Marriage Alliances - Are they still relevant?

[brashcandy]

Marriage alliances have been standard practice in Westeros, with Houses seeking to align for various benefits whether it be for military support, strengthening good relations and bloodlines, or to enhance the power and authority of a particular House.

My feeling on these alliances is that they are no longer relevant in the new world that GRRM is trying to create and that ultimately they create more problems than they solve.

We've seen the disasters of the most recent attempts at aligning Houses, either through boldfaced power grabs like the Sansa/Tyrion marriage, or the mutual beneficial support idea in the Quentyn/ Daenerys pact, which ends in his suicidal attempt to steal her dragons.

There are countless other examples which show that marriage alliances may not be such a good idea. So is it time for the Westerosi nobility to put this practice aside? Is this even a practical possibility in that world?

[Ice Turtle]

I hope Alys / Magnar will work.

I think they work, there are more then your two examples, but both parts must be willing and better to be equal.

[ZacharyB]

I wouldn't say all marriage alliances are irrelevant. Grrm is definitely trying to show us how the marriage alliance system can be abused to one houses benefit (Sansa/Tyrion, "Arya"/Ramsay), but I wouldn't say he's showing us that all of them are.

[Winterfell is Burning]

They work when they are the unions of two more or less equal houses searching for benefit for both of them.

The Tyrion/Sansa case could never work because it was a blatant power grab by Tywin, using a child that was a hostage to try to get a claim in the North. Tywin himself would have realized that it had no chance of working if:

a) He wasn't so arrogant that at that point, sitting again in the Iron Throne, he was seeing himself as a demigod;

B) He wasn't turned on by the idea of sexually humiliating women.

And of course, both houses have to enter the marriage with honest purposes- see Stark/Tully, not using as a mean to throw the other family away and take all the power for themselves- Baratheon/Lannister and Lannister/Tyrell.

[The King in the South]

They work when they are the unions of two more or less equal houses searching for benefit for both of them.

The Tyrion/Sansa case could never work because it was a blatant power grab by Tywin, using a child that was a hostage to try to get a claim in the North. Tywin himself would have realized that it had no chance of working if:

a) He wasn't so arrogant that at that point, sitting again in the Iron Throne, he was seeing himself as a demigod;

B) He wasn't turned on by the idea of sexually humiliating women.

And of course, both houses have to enter the marriage with honest purposes- see Stark/Tully, not using as a mean to throw the other family away and take all the power for themselves- Baratheon/Lannister and Lannister/Tyrell.

Um what??

It would have worked. At the time he had an army of 100k plus men. A shattered north isn't going to do crap against that.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Um what??

It would have worked. At the time he had an army of 100k plus men. A shattered north isn't going to do crap against that.

It would have never worked. The child would have absolutely no legitimacy and no respect as a ruler (specially if it was blonde and/or a dwarf). Soon after arriving in the North, someone would make sure it suffered an "accident"- quite possibly Roose Bolton himself, if Tywin removed his title of Warden of the North, which was what he intended to do in the long run. And, of course, having Lannister backing didn't stop the Northmen to unite to save "Arya".

[Smallfolkperson]

It would have never worked. The child would have absolutely no legitimacy and no respect as a ruler (specially if it was blonde and/or a dwarf). Soon after arriving in the North, someone would make sure it suffered an "accident"- quite possibly Roose Bolton himself, if Tywin removed his title of Warden of the North, which was what he intended to do in the long run. And, of course, having Lannister backing didn't stop the Northmen to unite to save "Arya".

100K men trumps anything that the North has. A Northern rebellion, even if every single lord was involved, could get at most 20K (same number as Robb.) Tywin would win, and there is no way that the entire North would unite against the Lannisters, since they would lose.

If Ramsay killed Sansa and Tyrion and then tried to claim lordship over the North, Tywin would suspect/know treachery. Tywin would then kill Ramsay and the entire Bolton family - see the Reynes of Castamere.

[Alexia]

If Ramsay did it quietly and discreetly (tragic accident), Tywin would send him thank you flowers. I think the marriage was intended to humiliate Sansa and as a general punishment to the Stark family, and probably had the ultimate goal in mind of getting rid of Tyrion. The Northmen would probably have united to rescue Sansa, same as they did for Arya, if she had been sent North.

