ohiostate124

So what happens to House Stark?

49 posts in this topic

Quote

The impression we get with Tyrion-Sansa is that their children most definitely would have been Lannisters.

I'm not convinced that Tyrion would refuse to name his kids Starks. He might even relish the chance to deliver one final "Fuck you" to Tywin. Seems like a moot point, of course, with Tyrion and Sansa being very unlikely to have kids together. In Tywin's scheme, though, I have no doubt that Tyrion and Sansa's hypothetical kids would have been Lannisters. Margaery seems to allude to this in 3x07:

Quote

And your son, if I'm not mistaken, your son might be the Lord of Casterly Rock and the North someday.

 

Sansa and Arya would normally name their kids Starks if they married lesser lords, but I don't see why they couldn't negotiate with an equally highborn potential husband to name their kids Starks to carry on the family name, given the circumstances and the risk of the Stark name being extinguished. No husband Sansa or Arya would consider worthy of marrying would have any issues with such an arrangement.

 

Quote

It is very unconventional in Westeros to go by the name of your mother.

Unconventional, but certainly not unheard of: there are multiple examples in ASOIAF that have already been cited on this thread. Also, it would be very natural, even expected, to name the kids Starks as a way of preserving a family name that would otherwise go extinct, and there is precedent for that in the Stark family history as well if the Bael the Bard story is to be believed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the Stark name needed?

Why can't they just cease to exist, like Tyrell, Tarley, Baratheon, Frey, Martell  (extinguished?), Lannister (will be destroyed at end of next season), Bolton and maybe a few more?

Houses come and go, and may even it is time for Stark to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Newstar said:

I'm not convinced that Tyrion would refuse to name his kids Starks. He might even relish the chance to deliver one final "Fuck you" to Tywin. Seems like a moot point, of course, with Tyrion and Sansa being very unlikely to have kids together. In Tywin's scheme, though, I have no doubt that Tyrion and Sansa's hypothetical kids would have been Lannisters. Margaery seems to allude to this in 3x07:

Sansa is also seen as Lannister-by-marriage in the books. That's why Robb cuts her out of his will.

2 hours ago, Newstar said:

Sansa and Arya would normally name their kids Starks if they married lesser lords, but I don't see why they couldn't negotiate with an equally highborn potential husband to name their kids Starks to carry on the family name, given the circumstances and the risk of the Stark name being extinguished. No husband Sansa or Arya would consider worthy of marrying would have any issues with such an arrangement.

There is no reason to believe that the children of Arya and Sansa would bear any other name than the names of their husbands should they have married under normal circumstances. I'm not sure why it should be important for any of their husbands to preserve the Stark name. It is still the same bloodline. They don't have to bear the same name for all eternity.

2 hours ago, Newstar said:

Unconventional, but certainly not unheard of: there are multiple examples in ASOIAF that have already been cited on this thread. Also, it would be very natural, even expected, to name the kids Starks as a way of preserving a family name that would otherwise go extinct, and there is precedent for that in the Stark family history as well if the Bael the Bard story is to be believed.

We don't know how the Waynwood and Oakheart things work. Could very well be that the husbands of those ladies are first or second Waynwood/Oakheart cousins or there was an agreement struck at the marriage that the husbands would take the names of their wives. Then they could pass on that name to their sons.

I guess there is a reasonably good chances that Harrold Hardyng is going to change his name to Arryn should he ever claim the Vale, and as I've said that could result in Sansa's eventual heir also take the Stark name upon his mother's death but any younger children don't need to bear that name.

And if we consider the show it seems very likely Sansa is going to be stuck with Tyrion, after all. They are still married, more or less, and there is no other love interest around, or is there? Their children would inherit both the North and the West, and whoever inherits Casterly Rock is not going to bear the Stark name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sansa is also seen as Lannister-by-marriage in the books. That's why Robb cuts her out of his will.

There is no reason to believe that the children of Arya and Sansa would bear any other name than the names of their husbands should they have married under normal circumstances. I'm not sure why it should be important for any of their husbands to preserve the Stark name. It is still the same bloodline. They don't have to bear the same name for all eternity.

