Re: Game Discussion

[Theomore Tullison]

Some take a last name like the Kettleblacks, most go with the style of Arlan of Pennytree, Bronn of the Blackwater etc...

But Lady Durant implies that it's an actual house we're dealing with here. The act of knighting bestows nobility upon you, but that status does not carry over to your grandchildren, and depending on who you are dealing with in Westerosi politics, it might not even apply to your own children (unless they are knights themselves or marries one). No lands=no noble house, as in, you depend upon the goodwill of someone with lands or the hedge.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Knights don't get a House until they become landed knights.

Example: Baelon was Ser Baelon until Daveth made him a bannerman and granted him lands. Now he is Lord Baelon (and chose the name Drakeson both for himself and his House, replacing his old bastard surname of Waters).

So a female knight would have earned the title Ser, because the only way to get the title 'Lady' is to be the wife of a Lord...though this gets fudged a LOT by generically referring to just about any woman of noble birth as 'lady.' There is a distinct difference between the generic term of respect 'lady' and the actual reference to rank 'Lady.'

Loreia is therefore Ser Loreia, and not lady Loreia, and DEFINITELY not Lady Loreia. However, because 'lady' is the only honorific that Westerosi society typically awards women, she will probably get called lady a lot.

There's no gender difference in knightly honorifics, largely because there hasn't needed to be one before.

I dunno. Dorne might have one. I don't think they really knight women either though. They're just more open to the idea of female rulers.

[Dyana Marsten]

I was under the impression Lord/Lady followed by a First name is a common way to address someone of noble birth, while Lord/Lady and a surname/house name refers to the actual heads of the house.

Say, in the show's first season, you could refer to Sansa as Lady Sansa, but Lady Stark was only Catelyn. No?

[Ser Alfred Haigh]

That was one of the lines I was thinking along, yes.
Just need to finish calculating the odds of Alfie biting his tongue off before addressing Loreia as 'Ser'. Call him old-fashioned on that stuff. I'm still undecided on that.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

It would be Ser Loreia as much as its Lord Corrine.
Think I'm going to settle for Lady Durant if need be. :;
):

Since you're new, I'll let that go, but you're wrong. Loreia is actually an anointed knight, so her title is actually Ser. She is, as the others have pointed out, not a lady or Lady.

[Theomore Tullison]

Though many traditionalists (whether of the green or true variety) will reject the notion that a woman can be knighted in the first place. In which case, she has neither the title of ser nor the rank of nobility.

There's a reason why House Tully took a -6 influence hit over what it's heir did.

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Though many traditionalists (whether of the green or true variety) will reject the notion that a woman can be knighted in the first place. In which case, she has neither the title of ser nor the rank of nobility.

There's a reason why House Tully took a -6 influence hit over what it's heir did.

The price to pay to be on the right side of history. :;
):

[Theomore Tullison]

And I'm sure Lord Gormon pays gladly

Since any noble woman should be addressed as lady, and knighthood confers nobility, using lady Loreia is not exactly wrong. And seeing that there exists no precedent for how to address a knighted woman to begin with, I don't think there's going to be a uniform way of going on about it IC among those who choose to recognize the knighthood.

[Reader]

Though many traditionalists (whether of the green or true variety) will reject the notion that a woman can be knighted in the first place. In which case, she has neither the title of ser nor the rank of nobility.

There's a reason why House Tully took a -6 influence hit over what it's heir did.

Indeed, as Theomore says, some will address appreciate by her title, many won't.

Corrine is correct - we'll play and find of which side writes the histories and whether this is a triumph of a tragedy.

[Theomore Tullison]

Heh, might be that history overlooks Eoric's moment of insanity should the blacks win and paint it in less positive light should the greens do the same.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Since any noble woman should be addressed as lady, and knighthood confers nobility, using lady Loreia is not exactly wrong. And seeing that there exists no precedent for how to address a knighted woman to begin with, I don't think there's going to be a uniform way of going on about it IC among those who choose to recognize the knighthood.

Addressing Loreia as 'lady' would be acknowledging her ascension to nobility and thus acknowledge her knighting just as much as 'Ser', albeit in a more roundabout way.
As for precedent regarding knighted women: there is no precedent regarding knighted women, but there is a precedent regarding knighthood in general: 'Ser'. The desire to differentiate the title has nothing to do with precedent, it is solely based on gender discrimination.

As a point of comparison, real-world knighted women predated the use of 'Dame' as a title for knighted women by over 700 years: there were knighted women at least as early as the 12th century, but 'Dame' as a title for female knights was established in 1917. Prior to then it was used for the wife of a knight.

[Loreia]

Well, I guess that gives us something in common, Loreia.

