It's actually the easiest possible problem to solve with just a single change in the dialogue: "A husband who was off whoring every chance he got" becomes "A husband who had been dead for a year! I was lonely and afraid!" Instead the decision was made to offer up a modern excuse for cheating: "he was doing it too!" in order to further garner sympathy for Cersei. And in doing so they break the rules of their own story.
I understand you feel they had no choice in adapting Sansa. I disagree, but lets leave that there for now. Let me try a different tack. A poster on this forum (can't remember who, I apologize for stealing it) pointed out that the entire tone of episode six could have been changed completely, without altering the actual functioning of the plot at all. Instead of having the Sansa and Myranda bath scene, before the rape, they could have placed it after. Imagine it - Sansa has just been raped and is trying to wash the experience off. Myranda comes in to gloat at her, only to be faced with Sansa's tough line about not being afraid. With this editing change, the entire tone of episode six is altered and Bryan Cogman's comments abut Sansa being a strong woman making a choice hold so much more weight. The rest of the plotline would be completely unaffected - Sansa would still be suffering and has reason to look to Theon for help, we're all invested in her story and all other characters and scenes could continue as they did. So with no plot specific reason why they couldn't have done it that way, generating shock and revulsion in the audience after that episode seems to have been the motivating factor to end with the rape itself. They didn't want to focus on Sansa's character, or Theon's redemption - it was a deliberate slap round the face to get the clickbait articles moving and generate yet more exposure for GOT.
I agree with your assessment of LF, but placing Sansa in in Winterfell hedges his bet with the Boltons not with Stannis. Waiting to see who wins and offering sansa to the established victor is an opportunistic move in which he loses nothing and stands to gain everything, which, by your argument, is what LF should have done. Giving Sansa to the Boltons before the battle has been decided is more of a "massive plan" with genuine commitment on his part, simply because sansa is a valuble asset who is now under the Bolton control. It also does not "maintain his position" because the Boltons aren't going to give him anything for a favour he has already given, and he won't even have Cersei's word that he is Warden of the North until Sansa is dead.
In the books and (weirdly) what was shown in the show, Cersei did not sleep with Lancel until after Robert's death. However, from this scene here: "I lay with a man outside the bonds of marriage, I confess." "Name him". "Lancel Lannister". "Your cousin? And the King's squire?" "I was lonely and afraid" "You had a husband" "A husband off whoring every chance he got" The first part is taken straight from the books, but the second part implies very clearly that the adultery took place whilst Robert was still alive and well, otherwise the Cersei would have corrected the High Sparrow when he said "you had a husband". She wouldn't have mentioned his whoring otherwise because that information wouldn't be relevant if she slept with Lancel after his death. This is high treason. We never actually saw her committing adultery while Robert was alive, but that's what she confessed to here.
I agree with you. My point was that there is no reason to look at the internal logic of the show because it simply doesn't stand up in many cases in season 5. Winterfell, Dorne and King's Landing were riddled with problems and you can't hand wave them all away.
Yes, but I was under the assumption that being unfaithful to the King (whilst he is alive) is considered high treason, because it raises the possibility that she is trying to place a child not of the King's blood on the throne (which is of course exactly what Cersei has done). That was the law for just about every historical medieval kingdom in history and high treason carries the death penalty, usually very publicly and violently. Look at Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, the two most famous examples in English history. Book Cersei is very careful to never confess to sleeping with anyone other than Robert whilst Robert was still alive. In this case Cersei confessed to being guilty. There doesn't need to be a trial by combat to determine guilt or innocence because Cersei has already settled that. I'm chalking this one up to the writers screwing up.
Not to piss on your post but we already have an R and R thread for when the show starts getting to you. However, these decisions are best viewed as a result of this being an adaption of a complex book series, rather than examine the internal inconsistencies of season 5. You will go mad if you spend your time trying to work out what LF hoped to gain from the match, why Sansa agreed to it, or why Jaime bothered going to Dorne at all. Outside the context of the show things start to make a little more sense, because Sophie Turner is a big draw now and burgeoning movie star, and without her in Winterfell she would have had to spend more time in the Vale. Not enough screentime for her maybe? And the use of Dorne this season was an attempt to capitalize on the success of Padro Pascal as Oberyn last season. The next time you find yourself confused over why a character is behaving in a certain way, save yourself some pain and instead ask "why do the writers want this character behaving this way?"