Because if the name dies, it's effectively the end of the house, which, for a noble house that has existed for hundreds of years, is a big deal. 

 

Quote

And if we consider the show it seems very likely Sansa is going to be stuck with Tyrion, after all. They are still married, more or less, and there is no other love interest around, or is there? Their children would inherit both the North and the West, and whoever inherits Casterly Rock is not going to bear the Stark name.

Sansa doesn't really need a love interest, even if she's supposed to marry and have kids; she doesn't have any love interests in the show to speak of, either (and nor is she likely to seek one anytime soon, given her hunger for self-determination and her past experiences with marriage). She seems on track to end up alone, but she could end the series single, while in an epilogue we could find out that she married some random unnamed Northern lord and had a bunch of kids. Ditto for Arya. If all that's needed here is the guarantee that one or both Stark girls will have legitimate issue to continue the Stark name, it hardly matters whom they wind up marrying.

...Realistically, judging from the way Arya and Sansa are being written in the show (as a loner murder child and as a steely ice queen who wants to rule by herself unimpeded), they seem as unlikely to get involved romantically with a love interest in the remaining six episodes as Bran. That doesn't mean that they won't eventually get married and have kids, of course, just that such events would take place well beyond the end of the series.

Margaery, in a bit of dialogue that was likely written by GRRM (since he wrote 3x07) and therefore likely a book-accurate take on the situation, tells Sansa that Sansa's son would be lord of the North and of Casterly Rock, so I guess that's how it would work if Sansa (hypothetically) had Tyrion's kid. If a hypothetical son named Lannister could inherit Winterfell, though, I don't see why a hypothetical son named Stark couldn't inherit Casterly Rock.

Judging from this book quote from ASOS where Tyrion is contemplating joining the NW, I think Sansa and Casterly Rock are a package deal. Either Tyrion will end up with both, or neither:

Quote

There are those inconvenient vows, though. It would mean the end of his marriage and whatever claim he might ever have made for Casterly Rock, but he did not seem destined to enjoy either in any case. 

I'm leaning strongly towards "neither," myself.

Edited by Newstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/8/2017 at 3:14 AM, ohiostate124 said:

Seems that Bran is the only one left that can continue the Stark name. I don't really see him having children. What do you all think will happen? Will he get with Meera or will House Stark join the growing list of extinct houses since the series started.

He could continue House Stark as Lord, and his sisters also can and even use that name. So there will be heirs, that's 100% sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Newstar said:

Because if the name dies, it's effectively the end of the house, which, for a noble house that has existed for hundreds of years, is a big deal. 

Sure, but even that could (and perhaps should) happen in this series. If Dany does not marry 'Aegon' (or however Jon is going to be named in the books) even her children might not be Targaryens.

6 hours ago, Newstar said:

Sansa doesn't really need a love interest, even if she's supposed to marry and have kids; she doesn't have any love interests in the show to speak of, either (and nor is she likely to seek one anytime soon, given her hunger for self-determination and her past experiences with marriage). She seems on track to end up alone, but she could end the series single, while in an epilogue we could find out that she married some random unnamed Northern lord and had a bunch of kids. Ditto for Arya. If all that's needed here is the guarantee that one or both Stark girls will have legitimate issue to continue the Stark name, it hardly matters whom they wind up marrying.

I don't think that's her ending the books. Sansa is not going to become a power in her own right without some men around through whom she can act. Who defend her honor and her very person. It is most likely going to be some husband, but it could also be a paramour.

6 hours ago, Newstar said:

...Realistically, judging from the way Arya and Sansa are being written in the show (as a loner murder child and as a steely ice queen who wants to rule by herself unimpeded), they seem as unlikely to get involved romantically with a love interest in the remaining six episodes as Bran. That doesn't mean that they won't eventually get married and have kids, of course, just that such events would take place well beyond the end of the series.