And the text never gave the impression that Tyrion was taking 100K men North. A detachment, to be sure, but not an entire army.

[The King in the South]

If Ramsay did it quietly and discreetly (tragic accident), Tywin would send him thank you flowers. I think the marriage was intended to humiliate Sansa and as a general punishment to the Stark family, and probably had the ultimate goal in mind of getting rid of Tyrion. The Northmen would probably have united to rescue Sansa, same as they did for Arya, if she had been sent North.

And the text never gave the impression that Tyrion was taking 100K men North. A detachment, to be sure, but not an entire army.

Well he did mention that once Stannis was killed he would probably cut off the Bolton line for good.

But yeah, obviously if he didn't want Tyrion to rule then there was no hope of holding the north, but if he did want it, he certainly could. His Lannister men alone could defeat what was left of the rest of the North.

[Winterfell is Burning]

You're missing the point- I never said they would necessarily begin an open revolt against the Lannisters; instead, they would quitely assassinate the Lannister child, which can be done.

Also, no one can keep their power based on force forever. Without any kind of legitimacy or without support of the people, they eventually fall. The Lannisters were at that point the most powerful force in the realm, but 20 years before, the Targaryens were even stronger, weren't they?

And at that point Tywin was already making a series of mistakes, most notably overextending himself by trying to secure the Riverlands and giving some castles to Lannisters, and getting too close with the Freys, making impossible to deny the Lannister role in the RW, which assured he would never get full control of the North and they would rebel at the first opportunity.

And of course, he was failing completely in dealing with the Tyrells, first allienating then with Sansa and Tyrion's wedding, and then falling into their trick with Joffrey, without ever questioning if Tyrion was really to blame.

[The King in the South]

You're missing the point- I never said they would necessarily begin an open revolt against the Lannisters; instead, they would quitely assassinate the Lannister child, which can be done.

Also, no one can keep their power based on force forever. Without any kind of legitimacy or without support of the people, they eventually fall. The Lannisters were at that point the most powerful force in the realm, but 20 years before, the Targaryens were even stronger, weren't they?

And at that point Tywin was already making a series of mistakes, most notably overextending himself by trying to secure the Riverlands and giving some castles to Lannisters, and getting too close with the Freys, making impossible to deny the Lannister role in the RW, which assured he would never get full control of the North and they would rebel at the first opportunity.

And of course, he was failing completely in dealing with the Tyrells, first allienating then with Sansa and Tyrion's wedding, and then falling into their trick with Joffrey, without ever questioning if Tyrion was really to blame.

You might be the first person to critiize Tywin's intelligence instead of his ruthlessness.

And yes, they could kill the child, but the Lannisters aren't stupid.They would have informants, spys, etc. They would know. I think you might be overestimating the North a bit. They hate the Lannisters, but they would not be that foolish as to start another war. They would probably grumble, plot, decieve, but in the end, they'd sumbit. Or they'd die.

[Alexia]

You might be the first person to critiize Tywin's intelligence instead of his ruthlessness.

And yes, they could kill the child, but the Lannisters aren't stupid.They would have informants, spys, etc. They would know. I think you might be overestimating the North a bit. They hate the Lannisters, but they would not be that foolish as to start another war. They would probably grumble, plot, decieve, but in the end, they'd sumbit. Or they'd die.

Babies die, it is the natural order of things. A fever came and carried the baby off, done.

Tyrion had a tragic riding accident -- his horse was spooked and he was thrown. Done.

As long as they don't cut off his head and sew the head of a dwarfed lion onto his shoulders, and publicly gloat about killing him, they'd have been fine. After reading ADWD, its clear to me that Tyrion had a snowflake's chance in hell of ever being able to rule the North.

[Winterfell is Burning]

You might be the first person to critiize Tywin's intelligence instead of his ruthlessness.

Read ASOS, AFFC and ADWD- it's all there. It's a fact he failed to deal with the Tyrells, and in the latter books you see how he's overextending himself and the army melting away- he was already dead, but he was the one that set things in motion.

And yes, they could kill the child, but the Lannisters aren't stupid.They would have informants, spys, etc. They would know.

Like they knew it was the Tyrells and LF the ones that killed Joffrey?