It's possible this was just a mistake, but when Cersei confessed to the High Sparrow she admitted she was guilty of adultery whilst Robert was still alive. So there doesn't need to be a trial because she has already admitted to committing treason. Will the trial cover separate charges or the same ones she has already confessed to? If so, why?
Even if LF thinks Sansa could become a threat, it doesn't follow that he would place her in a location he doesn't control. Ramsay's personality be damned, LF isn't going to nuetralize the threat of Sansa talking by giving her to somebody else - he'll either kill her or place her somewhere that he has complete control over. Like, let's say... the Eyrie? Where they were at the start of the season?
ShowLF's attitude as a grabby opportunist still doesn't explain why he gave Sansa to the Boltons when he did. The opportunity would strike after either Stannis or the Boltons were defeated, not before. "If they wheel out "Ned's daughter" that would go a long way to alleviate some of the domestic(northern) political pressure the boltons may be under." It might well rid them of that pressure. It's just too bad they never bothered to do that with the single greatest threat in a thousand miles (in the form of Stannis) bearing down on them throughout season 5. They had the opportunity to use Sansa as a rallying point and they totally cocked it up. LF's attitude isn't really important here because he acts in ways counter to his own interests in Winterfell. His actions in the south make his actions in the North largely pointless.
I've only just realized that you run Gotsgif&musings. I'm pathetically slow, I know. Love your work. 15000 words debunking anything good about Carol in King's landing was genius. As usual, Lena gives a great performance, but it's in service to a narrative which is both tonally and emotionally confused. Arya was exactly the same - no idea if I was meant to feel good or bad about her killing Ser Meryn. They'd gone to absurd lengths to make Trant a proper asshole, so I assume they wanted us to think of it as a "fuck yeah" moment. But the entire way it was shot and the use of excruciating violence completely kills the moment. I can't feel any catharsis from a bad guys death if I'm hearing his muffled cries of anguish for an entire ten minute sequence. And I had a thought - LF's plan in KL makes sense... if the Winterfell plotline didn't exist. Using the two spies of Lancel and Olyvar to confess at tactical times to bring both Cersei and Margery to their knees respectively is quite clever. It means LF has the option to side with, or destroy, whoever he likes. He can sideline Cersei easily while shes in prison and bend the Tyrells over a table; which is good for LF since previously Olenna knows he's just as guilty as she in joffrey's death meaning there was a "mutually assured destruction" agreement between them. Having Margery and Loras as a bargaining chip means he has huge leverage over the House. The problems come when we factor into the fact that LF decidedes to place Sansa in winterfell before doing any of this. Cersei wants Sansa dead no matter what, whereas the Tyrells like her and would be quick to make an alliance that LF can broker. LF can play all the sides as much as he wants - these facts won't change. So if Cersei's power to help him in the north is so limited (even if she was inclined to do so) and he was planning on taking her down with Lancel's testimony anyway, what possible reason remains for Sansa to go to winterfell at all? Why take such a risk with such a valuble political piece? Whether he cares for Sansa or not is neither here nor there - she is an important political asset, personal feelings be damned. What LF stood to gain from this arrangement was tiny - Cersei's permission (not actual help) to take the north and the wardenship of the north (only if he takes Sansa's head). This weighed against a living Stark (who actually can help him hold the north) and the loyalty and friendship of the Vale lords and possibly the friendship of the Northern lords as well (wherever they are). Total bullshit. His plans in KL and Winterfell have no bearing on one another and no bearing on what the show has presented. I really hate Batfinger.
I think a good indicator of how this storyline was a failure (ignoring for the moment the controversial nature of the rape) is that despite this thread being titled "Why did LF marry Sansa off to Ramsay" the discussion of the actual story has been minimal, instead centering around the motivations and intentions of the show runners. And that's because the internal plot of the winterfell arc is indefensible - just too many characters acting seemingly against their own interests to reconcile with a consistent sense of character motivation or believable narrative.