Arya is not going to hook up with anyone, most likely, but Sansa is technically still married to Tyrion. So why should they not be together in the end?

6 hours ago, Newstar said:

Margaery, in a bit of dialogue that was likely written by GRRM (since he wrote 3x07) and therefore likely a book-accurate take on the situation, tells Sansa that Sansa's son would be lord of the North and of Casterly Rock, so I guess that's how it would work if Sansa (hypothetically) had Tyrion's kid. If a hypothetical son named Lannister could inherit Winterfell, though, I don't see why a hypothetical son named Stark couldn't inherit Casterly Rock.

Well, the point here is that a Tyrion-Sansa son would be a Lannister, not a Stark. The question would only be asked in reverse if Sansa was male and Tyrion female.

6 hours ago, Newstar said:

Judging from this book quote from ASOS where Tyrion is contemplating joining the NW, I think Sansa and Casterly Rock are a package deal. Either Tyrion will end up with both, or neither:

I'm leaning strongly towards "neither," myself.

In the books I'm less certain about Sansa-Tyrion - but quite honestly, why shouldn't they be together in the show? They did get along pretty well in the show, didn't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

I don't think that's her ending the books. Sansa is not going to become a power in her own right without some men around through whom she can act. Who defend her honor and her very person. It is most likely going to be some husband, but it could also be a paramour.

Why not? Sansa in both the books and in the show has always attached her identity to being some dude's wife and has been the object of others' schemes to control her and her claim through marriage. What better ending for her than to claim power in her own right and realize she doesn't need a husband at all? Seems very fitting, in my opinion.

 

Quote

Arya is not going to hook up with anyone, most likely, but Sansa is technically still married to Tyrion. So why should they not be together in the end?

Because she finds him physically repulsive and never wanted to be married to him? That's a good enough explanation for me.

 

Quote

In the books I'm less certain about Sansa-Tyrion - but quite honestly, why shouldn't they be together in the show? They did get along pretty well in the show, didn't they?

If Tyrion and Sansa end up together in the books, I'm sure they will in the show (and vice versa).

As for why they can't get together? They could be good friends, and indeed with the revelation coming out about how the whole Stark/Lannister feud was started by Littlefinger's lies that friendship will be much easier, but Tyrion's still the same guy Sansa had less than no interest in banging on their wedding night. It's easy to forget with Peter Dinklage in the role, but Book Tyrion is pretty hideous (and noseless, to boot). That's not going to change anytime soon. Plus, TV Sansa's not going to be interested in sex or romance with anyone anytime soon, much less someone she didn't want to have sex with before Ramsay brutalized her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah pretty much. Sansa is pretty much being set up to help rebuild Winterfell after the war (as she did with the castle in book 3!). I tthink her character arc is rejecting all the things she really wanted in the beginning (going South, being married to a shining knight, etc.)

Edited by Commander Jon Snow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That would necessitate that Sansa marries while she is already installed and accepted as Lady of Winterfell and ruling in her own right. Which is not likely to happen in the books.

And we actually don't know if people are free to give the names they want to their children. It seems that they inherit the names of their fathers. That's the overall rule outside Dorne. There could be special permission if a new lord inherits but that does usually not happen upon birth.

The Mormonts are different. Their women are trained at arms.

Sure, and I'm pretty sure she will rule Winterfell effectively even if not technically considering that she should still be a minor by the end of the story in the books. In the show it would be different. But that tells us nothing about the names of her children.

Assuming we see any such heirs in either books or show. Which we may not. Then this is going to be an open question.

Oh, I did not mean 'manly Arryn type'. I meant self-involved, spoiled, controlling, and demanding. Lord Robert is a prick already, and should he live to adulthood he is not suddenly going to get modest or nice.

Again, they could marry before Sansa actually is Lady of Winterfell, just as she was trying to marry Willas and she is trying to marry Harry right now. Then nothing is going to regulate this kind of thing.

It should make a difference to any man who grew up in this patriarchal society. The son of a man who has a family or house name usually bears the name of his father. That's how things are.