I think you might be overestimating the North a bit. They hate the Lannisters, but they would not be that foolish as to start another war. They would probably grumble, plot, decieve, but in the end, they'd sumbit. Or they'd die.

Have you read ADWD? If not, it's hard to discuss this without releasing some spoilers.

And Tywin can't kill everyone in the North, otherwise who would they rule? And no one can keep their power based on force forever.

Babies die, it is the natural order of things. A fever came and carried the baby off, done.

Tyrion had a tragic riding accident -- his horse was spooked and he was thrown. Done.

As long as they don't cut off his head and sew the head of a dwarfed lion onto his shoulders, and publicly gloat about killing him, they'd have been fine.

Exactly.

After reading ADWD, its clear to me that Tyrion had a snowflake's chance in hell of ever being able to rule the North.

Exactly, completely impossible. The North Remembers.

[The King in the South]

Read ASOS, AFFC and ADWD- it's all there. It's a fact he failed to deal with the Tyrells, and in the latter books you see how he's overextending himself and the army melting away- he was already dead, but he was the one that set things in motion.

Like they knew it was the Tyrells and LF the ones that killed Joffrey?

Have you read ADWD? If not, it's hard to discuss this without releasing some spoilers.

And Tywin can't kill everyone in the North, otherwise who would they rule? And no one can keep their power based on force forever.

Exactly.

Exactly, completely impossible. The North Remembers.

I have read DWD. But 5000 men <<<<<<<<the 400000 of the Lannisters+their Riverrun vassals.

[brashcandy]

And of course, both houses have to enter the marriage with honest purposes- see Stark/Tully, not using as a mean to throw the other family away and take all the power for themselves- Baratheon/Lannister and Lannister/Tyrell.

I've never been too inclined to think too favourably of the Stark/Tully union. I wonder how much Ned was pressured to marry Catelyn, and what indeed he gave up for it. Sure it worked out well, but we see the lingering resentment and insecurity Catelyn felt over Ned's affection (exacerbated certainly by Jon). And it would have been even worse if she had married Brandon.

Then there's the Tully/Arryn alliance and the absolute wrongness of this eventual led to the War of five Kings. If Hoster hadn't forced Lysa to have that abortion or even if he hadn't forced her to marry Jon Arryn - a living corpse - things might have different.

[The Lost Lord]

I don't think GRRM has any general position like "marriage alliances are bad, marrying for love is better." Many marriage alliances have gone terribly wrong. But what happens when the people in power follow their hearts instead? Consider this passage:

All three of the sons of the fifth Aegon had wed for love, in defiance of their father’s wishes. And because that unlikely monarch had himself followed his heart when he chose his queen, he allowed his sons to have their way, making bitter enemies where he might have had fast friends. Treason and turmoil followed, as night follows day, ending at Summerhall in sorcery, fire, and grief.

So loveless marriage alliances can screw up a kingdom, but the failure to secure such alliances can have the same effect. I think GRRM's true theme about marriage alliances is that they are what is logistically necessary for stability, but that the human heart sometimes can't abide this.

[Winterfell is Burning]

I have read DWD. But 5000 men <<<<<<<<the 400000 of the Lannisters+their Riverrun vassals.

I think you got your a little numbers wrong...

In either way, remember who was the guy that started the war with the largest army?

He was the first to die. The one that started with the smallest is the last man standing.

The Lannister army is a spent force. They'd have AT MOST 20,000 men today, and most of them have to be used to keep the Riverlands under control. The Riverlords won't fight for them, they don't have the men nor the interest. The Tyrells won't move a finger, specially with Kevan dead. And Aegon has already arrived, they have other concerns.

And Manderly has the largest fleet in the Eastern cost, probably the largest in Westeros once the Redwyne and Iron ones destroy each other. Surely that can't hurt.

I've never been too inclined to think too favourably of the Stark/Tully union. I wonder how much Ned was pressured to marry Catelyn, and what indeed he gave up for it. Sure it worked out well, but we see the lingering resentment and insecurity Catelyn felt over Ned's affection (exacerbated certainly by Jon). And it would have been even worse if she had married Brandon.

If Ned doesn't marry Catelyn, he loses his head. He gave up a lot less than what he got in return- a solid alliance, a woman he grew up to love and gave him 5 children he loved immensely, victory in a war.

