ohiostate124

So what happens to House Stark?

49 posts in this topic

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, I mean the Rule of Six as it is laid out in TWoIaF

Ah, apologies, I didn't remember that. (Unlike the novels, I haven't read WoIaF multiple times…)

But look at the wording that you bolded: "He defended himself by rightly noting that it was lawful for a man to chastise an adulterous wife." So a man is allowed to punish his wife for doing something that's a crime. That's not the same as being allowed to beat his wife because she exercised her legitimate authority, or said something he didn't like, or whatever. And he had to defend himself before his liege in the first place.

10 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

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. 

Arya may have been groomed for submission and obedience rather than for ruling, but it clearly didn't take. And if she ends up with the same attitude and force of will as Rhaenyra (or one of the ruling Mormont women, who are probably a better comparison for her), it doesn't matter how she got there, she's going to act the same way.

Sansa is more interesting. She was groomed for obedience, and it did take—she was excited about the idea of being the dutiful lady to some lord, or, even better, the dutiful queen to Joffrey. But her entire story is about overcoming those naive ideas, and learning lessons from people like Cersei, Olenna, and of course Littlefinger. If her character arc ends in failure, she's going to be married off to some lord or king outside of the North to be his dutiful wife. But if she does end up ruling in her own right, she will not be a submissive housewife anymore. The idea of her arc ending with her being Lady of Winterfell but subservient to her foreign husband just doesn't work thematically; it makes her story neither tragic nor triumphant, but pointless. (And, while "pointless is the point" can work, as with Quentyn, it doesn't work for one of the main characters of a 7-volume epic.)

ETA: There's also of course a dark ending for the Sansa storyline, where she ends up as an evil supervillainess show!Olenna or a female Littlefinger or a femme fatale temptress. That seems like it would be a bit sideways from her arc, but at least it wouldn't make it completely irrelevant like making her Sweetrobin's downtrodden wife as Lady of the Vale.

Edited by falcotron

Share this post


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

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.

Well, in the books her next marriage might occur while she is still in Littlefinger's power. If that happens - and if Harry ends up not only as her husband but also as the Lord of the Vale - then her husband certainly will be in the more powerful position. After all, his men most likely will be a huge part of the reason why Sansa ends up as the Lady of Winterfell in the end.

But if Sansa's final husband was 'a man of no particular importance' and if she only married him at the very end of the story she could be in a more powerful position. But then - she most likely won't be a grown woman by then. How can she legally command the man around her when she is still technically a child? She is neither the Young Dragon nor the Young Wolf.

Quote

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

Only if we assume the situation between her and the husband is wrong from the start. If he wins the allegiance of the Winterfell guardsmen, too, they are not likely to interfere in domestic affairs of the lordly couple.

11 hours ago, falcotron said:

Ah, apologies, I didn't remember that. (Unlike the novels, I haven't read WoIaF multiple times…)

But look at the wording that you bolded: "He defended himself by rightly noting that it was lawful for a man to chastise an adulterous wife." So a man is allowed to punish his wife for doing something that's a crime. That's not the same as being allowed to beat his wife because she exercised her legitimate authority, or said something he didn't like, or whatever. And he had to defend himself before his liege in the first place.

That is true but it should be not that hard to falsely accuse a woman as beautiful as Sansa of sleeping around. Most people will readily believe that.

But the point I was trying to make is that the husband's right to discipline his wife is established as well as the vow of obedience a wife swears upon her wedding day. Thus it is quite clear that the husband - any husband - is legally in a more powerful position in a Westerosi marriage.

Now, in the case where the wife is a great lady in her own right this kind of thing would most likely (re-)negotiated throughout the course of the marriage. But the result is not certain. I'm not saying Sansa is going to end up under the thumb of some husband. I'm just saying the danger is there since the rules of the society are as they are. And we most likely won't continue her story until her death of old age. A marriage is a journey, and the relationship between her and whoever she marries can change overtime.

11 hours ago, falcotron said:

Arya may have been groomed for submission and obedience rather than for ruling, but it clearly didn't take. And if she ends up with the same attitude and force of will as Rhaenyra (or one of the ruling Mormont women, who are probably a better comparison for her), it doesn't matter how she got there, she's going to act the same way.

Sure, but Arya is not all that likely to become a ruling lady in her own right so she would technically lack the means to actually enforce that her will be done. She would only be the wife of some husband, not the ruler of Winterfell.

I'm pretty sure Arya is not going to take any shit from anyone, of course, but her methods to rectify such situations are most likely going to be rather drastic.

11 hours ago, falcotron said:

Sansa is more interesting. She was groomed for obedience, and it did take—she was excited about the idea of being the dutiful lady to some lord, or, even better, the dutiful queen to Joffrey. But her entire story is about overcoming those naive ideas, and learning lessons from people like Cersei, Olenna, and of course Littlefinger. If her character arc ends in failure, she's going to be married off to some lord or king outside of the North to be his dutiful wife. But if she does end up ruling in her own right, she will not be a submissive housewife anymore. The idea of her arc ending with her being Lady of Winterfell but subservient to her foreign husband just doesn't work thematically; it makes her story neither tragic nor triumphant, but pointless. (And, while "pointless is the point" can work, as with Quentyn, it doesn't work for one of the main characters of a 7-volume epic.)

Oh, certainly, Sansa is not going to be a meek housewife. But I'm not so sure she will rule directly. That would be very difficult to do in the books. She is still a minor and as I've said already she isn't Robb or Daeron I (or Daenerys, who is a minor, too). She is very much restricted to the classical noblewoman role. And that means she is most likely going to rule by controlling (powerful) men rather rather than exercising power in her own right. If she ends up as Lady of Winterfell in the end this might change then, but up to that point she is most likely going to control people/get what she wants by influencing and manipulating their decisions and desires.

