Bastards & Arms, Girls and Swords (& vice versa)

“The Lannisters are proud,” Jon observed. “You’d think the royal sigil would be sufficient, but no. He makes his mother’s House equal in honor to the king’s.”

“The woman is important too!” Arya protested.

Jon chuckled. “Perhaps you should do the same thing, little sister. Wed Tully to Stark in your arms.”

“A wolf with a fish in its mouth?” It made her laugh. “That would look silly. Besides, if a girl can’t fight, why should she have a coat of arms?”

Jon shrugged. “Girls get the arms but not the swords. Bastards get the swords but not the arms. I did not make the rules, little sister.”

- Arya I, AGOT

This is a very iconic passage as far as contextualizing the ways in which Jon and Arya are outsiders in the established feudal society, all the while being insiders in some way. Jon’s quote (which establishes how the rules be) is the most recognizable part of this conversation due to what comes later (the gifting of Needle) but Arya’s preceding question is what jumped out to me as I was doing a reread of this chapter. This is mostly because it seems to get to the matter of feudal legitimacy.

Because Arya’s question had me thinking: beyond having marital ability, does possession of a sword establish legitimacy in the feudal system? Obviously the possession of arms does equate to legitimacy since one would get them by being born to a recognized legal union. But what does it mean to have one over the other? And what does it mean to have both? Can a person only be half legitimate? And where would that even matter?

As I was thinking about this, I immediately thought of Daemon Blackfyre, who was one of Aegon IV’s legitimized bastards. If memory serves me right, part of Daemon’s claim to kingship was that he held Aegon the Conqueror’s sword, Blackfyre (hence his dynastic name). His nickname was even “The King Who Bore the Sword” and many were inclined to follow him since his possession of the legendary sword seemed to signify kingship; and by passing the sword down to him, Aegon IV officially acknowledged him as his son. But the sword alone wasn’t legitimizing. That happened later when his father legitimized him and his other half siblings on his deathbed. After that, Daemon had both the sword and the arms and he could push his claim for the throne. So if we go back to Jon and Arya’s conversation, Daemon the bastard managed to get the two keys of legitimization (insofar as kingship goes): the sword and the arms.

Now, let’s go back to Jon and Arya. At this point in the story, Arya has the arms which were passed down to her by her father. She doesn’t have the sword here but a few chapters later (in Jon II) she is gifted Needle - her very own sword which specifically made for her. Over time, this sword becomes an integral part of her development and her identity. It’s interesting that Arya gets the arms from her father and the sword from her brother - almost like legitimacy is being passed down patrilineally; even more interesting when you consider that GRRM originally intended for Jon to be her husband.

Jon, on the other hand, arguably has neither. As a bastard, he has no right to any arms. And though he has the martial ability, he does not have the sword; the family sword, Ice, was going to go to his half-brother who was the heir. Even if Jon managed to get a sword, it probably would be inconsequential; meaning that it would not be as legendary as Ice is. But things change as the story progresses. Several chapters later, he is given his very own sword (which he earned on his own merit) when he is gifted Longclaw by Lord Commander Mormont. Jon thinks that this act is like Mormont recognizing him as a son; he is giving Jon his son’s sword. Then two books later, Jon gets the arms when he is legitimized by Robb’s royal decree; though one has to wonder if GRRM initially intended for Arya to be the one to give him the arms as he gave her the sword. Still, legitimacy passed down patrilineally for Jon as it did for Arya. It’s even flipped: one gets the arms from a father and the sword from a brother, while the other gets the arms from a brother and a sword from a (surrogate) father. Both go through situations where they have to assume some sort of leadership (though Jon’s is far more extensive than Arya’s). However, these situations of leadership (big or small) come not because they were passed down as demanded by feudal succession, but because they were earned.

So now we have to wonder, what does this mean for Jon’s and Arya’s futures given that they hold both signs of legitimacy (as it might relate to kingship if we consider the Daemon Blackfyre example)? They both have the sword and the arms. In addition to that, Jon has a plethora of king foreshadowing and symbolism in the text, despite being a bastard. And he is quite skilled as a warrior. Arya may not have Jon’s martial ability, but she has learned some that is relevant to her strengths as a young girl (so she’s not totally hopeless). She also has some queen foreshadowing in the books; her wolf is even named after a warrior queen and she claims to assume a shortened version of Nymeria in ACOK.

Could they mirror Daemon Blackfyre, who was an outsider who came to be recognized as king? It’s hard to tell what will happen given that we still have two books left, but it’s just some food for thought. In any case, this chapter and Jon II (where Arya got the sword) could serve as seeding for what’s in store for Jon’s and Arya’s ultimate journeys.