Sansa + Ned: What’s the Difference?

[Mourneblade]

You are reading something into the text that is not there. So when you get all irate at people not seeing this concept of Sansa thinking she's exercising diplomacy and trying to bridge some gap and fix a misunderstanding, it isn't really fair, because this is not in the text, the text spells out something to me very different.

But, here, let me give you a Sansa defense that I rarely see. It's not exactly in the text either, LOL, but it seems fairly logical to me. She sees Cersei and Joff as BARATHEONS. The reader, her father, and most other characters think of Cersei especially as a Lannister, as she is, through and through. But, why would Sansa have this view of her? She's Bob's wife, Bob Baratheon, her father's best friend, duel hero of RR. Sansa's only real life model of the wife of a high lord is her own mother, Cat STARK, who is seen and referred to by reader and character alike as a Stark and could not be more loyal to House Stark if the wolf blood itself flowed through her veins. So, why would Sansa think that Cersei Baratheon, wife of her own father's best friend, would be bad or out to harm her father or the king? It would be almost unfathomable to her, especially coupled with her dreamy fairlytale outlook and tendency to go with surface conclusions. Same for Joffrey "Baratheon" he is her father's best friend's son, and he's handsome. This is the best excuse for why she downplays all of their BS. It is Jamie LANNISTER who attacks her father, and so, despite how wrong this is you could see that she would make a distinction here. Cersei and Joff are Baratheons, related by blood and marriage to Bob. Jamie is a Lannister. It's still sort of weak, considering that her siblings see through all of this, but it's much less weak than some super speculative reading that despite her POV saying exactly what she thinks and why she does what she does....that she's doing it for some other, better sounding reason.

You could apply this same reasoning to the scene at the Trident. Her father is totally keyed into "Lannister men"...maybe Sansa should have been, or not, because when push comes to shove they're all Bob's men...men of her father's best friend, so her under appreciating the situation could be seen as not as grievous a sin because she doesn't see the power dynamics underneath it all. She sees Cersei Baratheon, Bob Baratheon, and Joff Baratheon....she's thinking, how bad can this get? Not that bad. But, she's wrong.

That is a solid catch. the idea that she sees Cercei as a Baratheon. Something I will have to consider.

[butterbumps!]

You are reading something into the text that is not there. So when you get all irate at people not seeing this concept of Sansa thinking she's exercising diplomacy and trying to bridge some gap and fix a misunderstanding, it isn't really fair, because this is not in the text, the text spells out something to me very different.

I was asking what the text spells out to you. And if possible, it would be productive to explain it with non disparaging judgments on Sansa for discussion.

But, here, let me give you a Sansa defense that I rarely see. It's not exactly in the text either, LOL, but it seems fairly logical to me. She sees Cersei and Joff as BARATHEONS. The reader, her father, and most other characters think of Cersei especially as a Lannister, as she is, through and through. But, why would Sansa have this view of her? She's Bob's wife, Bob Baratheon, her father's best friend, duel hero of RR. Sansa's only real life model of the wife of a high lord is her own mother, Cat STARK, who is seen and referred to by reader and character alike as a Stark and could not be more loyal to House Stark if the wolf blood itself flowed through her veins. So, why would Sansa think that Cersei Baratheon, wife of her own father's best friend, would be bad or out to harm her father or the king? It would be almost unfathomable to her, especially coupled with her dreamy fairlytale outlook and tendency to go with surface conclusions. Same for Joffrey "Baratheon" he is her father's best friend's son, and he's handsome. This is the best excuse for why she downplays all of their BS. It is Jamie LANNISTER who attacks her father, and so, despite how wrong this is you could see that she would make a distinction here. Cersei and Joff are Baratheons, related by blood and marriage to Bob. Jamie is a Lannister. It's still sort of weak, considering that her siblings see through all of this, but it's much less weak than some super speculative reading that despite her POV saying exactly what she thinks and why she does what she does....that she's doing it for some other, better sounding reason.

I didn't realize I had to spell all that out, but that's exactly why we know Sansa sees this as clearing up a misunderstanding. Ned's broken betrothal comes out of nowhere and seems suspicious. She goes to the the other involved parties who have authority to clear this. She doesn't think these people have her father's worst interests in mind.

Maybe this isn't clear. Sansa most certainly has her own interests in mind in going to Cersei. But she's going as an intermediary.

[Cas Stark]

We will have to agree to disagree. The excerpt you posted, what are the words she herself thinks about in relation to her actions: wicked, sneaking, willful, defying. And why does she do this? She loves Joff SO MUCH. But her father wouldn't listen. She even adds what she has to know is a flat out lie that her father was going to marry her to a hedge knight, LOL, as a further self rationalization.

She goes to the queen, as I have said numerous times, for the selfish reason of wanting to stay in KL and marry Joff, her true love. She again cements this truth when she is brought before the queen after her father is taken prison and she flips out at the thought of not getting to marry Joff, going so far as to say that it is Arya not her who has the traitors blood...there is no way this can be read as not disloyal unless one is purposely bind to the meaning of the words.