Well, Sansa Stark would be the Lady of Winterfell for decades to come, presumably. Surely the North could grow accustomed to the fact that her son or daughter would not bear the name Stark? It would be a peaceful transition and change, not a usurpation.

I'm sorry, but you keep moving your arguments back and forth to the point where it's impossible to discuss anything. You're the one who said the name doesn't really make a difference, and now here you are arguing that the name does make a difference. And meanwhile, you keep saying that X never happens, and as soon as someone gives you a prominent example of X happening, you move on to something else instead, and then make the same claim again later anyway.

I'm not even really sure what you're arguing for; it seems like your point is that there are ways it might be possible to end up with the Stark line over even if Sansa or Arya inherits, and of course that's true, but nobody else is arguing against that.

What everyone else is saying is that there are also ways the Stark line could continue through Sansa or Arya. Not that it's guaranteed to happen no matter what, just that it could happen, and there are good reasons for GRRM and/or D&D to want to make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, but that only shows that Daemon was a moron who failed to win the support and love of the bannermen of House Royce. He was a Targaryen prince. It shouldn't have been that difficult had he but tried.

Why should it not have been difficult?  In ASOIAF, family names/bloodlines are incredibly old, far moreso than anything we have in the real world.  As with Rhea, the ruling lady has the important bloodline, and if they're a shrewd personality capable of commanding loyalty, there's no reason their husbands should be able to walk all over them or lose their bannermen to them.  Particularly if the husband isn't from the region.

Quote

The impression we get with Tyrion-Sansa is that their children most definitely would have been Lannisters.

Because Sansa was abducted and married to Tyrion at swordpoint.  If Sansa had made her own marriage, or had the marriage been made for her by Ned with the understanding that she was the heir (if, say, Ned had only daughters) the situation would be entirely different.

Quote

And there is actually no reason why any man should submit to his wife and allow her to prevent him from giving his name to his children.

When one's wife is the ruler, it's not the man's call.

Quote

It is very unconventional in Westeros to go by the name of your mother.

Not when your mother is the ruling lady, it isn't.

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I'm not sure why it should be important for any of their husbands to preserve the Stark name.

Because family names are incredibly important in ASOIAF, politically.  And, as I said, it's not the husband's choice at the end of the day.

Quote

And if we consider the show it seems very likely Sansa is going to be stuck with Tyrion, after all. They are still married, more or less, and there is no other love interest around, or is there? Their children would inherit both the North and the West, and whoever inherits Casterly Rock is not going to bear the Stark name.

They're not married, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure where they are going to go with this on the show because I have a strong belief that Sansa will marry Harry Hardyng in the books (and have him wrapped around her finger). 

Tyrion, however, is not happening in Martin's story. I do not see that at all. Martin always lays the groundwork for his developments and there is none to be found for this in the pages of A Dance with Dragons

If this were to happen on the show -- which I do not believe to be the case, but assuming so -- my inclination would be to take it as whole cloth invention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see Tyrion/Sansa being endgame on the show but not in a romantic sense. More in a platonic best friends type way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, falcotron said:

I'm sorry, but you keep moving your arguments back and forth to the point where it's impossible to discuss anything. You're the one who said the name doesn't really make a difference, and now here you are arguing that the name does make a difference. And meanwhile, you keep saying that X never happens, and as soon as someone gives you a prominent example of X happening, you move on to something else instead, and then make the same claim again later anyway.

I'm not even really sure what you're arguing for; it seems like your point is that there are ways it might be possible to end up with the Stark line over even if Sansa or Arya inherits, and of course that's true, but nobody else is arguing against that.

What everyone else is saying is that there are also ways the Stark line could continue through Sansa or Arya. Not that it's guaranteed to happen no matter what, just that it could happen, and there are good reasons for GRRM and/or D&D to want to make it happen.

I'm saying that I'm not sure that Sansa's children are going to be named Stark no matter what. They could be, of course, but they don't have to. That's all I'm saying, basically.

