards or fostering children in ASoIaF. It could go like a Queen Regent or Lady "Regent" or whatever sort of regent advises the monarch's council to take in the hostage or to-be-foster in the name of the lord/lady/monarch. But that ward is not under her name. The ward is under the royal authority and name, and practically usually would follow whoever has the practicing/practical power.

Stewards are not leaders of the house nor the household--they do not take wards for the house and cannot make such decisions for the house. They simply don't have that authority.

#asoiaf asks to me #asoiaf fosterage