As far as disparaging terms for Sansa, I don't know, who gets to determine that? Why you and not me? I think she's passive, I don't find that a hugely disparaging term but people become enraged when this is said. I find the text is very clear that she does things that are disloyal to her family and what the reasons are, but this too not only enrages people but responses to this tend to imply that this view is some kind of nutty speculation, instead of something that is fully grounded in the actual language of the books.

[butterbumps!]

We will have to agree to disagree. The except you posted, what are the words she herself thinks about in relation to her actions: wicked, sneaking, willful, defying. And why does she do this? She loves Joff SO MUCH. But her father wouldn't listen. She even adds what she has to know is a flat out lie that her father was going to marry her to a hedge knight, LOL, as a further self rationalization.

She goes to the queen, as I have said numerous times, for the selfish reason of wanting to stay in KL and marry Joff, her true love. She again cements this truth when she is brought before the queen after her father is taken prison and she flips out at the thought of not getting to marry Joff, going so far as to say that it is Arya not her who has the traitors blood...there is no way this can be read as not disloyal unless one is purposely bind to the meaning of the words.

I'm trying to show you that I don't think we disagree, so much as we have a different attitude toward it.

We both agree that Sansa's intention was not to undermine her family, and that she unwittingly helped an enemy party, right? That means it's an intervention-- she's acting as an intermediary.

Sansa's motivation is "love" for Joffrey. You have called her love of Jof selfish as a motive. I, and others, have pointed out that this "love" is motivated by duty. The root of Sansa's motivation is duty, by way of "love." The duty is embedded in this "love" motive.

I'm less interested in proving that Sansa is not "disloyal" as I am in trying to expose the inconsistent rubric that's occurring. If Sansa is "disloyal" here, then certainly Ned has behaved egregiously disloyally to both of his daughters, most especially Sansa in that he did not remove her duty to Jof and the Baratheons and instead tacitly supported them all this while.

[Winter's Knight]

I believe that Ned and Arya's "the pack survives" talk would never have happened if Arya wasn't the "difficult child". This kind of parenting was not the norm, parants gave istructions and children were supposed to obey without much or any questioning. I think it is quite clear that the conversation was a last resort when all other forms of discipline that the Septa had tried, had all failed.

Sansa, in this too, falls victim to her own "good girl" attitude. She doesn't -seemingly- pose any problem that needs to be dealt. Therefore, no talk and no explanation. Also, Ned is the first "victim" of underestimating Sansa. She's supposed to be the "good girl", the non-willful, the one who will meekly obey. It sets a certain pattern for Sansa's story. This is the same misjudgement that all her captors, without exception, will make regarding Sansa.

edited for grammar

Oh hey, that's really cool.

[Cas Stark]

I'm trying to show you that I don't think we disagree, so much as we have a different attitude toward it.

We both agree that Sansa's intention was not to undermine her family, and that she unwittingly helped an enemy party, right? That means it's an intervention-- she's acting as an intermediary.

Sansa's motivation is "love" for Joffrey. You have called her love of Jof selfish as a motive. I, and others, have pointed out that this "love" is motivated by duty. The root of Sansa's motivation is duty, by way of "love." The duty is embedded in this "love" motive.

I'm less interested in proving that Sansa is not "disloyal" as I am in trying to expose the inconsistent rubric that's occurring. If Sansa is "disloyal" here, then certainly Ned has behaved egregiously disloyally to both of his daughters, most especially Sansa in that he did not remove her duty to Jof and the Baratheons and instead tacitly supported them all this while.

We agree she had no intent to harm her family for the most part. I'm not sure "Arya has traitor's blood" when her father is already in prison can really be seen in anything but an extremely negative light.

Why are love and duty embedded? This is a construct. The love that Sansa describes in her POVs is a romantic love driven by Joff as a handsome prince who is going to fulfill all of her dreams...getting out of boring Winterfell, living the high life in KL, and being queen. There is nothing in her thoughts that she is doing this out of duty. Everything in the text describes her feelings for Joff as a teenage girl infatuation based on looks and fantasy. To imprint some kind of 'oh it's my duty to feel this way' is again putting something in there that isn't there.

As I said, I don't find the parallel here with Ned and Sansa is particularly compelling because the specifics are too different. Yes, they both put their family in jeopardy, but that's about the end of the similarity as I see it.

[butterbumps!]

As far as disparaging terms for Sansa, I don't know, who gets to determine that? Why you and not me? I think she's passive, I don't find that a hugely disparaging term but people become enraged when this is said. I find the text is very clear that she does things that are disloyal to her family and what the reasons are, but this too not only enrages people but responses to this tend to imply that this view is some kind of nutty speculation, instead of something that is fully grounded in the actual language of the books.

That was an appeal to not attribute Sansa's rationale to "stupidity" and the like.

The reason that calling Sansa "passive" and "disloyal" gets so much friction is because these characterizations are not necessarily accurate or consistent.