10 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

Why should it not have been difficult?  In ASOIAF, family names/bloodlines are incredibly old, far moreso than anything we have in the real world.  As with Rhea, the ruling lady has the important bloodline, and if they're a shrewd personality capable of commanding loyalty, there's no reason their husbands should be able to walk all over them or lose their bannermen to them.  Particularly if the husband isn't from the region.

Well, just look how the no-name Bronn seized control at Stokeworth. Or how Lady Rohanne feared that the Longinch would rape her, and force to marry her. Women are seldom really in control in this society, even if they bear the title. The husbands of Lady Arwyn and Lady Anya seem to be dead already. If they were still alive they might be calling the shots in their families.

10 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

Because Sansa was abducted and married to Tyrion at swordpoint.  If Sansa had made her own marriage, or had the marriage been made for her by Ned with the understanding that she was the heir (if, say, Ned had only daughters) the situation would be entirely different.

In light of the fact that Rhaenyra's sons were Velaryons and not Targaryens I honestly doubt that. If King Viserys I didn't give his royal name to his royal grandsons then I see no reason why Ned should have been able to do that with the Stark name.

10 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

When one's wife is the ruler, it's not the man's call.

But that is questionable. Yes, a woman might inherit a title but she swears to obey her lord husband on her wedding day and he has the right to chastise her with a rod as thick as a finger (as per the Rule of Six). We have no reason to believe that ruling ladies are exempt for such vows. If they are not then there is a legal conundrum there. The Lady rules her lordship and castle but the lord husband rules his wife and is thus in charge. Perhaps he cannot command his wife's guards and retainers directly but he can command her. And women are raised and trained to bow to the authority of their fathers, brothers, and husbands.

How this kind of conflict is going to be resolved if there is actually a struggle for power should be dependent how well husband and wife get along. Whether they are a team or mortal enemies. If you imagine Selyse being a lady in her own right Stannis would at once seize complete control of the estate and most likely confine his wife to her apartments because he can't stand her. If they love each other or are fond of each other they could get along much better.

10 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

Not when your mother is the ruling lady, it isn't.

Again, we don't know. Do we know for a certainty that Ladies Oakheart and Waynwood did not marry an Oakheart of Waynwood cousin? What we do know is that Rhaenyra's three sons were all Velaryons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sansa rules and has sons with some other prince, second born to an important family, and the kids grow up under the Stark name. Wouldn't surprise me if  GRRM did this. It's happened a few times in human history so I assume he can pull from there.

The show I think will absolutely do it. I think they want to show a woman having kids and keeping her name. To show women breaking tradition. They seem to want to make political stances in their episodes sometimes, I think this is one they will make.

Obviously, this is all just me guessing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, btfu806 said:

The show I think will absolutely do it. I think they want to show a woman having kids and keeping her name. To show women breaking tradition. They seem to want to make political stances in their episodes sometimes, I think this is one they will make.

Daisy Goodwin, showrunner of Victoria, got a lot of acclaim last year, even before the show aired, for talking about how her Queen Victoria will make the opposite choice (not that they had an option on what choice she made) because she's a strong woman who understands her proud husband and respects his strength as much as her own (and is turned on by his strength) and wants them to be equals.

So I could imagine D&D trying to copy Goodwin. (Although I'm not sure which character would make an appropriate husband for that storyline. For example, Sandor might work as the right kind of character, but he wouldn't give a damn about his kids being Cleganes.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

But that is questionable. Yes, a woman might inherit a title but she swears to obey her lord husband on her wedding day and he has the right to chastise her with a rod as thick as a finger (as per the Rule of Six). We have no reason to believe that ruling ladies are exempt for such vows. If they are not then there is a legal conundrum there. The Lady rules her lordship and castle but the lord husband rules his wife and is thus in charge. Perhaps he cannot command his wife's guards and retainers directly but he can command her. And women are raised and trained to bow to the authority of their fathers, brothers, and husbands.

But Sansa and Arya wouldn't do that, so the husband would be out to dry.