We should talk sometime.

Oh, awesome. In what regard??

Yep, Loreia was knighted by House Tully's heir, who dubbed her "
ser,"
and she stuck with it. Lady or not, (like it or not) she's being pushed towards behaving (significantly) more ladylike. With knighthood comes a knightly "
house"
, currently all title and name with nothing else. "
Durant"
is a last name, I know that for sure. I didn't find any house in the Ice and Fire wiki that holds that name, so I went for it! One of the online dictionaries I use listed it as an adjective secondary to its primary usage, so she just thought it up herself. She did have a last name at one point, but I decided I didn't like it and swept it under the rug. Kinda feel bad for what Eoric Tully's going through right now, I feel partly responsible.

Smallfolk can have last names, but this is not always true, and nobles often probably don't care. For instance, Gared from the Telltale video game has the last name Tuttle, but he's only the lowborn son of a pig farmer whose brother happened to be the castellan of Ironrath (and there's probably a story behind that promotion).

There are three Dornish cultures/peoples in Dorne, and the one closest to the southernmost kingdoms has softened to the Andal religion and tradition, but as this is a rare thing. Loreia's case is very likely the first occurrence of a woman knighted, so it's probable that their gender inclusiveness in the martial side of their culture hasn't won over or been pursued to result in any/many warrior women being knighted in Dorne.

The Targaryens have warrior women among them, but going ahead and knighting themselves might cause another stir among the ardent traditionalists. They're already nobility anyway, and they only really bother to poke the beehive if they stand to benefit from it in a significant way. Their names and actions have enough weight and power behind them already that knighting themselves would probably hurt more than it helps.

[Ser Alfred Haigh]

Which is the whole point, I guess. Westerosi society is based on gender discrimination and I highly doubt it'd 'reward' Loreia for her achievements in a way that legitimizes her defiance of gender roles, especially when shes from oop north. Even if there has been that sort of recognition for her personal skills and achievements, society would likely not want to create a precedent that invites more females to break with the accepted social norms. The interesting point that is a nice thing for IC exploration is whether addressing her as Lady Loreia (As a foreigner, I'll use the capitalized form, the uncapitalized word used as a title looks and feels weird for me) is meant as a genuine recognition of her status, a consciously chosen way to strip her of the fruits of her work and just make sure she is back in a social drawer Westerosi society is comfortable with handling (here: low-ranking Noblewomen), a mixture of both or something else I haven't been verbose enough to come up with.

'Ser' as a precedent is problematic as it has been a primarily male domain for centuries and those guys will generally be a bit apprehensive about opening the club for women. On the other hand, it's clear that the avoidance of creating a precedent also works in Loreia's favour in a way. By using the address Ser, knights would avoid making up a female version that would go into the book, if you will, creating a lawful term that women can use as an argument ('If women can't become knights, why is there a female Title form that has been made up and officialised ?' "
Err...."
'Thought so, where do I have to sign to have my daughter join ?'). However, so does using Lady Loreia.

Thus, both methods have merits and drawbacks and I'd argue that there is a lot of personal milleage involved with who uses which form with which intent behind it. WHat's clear is that the Shieldmaiden has caused a controversy that society is forced to adapt to, one way or the other, so it won't be an issue that will be solved quickly or quietly. But then, quick and quiet problem solutions are mostly boring anyway, aren't they ? :;
):

[Loreia]

Well, they can also be disrespectful and not use a prefix title. They can call me Shieldmaiden, which is just my nickname, which can be an honorific in a broad sense depending on whoever's saying it. I'm sure we can trust that the traditionalists, both respectful and otherwise, have found a way around this.

[Ser Alfred Haigh]

Well, if there's one thing traditionalists can be trusted on, it's this !

[Baelon Drakeson]

'Ser' as a precedent is problematic as it has been a primarily male domain for centuries and those guys will generally be a bit apprehensive about opening the club for women.

For hundreds if not thousands of years, knighthood was exclusive to Andals. Did they come up with new titles for First Men, Dornish, or Targaryans who became knights? No. So why for women?

On the other hand, it's clear that the avoidance of creating a precedent also works in Loreia's favour in a way. By using the address Ser, knights would avoid making up a female version that would go into the book, if you will, creating a lawful term that women can use as an argument ('If women can't become knights, why is there a female Title form that has been made up and officialised ?' "
Err...."
'Thought so, where do I have to sign to have my daughter join ?').

Eh, "
separate but equal"
only works on paper. If there were a 'Dame' or equivalent, it would quickly become "
Dame's aren't real knights"
.