That is what Littlefinger does, too, and that's what he is teaching her. Watch other people, find out what they want, and then use that against them. That way she can become very powerful without seeming all that powerful.

Of course, if she ended up marrying Aegon for a time - becoming queen in the process of that - she would also be a very powerful person in her own right. Then she could also exercise real power in her own right just as Cersei did. And even as wife of the Lord of the Vale she would hold a lot of very real informal power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Bran can't father children, so long for the male line.

If the one who marries Sansa or Arya decides to father Stark children and rulers of Winterfell, the name will continue its existence.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Sansa will marry by the end of the show. I'm not convinced Winterfell will even survive. Then again maybe Gendry will catch her eye, and their kids be named Starks. After the end of the apocalypse I'm not sure people are going to be too worried about the old rules anyway. Whoever is left standing can do what they want.

 

Edited by Daske

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2017 at 2:55 AM, Lord Varys said:

Oh, certainly, Sansa is not going to be a meek housewife. But I'm not so sure she will rule directly.

You've now moved your arguments completely around to the opposite side.

The question here is whether there's any way the Stark name could continue. You were arguing that it's impossible, because, while you accepted that Sansa (or Arya) might end up as Lady of Winterfell, there was no way their heir will be named Stark. Now you're apparently agreeing that if that happened, their heir might be named Stark, but insisting that it can't happen in the first place. (And I'm not even going to bring up the idea that Sansa+Tyrion is very likely and it means at least one of their children won't be a Stark, because that isn't even relevant to the question.)

Please step back and figure out what point you're actually trying to argue for and lay out your reasons, instead of just finding some way to be contrary to each reply. Then we'll know what we're actually discussing here.

Share this post


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

The question here is whether there's any way the Stark name could continue. You were arguing that it's impossible, because, while you accepted that Sansa (or Arya) might end up as Lady of Winterfell, there was no way their heir will be named Stark. Now you're apparently agreeing that if that happened, their heir might be named Stark, but insisting that it can't happen in the first place. (And I'm not even going to bring up the idea that Sansa+Tyrion is very likely and it means at least one of their children won't be a Stark, because that isn't even relevant to the question.)

What I said is that I see no reason why a self-respecting nobleman in this world should allow his (obedient) wife to give her name to his children rather than his own unless he has no other choice. And marrying a Stark daughter doesn't equal having no other choice.

There are circumstances imaginable where such a husband would relent but we don't know whether it is going to come to those. Hell, we don't even know whether this question will be addressed. It would only become relevant if Sansa and/or Arya actually end up having children within the series itself.

The proper thing for a child is to bear the name of the husband not the wife. That's the case with Rhaenyra Targaryen's children as well as with Harrold Hardyng - his mother was a Waynwood and his grandmother an Arryn yet he is a humble Hardyng because his father was one such.

And we do not know how it came to be that the Waynwood children and Oakheart children and Mormont children actually are named the way they are. For all we know their fathers all could have been named Waynwood, Oakheart, and Mormont.

Speculating about how things may have done back in the days when the Starks were kings is irrelevant. The Kings in the North could make and change laws. The Lords of Winterfell cannot. If a King in the North wanted to call the (bastard) son of his daughter 'Stark' he would have done so. A Lord or Lady of Winterfell isn't as free in his/her decisions as a King in the North.

We don't even know whether Sansa or Arya would insist that their children bear their names. They know the custom, and there is no reason to assume a house cannot change its name.

Share this post


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

There are circumstances imaginable where such a husband would relent but we don't know whether it is going to come to those. Hell, we don't even know whether this question will be addressed.

Everyone knows this. Nobody believes that the only way the book could possibly end would be with Sansa as Lady of Winterfell and her son and heir Dontos Stark on her lap.

All anyone has said is that this is one plausible way the Stark family name could continue. Which you denied at first, but now apparently agree with, and yet you're still trying to argue even though you've now come around to the same conclusion as everyone you're arguing with. Why?

Share this post


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

Everyone knows this. Nobody believes that the only way the book could possibly end would be with Sansa as Lady of Winterfell and her son and heir Dontos Stark on her lap.

All anyone has said is that this is one plausible way the Stark family name could continue. Which you denied at first, but now apparently agree with, and yet you're still trying to argue even though you've now come around to the same conclusion as everyone you're arguing with. Why?

I only argued against the certainty a lot of people had that Sansa/Arya could continue the Stark name. And against the idea that it is a given that women can give their sons their name outside Dorne. Which isn't confirmed as of yet. It could be done but we don't whether it is done or not.

And even if it is done we don't know how it is done. The closest case we actually do know is Joffrey Lydden-Lannister and he apparently took the royal name of Lannister himself, so perhaps that's how things go then. But since we don't know whether Sansa or Arya's future husband is going to want to name himself Stark we cannot say anything.

Share this post


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

I only argued against the certainty a lot of people had that Sansa/Arya could continue the Stark name. And against the idea that it is a given that women can give their sons their name outside Dorne. Which isn't confirmed as of yet. It could be done but we don't whether it is done or not.

And even if it is done we don't know how it is done. The closest case we actually do know is Joffrey Lydden-Lannister and he apparently took the royal name of Lannister himself, so perhaps that's how things go then. But since we don't know whether Sansa or Arya's future husband is going to want to name himself Stark we cannot say anything.

This could be said about everything regarding future episodes and future seasons. Obviously we can not know it for sure, unless we are D&D. So this arguement is completely redundant. If we would know, we would not speculate.

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