Quote

If King Viserys I didn't give his royal name to his royal grandsons then I see no reason why Ned should have been able to do that with the Stark name.

Ned Stark could do that because the alternative would be no marriage.  We don't know what went into Viserys' calculations; given that the marriage was meant as an olive branch to the Velaryons and one of the sons would inherit Driftmark, perhaps they agreed on using Velyaron as the baseline name (but with the understanding that the eventual heir would take the Targaryen name on inheriting).  There's also, of course, the fact that Rhaenyra's children weren't actually sired by Laenor, so perhaps it was thought impolitic to call attention to that by giving them the Targaryen surname immediately at birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yes, a woman might inherit a title but she swears to obey her lord husband on her wedding day and he has the right to chastise her with a rod as thick as a finger (as per the Rule of Six). We have no reason to believe that ruling ladies are exempt for such vows. If they are not then there is a legal conundrum there. The Lady rules her lordship and castle but the lord husband rules his wife and is thus in charge. Perhaps he cannot command his wife's guards and retainers directly but he can command her. And women are raised and trained to bow to the authority of their fathers, brothers, and husbands.

I'm pretty sure you mean "rule of thumb", not "rule of six".

More importantly, there never was any such rule; that's an urban legend. In fact, there was probably more wife beating in the mid 20th century than any time before or after. Not that men in the middle ages never got away with it—hell, there are still men who get away with it today—but all the evidence is that it was much rarer in the days when families were less isolated and nobody thought of themselves as butting in where they don't belong, and it's during the generation or two where western society worked out new boundaries that it became most dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

But Sansa and Arya wouldn't do that, so the husband would be out to dry.

Sansa did do that when she married Tyrion Lannister. What makes you think she wouldn't do that again?

8 hours ago, Colonel Green said:

Ned Stark could do that because the alternative would be no marriage.  We don't know what went into Viserys' calculations; given that the marriage was meant as an olive branch to the Velaryons and one of the sons would inherit Driftmark, perhaps they agreed on using Velyaron as the baseline name (but with the understanding that the eventual heir would take the Targaryen name on inheriting).  There's also, of course, the fact that Rhaenyra's children weren't actually sired by Laenor, so perhaps it was thought impolitic to call attention to that by giving them the Targaryen surname immediately at birth.

If you say Ned or Sansa/Arya would demand that an agreement as to the names of their children would be reached prior to a marriage then I'm sure Viserys I and Rhaenyra could have done that, too. Targaryen is the name of the royal dynasty, and whoever of Laenor's sons would eventually succeed him - not Corlys Velaryon - as Lord of Driftmark could then take the Velaryon name if he so chose. But the Targaryen name certainly was more prestigious than the Velaryon name in any case.

7 hours ago, falcotron said:

I'm pretty sure you mean "rule of thumb", not "rule of six".

No, I mean the Rule of Six as it is laid out in TWoIaF. This is the relevant quote:

Quote

The “rule of six,” now part of the common law, was established by Rhaenys as she sat the Iron Throne while the king was upon one of his progresses. A petition was made by the brothers of a woman who had been beaten to death by her husband after he caught her with another. He defended himself by rightly noting that it was lawful for a man to chastise an adulterous wife (which was true enough, though in Dorne, matters are elsewise) so long as he used a rod no thicker than a thumb. However, he had struck her a hundred times, according to the brothers, and this he did not deny. After deliberating with the maesters and septons, Rhaenys declared that, whilst the gods made women to be dutiful to their husbands and so could be lawfully beaten, only six blows might ever be struck—one for each of the Seven, save the Stranger, who was death. For this reason, she declared that ninety-four of the husband’s blows had been unlawful and agreed that the dead woman’s brothers could match those blows upon the husband.

This whole thing comes off like a reform there - and it certainly is, in a sense - but the situation of wives is not really bettered by this.