Then there's the Tully/Arryn alliance and the absolute wrongness of this eventual led to the War of five Kings. If Hoster hadn't forced Lysa to have that abortion or even if he hadn't forced her to marry Jon Arryn - a living corpse - things might have different.

Jon Arryn was described as a very strong man even in his 70's, call him a living corpse is not accurate.

And Hoster Tully was screwed either way, wasn't he? He can't let Lysa marry LF because he doesn't even love her, and certainly Catelyn and Edmure would suffer *accidents* before having children; if Lysa doesn't have an abortion she can't marry Arryn, or pretty much any major lord. And if he just lets her have a bastard, she and the child would be the joke of the entire realm- the daughter of a major lord that had a bastard with a lowborn man that loved her sister and not her.

[Tini]

Actually our own Middle Ages show that alliances like the Tyrion/Sansa marriage have a good chance at working out. The marriages were often not happy but the children would still grow up to inherit.

A child of Tyrion and Sansa wouldn't necessarily been a Lannister - if he was intended to rule the North, the child might have taken the name Stark just to remember that he actually is a Stark. Even Tywin Lannister might have seen the advantages of naming the child Stark.

While the child is small, it would have been protected by his parents. Or at least, byTyrion if Sansa had decided to off her own blood. I don't think she would have done so, anyway, no matter what she felt for the child's father.

Any Northern Lord considering to kill Sansa's children would not only consider what killing Tyrion Lannister's child would do. They would be killing Ned Stark's grandchild as well. If they really valued Lord Eddard and the Starks as much as they claim, they wouldn't do that. Not if that actually meant ending the Stark family for good.

If Bran or Rickon resurface that might change. But if those two resurfaced, they would be higher in the line of succession than Sansa's children would be, no matter who their father is. Which might serve to keep those children safe.

I think it more likely that they would help Sansa to escape her marriage, taking her children with her, than killing her children. Even if Tyrion is the father. As long as there are no other heirs that would still be preferable to a new ruling house forced on them by the Lannisters.

Now, if Tyrion dies, and Sansa marries a Northerner, her new husband or his family might decide to remove the children of her first marriage from the succession. This has nothing to do with Tyrion, though. Just with human greed.

[Ahmrogar]

I have read DWD. But 5000 men <<<<<<<<the 400000 of the Lannisters+their Riverrun vassals.

Numbers are grossly incorrect, and you don't consider the strategic advantage of Moat Cailin (which we know to have thrown back armies much larger than the North's).

Also, if you have read aDwD, then you'd be able to imagine what happens to a Southron host when marching through the North? Remember how the Northmen faired relatively?

[voodooqueen126]

Actually our own Middle Ages show that alliances like the Tyrion/Sansa marriage have a good chance at working out. The marriages were often not happy but the children would still grow up to inherit.

A child of Tyrion and Sansa wouldn't necessarily been a Lannister - if he was intended to rule the North, the child might have taken the name Stark just to remember that he actually is a Stark. Even Tywin Lannister might have seen the advantages of naming the child Stark.

While the child is small, it would have been protected by his parents. Or at least, byTyrion if Sansa had decided to off her own blood. I don't think she would have done so, anyway, no matter what she felt for the child's father.

Any Northern Lord considering to kill Sansa's children would not only consider what killing Tyrion Lannister's child would do. They would be killing Ned Stark's grandchild as well. If they really valued Lord Eddard and the Starks as much as they claim, they wouldn't do that. Not if that actually meant ending the Stark family for good.

If Bran or Rickon resurface that might change. But if those two resurfaced, they would be higher in the line of succession than Sansa's children would be, no matter who their father is. Which might serve to keep those children safe.

I think it more likely that they would help Sansa to escape her marriage, taking her children with her, than killing her children. Even if Tyrion is the father. As long as there are no other heirs that would still be preferable to a new ruling house forced on them by the Lannisters.

Now, if Tyrion dies, and Sansa marries a Northerner, her new husband or his family might decide to remove the children of her first marriage from the succession. This has nothing to do with Tyrion, though. Just with human greed.

you are aware that the Lannisters were planning to murder Sansa once Tyrion had taken their son North?