WHat's clear is that the Shieldmaiden has caused a controversy that society is forced to adapt to, one way or the other, so it won't be an issue that will be solved quickly or quietly. But then, quick and quiet problem solutions are mostly boring anyway, aren't they ? :;
):

Indeed!

[Ser Alfred Haigh]

"
For hundreds if not thousands of years, knighthood was exclusive to Andals. Did they come up with new titles for First Men, Dornish, or Targaryans who became knights? No. So why for women?"


Because those First Men, Targaryen and Dornish (Well, actual amount of those is still up for debate) accepted the Andal norms and traditions that came with a knighthood. It is possible to accept foreign tenents tied to a concept you look up to. A First Man or Dornish doesn't cease being a first man or Dornish by accepting the Andal clauses coming with the title. A woman subscribing herself to those values that contradict what their culture sees as appropriate, however, do. Having a look at different RL traditions where a female ceases being seen as such and becoming juristically male, gender is a much higher barrier than culture. I'm not going down the route of 'Dornishman wants to become a knight ->
subscribes to Andal Norms = Andal Norms are accepted and reinforced' and 'Woman wants to become knight ->
Subscribes to Andal Norms = Puts herself way over her station and mocks the Andal Norms by using them as a vehicle to defy whats socially acceptable', because we all know we're dealing with a somewhat traditionalist sorta medieval society here thats bound to have a different view than we do.

Note that Dornish and perhaps the Mormont bannermen are noted exceptions to the notion that warfare is a pursuit mostly restricted to men. Let us look at what society expects of knights: They are charged to be just, brave, protect the young and innocent and protect all women. We all know how things go with ideals and their realization in practice, but we also see how the Seven are inherently involved with the legitimation of knightdom. If Westerosi society as a whole accepted that women as a whole should be able to fight for and protect themselves, for example by being accepted into the status of knights on a general consensus, this would chip away from the socially accepted justification for the existance of knights and jeopardize an importantr reason for their social standing, something every knight, no matter how close or distant from the ideal, is quite protective of. The inclusion of men of other cultures, does not.

Again, I'm not saying it can't happen, but looking at it from this perspective, I hope I have been able to illuminate why exceptions to this rule will be watched closely in my opinion, and also why it is sort of a big deal for Loreia and everyone around her, be it for good or ill. In any case, Loreia's conduct will most likely greatly influence how further exceptions to the rule will be considered in the future.

Meh, didn't mean to preach sorry, my inner historian coming out. In any way, it's going to be a nice conflict of perspectives to play with, and that all that matters.

[Loreia]

Again, I'm not saying it can't happen, but looking at it from this perspective, I hope I have been able to illuminate why exceptions to this rule will be watched closely in my opinion, and also why it is sort of a big deal for Loreia and everyone around her, be it for good or ill. In any case, Loreia's conduct will most likely greatly influence how further exceptions to the rule will be considered in the future.

Meh, didn't mean to preach sorry, my inner historian coming out. In any way, it's going to be a nice conflict of perspectives to play with, and that all that matters.

Definitely yes to all this. Gwyn just got done telling me this IC to persuade me towards proper articulation and vernacular. Which has been met with some resistance.

[Ser Alfred Haigh]

Why does that make me think of Pygmalion and Educating Rita, just transferred to Westeros ?

[Lady Corrine Marsten]

Corrine will definitely be addressing Loreia as Ser. That's how she rolls. :8-):

[Dyana Marsten]

Corrine will definitely be addressing Loreia as Ser. That's how she rolls. :8-):

You bet.

[Theomore Tullison]

With knighthood comes a knightly "
house"
, currently all title and name with nothing else.

No, it doesn't.

With knighthood comes the title of ser. A knightly house implies that the knight's children are noble blooded which is not the case with most knights not of noble birth to begin with, at most they will be treated as nobles until marriage (girls) or when old enough to become knights in their own right (boys), and then they'll be nobles if they married a knight/noble or have been knighted.

Also, the RL comparisons are problematic in so far that we have Brienne to go by in the books, and how she was looked upon by the men suggests that female warriors are pretty much unheard of in the Andal tradition, there's not exactly a history in Westeros of female warriors keeping to the knightly traditions, there's Northern and Dornish warrior women who does not. I think what it all comes down to is that Loreia is a first, defying all conventions and possibly one or more passages in the seven pointed star or some other text which knighthood is based upon, though if we settle for defying the conventional interpretation of the relevant passages in the seven pointed star, that sounds like the most fertile ground for fun, providing both sides with the ability to argue for their point of view.

[Baelon Drakeson]

With knighthood comes a knightly "
house"
, currently all title and name with nothing else.

No, it doesn't.