We see this in the story of Merry Meg, one of the mistresses of Aegon the Unworthy:

Quote

MEGETTE (MERRY MEG)
The young and buxom wife of a blacksmith

While riding near Fairmarket in 155, Aegon’s horse threw a shoe, and when he sought out the local smith, he came to notice the man’s young wife. He went on to buy her for seven gold dragons (and the threat of Ser Joffrey Staunton of the Kingsguard). Megette was installed in a house in King’s Landing; she and Aegon were even “wed” in a secret ceremony conducted by a mummer playing a septon. Megette gave her prince four children in as many years. Prince Viserys put an end to it, returning Megette to her husband and placing the daughters with the Faith to be trained as septas. Megette was beaten to death within a year by the blacksmith.
Children by Merry Meg: Alysanne, Lily, Willow, Rosey.

Here we could even argue that Rhaenys' ruling made matters worse for wives who were married to determined husbands. Without the Rule of Six the blacksmith could have killed Meg in one session. Thanks to the restrictions put on wife-beating he had to do it slowly, six blows a day. I don't want to imagine her agony.

Perhaps Sansa and Arya might only be beaten six times (a day) if they offend or disobey their husband, but in any society where the husband legally holds the rod - and the wife has no right whatsoever to beat him in return - he is in the stronger position. Whenever there is a quarrel in the marriage any wife must fear physical punishment for disobedience and defiance, and that certainly puts her at a (psychological) disadvantage.

It may be different with women like Rhaenyra who were groomed to rule from a very early age but Sansa and Arya never were. They must have been taught their place in a marriage, which is a place of submission and obedience at their husband's side. 

In fact, knowing that is one of the main reasons why I think Arya is - like Shiera Seastar (and most likely also Jeyne Arryn, the Maiden of the Vale) - never going to marry.

7 hours ago, falcotron said:

More importantly, there never was any such rule; that's an urban legend. In fact, there was probably more wife beating in the mid 20th century than any time before or after. Not that men in the middle ages never got away with it—hell, there are still men who get away with it today—but all the evidence is that it was much rarer in the days when families were less isolated and nobody thought of themselves as butting in where they don't belong, and it's during the generation or two where western society worked out new boundaries that it became most dangerous.

In Westeros wife-beating seems to be a very common and accepted practice. Now, I was honestly disgusted when I first read the quotes I gave you above. I really think George went too far there. The books don't show us those kind of things openly (yet?) but we can deduce from that how things actually stand.

Thinking about that we should remember Robert beating Cersei in front of Ned - he is ashamed afterwards, but neither man indicates that this is a crime in this world. And it apparently isn't. One shudders to think what a man with the strength of Robert could have done to Cersei had he used a rod made of a very hard wood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is verging on crackpot, but I'll run with it anyway. Going on from the suggestion that Sansa may be left married to Tyrion, after all. If they were to consummate the marriage and give birth to a child, could there be a chance a new trend could be started with the child being called 'Brandon Lannister-Stark' or vice versa 'Brandon Stark-Lannister'?

In a situation where Rickon is still dead, Bran still essentially barren, Cersei is dead, Jaime a Kingsguard, and Jon Snow now Aegon Targaryen, Sansa and Tyrion's child, in this instance, would be heir to both Winterfell and Casterly Rock. Both houses are elite. Both houses have historically had problems with each other. Would there be any way the merging of the two houses could happen with Stark-Lannister / Lannister-Stark name?

Edited by JordanJH1993

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Sansa did do that when she married Tyrion Lannister. What makes you think she wouldn't do that again?

Because she was a hostage, and thus that marriage is not remotely indicative of how Sansa would act in an actual marriage?  In a scenario where she is installed in Winterfell as ruling lady and has her own loyal men, that is entirely different.

Quote

Perhaps Sansa and Arya might only be beaten six times (a day) if they offend or disobey their husband, but in any society where the husband legally holds the rod - and the wife has no right whatsoever to beat him in return - he is in the stronger position. Whenever there is a quarrel in the marriage any wife must fear physical punishment for disobedience and defiance, and that certainly puts her at a (psychological) disadvantage.

Except when the wife has her own guards and the husband is powerless to do that.

Edited by Colonel Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now