succinct does not bother me
, but thanks for sharing that. I had known there were probably still a few tumbling around in the wind but no clue who might matter, and as I've only finished the first book I noted to take it with a huge grain of salt since this is all speculation from me (spoilers, reviews, wiki, show, and this forum). I would think Bloodraven mattered more because of what he's passing on and who he's passing it on to, but this is my crackpot theory that the Starks have always kept a somewhat high level of Children of the Forest in their bloodline. I've pondered the fact that there are multiple pantheons, all of which seem to have actual powers to some extent and interfere in the mortal realm, probably a ton of discoveries to be made there with time but that can wait for another day.
On the matter of the Starks, I think their evidence, if there is any is just the in your face deposits of their family words, their positions in life, values, what they're going to do, what they must do, and their very nature to be straightforward, honest, and honorable. It would seem a lazy thing to have a character outright say "There must always be a Stark in winterfell", and have that actually be meaningful unless you are letting that character be a veritable mouthpiece for you and almost breach the fourth wall, but it could also be brilliant in a story full of subtle misdirection.
Edit: Pardon me if this reads like a powdered monkey wallowing in beer, I'm tired. The Starks have held the North forever and a half, one of the last regions to have the Children in it? It would make sense to me that some eventual intermingling occurred. I think the answer to the Starks is in the relation to old pantheon and new pantheon and how their peoples interacted. Need Breakfast, peace.