Any references to back that up?
Just because Bronn uses the title "
of the Blackwater"
does not necessarily mean he does not have a knightly house.
Many knights use titles other than their house names;
it does not imply they do not have houses (and sometimes is an "
inherited"
title that goes with a house, such as "
of Ninestars"
).

With knighthood comes the title of ser. A knightly house implies that the knight's children are noble blooded which is not the case with most knights not of noble birth to begin with, at most they will be treated as nobles until marriage (girls) or when old enough to become knights in their own right (boys), and then they'll be nobles if they married a knight/noble or have been knighted.

Again, references?
In part I suspect the present confusion is based on the lack of clarity of whether or not knights (of non-noble origin) are considered nobles or not. It is unclear;
certainly knights and their (immediate) families are of higher status than smallfolk, but less than members of even minor noble houses... but the "
lines"
are hardly sharply drawn. How much official social status you have is often based upon your influence as much as your birth. See for instance House Heddle - all they have left is a name;
other than that they are effectively smallfolk and live life as such.

Really, I suspect that it is a similar situation to the inheritance stuff we've discussed before - there is a certain amount of tradition or common practice, then there is a certain amount of uncommon occurrences and not much in terms of actual codified law;
the uncommon occurrences can be seen as precedent-setting or as exceptions - all depending on who is doing the legal interpretation. I am reminded of [url=the Archbishop of Canterbury's Salique law speech in Henry V][/url], which seemingly served as propaganda for the bard's patrons and comedy for the groundlings - particularly seeing even the King seems not to follow the argumentation, asking for clarification after. A nice jab at legalistic sophistry.

Also, the RL comparisons are problematic in so far that we have Brienne to go by in the books, and how she was looked upon by the men suggests that female warriors are pretty much unheard of in the Andal tradition, there's not exactly a history in Westeros of female warriors keeping to the knightly traditions, there's Northern and Dornish warrior women who does not.

The real-world references I brought up were in regard to establishing a chronological relationship between female knights and a title for them other than 'Sir' - simply pointing out that the existence of female knights does not entail or necessitate the existence of a new title. Certainly, it is a new situation in Westeros - or at least, if it has happened before it has been buried and forgotten.

I think what it all comes down to is that Loreia is a first, defying all conventions and possibly one or more passages in the seven pointed star or some other text which knighthood is based upon, though if we settle for defying the conventional interpretation of the relevant passages in the seven pointed star, that sounds like the most fertile ground for fun, providing both sides with the ability to argue for their point of view.

Definitely defying conventions - there is no doubting that. I do agree that if there is room for both sides to argue their point about whether or not it violates the Seven Pointed Star (or just an interpretation of it) it makes for a more interesting situation - of course, not actually having the text of the SPS (that I am aware of - I would be pleased to be wrong about this) it makes it hard to ground those arguments appropriately.

[Ser Alfred Haigh]

I think Bronn illustrates the point nicely.

'Symond Templeton' became 'Ser Symond Templeton of Ninestars'. Ser Symond is a member of House Templeton (the head of it to boot), which reflects in his name, as well as in possession of the domain of Ninestars. 'Bronn' simply became 'Bronn of the Blackwater', which can be seen as a sort of 'deed name'. He is a knight and as such a member of the nobility, but has no House and no land. If we assumed he would gain further favour and became a landed knight and started a family, he could a) adopt a House-name and b) add the name of his fief. Lets say Bronn is vain and sticks with 'Blackwater' as his new House name and there is some land he could get, what about a nice town at the sea, lets call it... Innsmouth. In my opinion, that'd make him 'Ser Bronn Blackwater of Innsmouth'. Alternatively, he could also think that Blackwater could be taken as a second generation Bastard name (Waters) and that Innsmouth is ztoo fishy for him, so he'd go and steal everything from meryn Trant's companion, making him 'Ser Bronn Whosit of Whocares'.

This is a nice mechanic for Westeros, since it (sorta) keeps track of who comes from a noble House and who doesn't, as well as keeping up the distinction between landed knights and unlanded ones, an important factor in Westeros' nobility.

As always, personal opinion.

[Ayleth Bartheld]

Definitely defying conventions - there is no doubting that. I do agree that if there is room for both sides to argue their point about whether or not it violates the Seven Pointed Star (or just an interpretation of it) it makes for a more interesting situation - of course, not actually having the text of the SPS (that I am aware of - I would be pleased to be wrong about this) it makes it hard to ground those arguments appropriately.

Martin tends to be pretty vague about the Faith;
We're five books in and I'm pretty sure we still have no idea if the faith has an afterlife for the righteous, among other things. So far as I know, barely any passages from the SPS are quoted in ASoIaF

[Sponsored content]