You've been extremely vocal about pointing out how Sansa went to Cersei out of her own self-interest to take control of her own future, which is an incredibly not-passive thing to do.

You are also wanting to gloss over Ned's actions, also unwittingly resulting in harm to his family, as not "disloyal" while insisting that Sansa's are. Ned was motivated by duty to Robert and compassion for kids when he went to Cersei-- compassion for kids at the expense of his own. Ned clearly was not thinking about his own family here.

There's layers of motives feeding each other here: Neither Ned nor Sansa is motivated to appeal to the enemy out of a desire to harm their own family. On this level of motivation they are the same.

Sansa's motivation stems from love, by way of duty. She loves him because she's supposed to. Ned's motivation stems from an unwillingness to harm children.

But the fact that neither intended to harm their own organization is what matters here in terms of calling this a betrayal or "disloyal." The specific motivation does not matter in terms of determining whether one betrayed their family. They both did unintentionally.

You can feel differently about Sansa's reason for appeal, but it's wildly biased to try to pass her actions off as betrayal while excusing Ned given that neither sought to harm their own party.

We agree she had no intent to harm her family for the most part. I'm not sure "Arya has traitor's blood" when her father is already in prison can really be seen in anything but an extremely negative light.

Yea, I don't find that particularly sympathetic (other than the fact that Sansa was facing the Queen making accusations at her), but that's really beside the point here. It has nothing to do with Sansa knowingly undermining her family in the Cersei incident to deserve the "disloyal" terminology you're imposing.

Why are love and duty embedded? This is a construct. The love that Sansa describes in her POVs is a romantic love driven by Joff as a handsome prince who is going to fulfill all of her dreams...getting out of boring Winterfell, living the high life in KL, and being queen. There is nothing in her thoughts that she is doing this out of duty. Everything in the text describes her feelings for Joff as a teenage girl infatuation based on looks and fantasy. To imprint some kind of 'oh it's my duty to feel this way' is again putting something in there that isn't there.

As I said, I don't find the parallel here with Ned and Sansa is particularly compelling because the specifics are too different. Yes, they both put their family in jeopardy, but that's about the end of the similarity as I see it.

It's no less embedded than the way you've bought Ned's adherence to honor/ duty as the fully excusable reason he didn't speak up at the trial and executed Lady himself. The fact that duty is at root in this betrothal has been pointed out repeatedly by various posters. I don't understand why you accept Ned's embedded martial duties as motive and reject Sansa's.

You don't see the parallel because you don't want to see it. Each of your responses conveys that no matter what, you just see Sansa as a dumb little girl.

[ShadowCat Rivers]

Oh hey, that's really cool.

Thank you. I should add that, while this is what I'd call bad parenting, I think that Ned was a good parent. He did as best as he knew, and the fact that he tried a different, off the beaten track approach with Arya speaks to his favor.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

{snipped some}

Why are love and duty embedded? This is a construct.

{snipped some more}

We all of us have assumptions about reality built into us by our training from such a young age that we often fail to notice that we have original biases in favor of some version of reality that is nothing but a construct. The power of those constructs lies in the fact that they are not operating on us consciously, but unconsciously. It becomes quite difficult to discard our own pre-conceived notions in order to more thoroughly understand the story being told to us, which is the OP's point, of course.

I read once from a brilliant film critic (Mick LaSalle of the San Francisco Chronicle) that he loves watching really old movies because you can see in them the realities that people in those days accepted uncritically. Because enough time has passed that our own operating assumptions have changed enough that we can recognized those which are different (even as we fail to see our own).

Sansa is operating within the construct of a world that she has been taught and yes, it is a construct. If she were to somehow be transposed into our world today, it would be legitimate to interpret her "falling in love" with Joffrey as a selfish adherence to her own fantasy fairy-tale. But that's looking at her from our own constructed reality. All the people of her own social class in her own world would consider her to be a normal and admirable girl for wanting to be in love with her betrothed and to be wanting him to love her as well. Simply because it is her duty to see to it that things work out that way.

[Cas Stark]

But this is false. Love is not anything close to a baseline expectation of marriage for women of her station. Her mother was not in love with Ned when she married him and did not convince herself she was in love with him at the time. No other character we see either puts a false construct of love on top of an arranged marriage. Love is the exception to the rule. Doing your duty by your family is what is the primary expectation. As Lysa did, as Genna did.

Sansa actually flips these. She rejects duty to her own family when she goes to the queen in favor of the selfish model of romantic love she has created.

[Mourneblade]

Sansa is operating within the construct of a world that she has been taught and yes, it is a construct. If she were to somehow be transposed into our world today, it would be legitimate to interpret her "falling in love" with Joffrey as a selfish adherence to her own fantasy fairy-tale. But that's looking at her from our own constructed reality. All the people of her own social class in her own world would consider her to be a normal and admirable girl for wanting to be in love with her betrothed and to be wanting him to love her as well. Simply because it is her duty to see to it that things work out that way.

As one who works feverishly to view the characters and situations within the context of the story, I can agree with much of what you have posted. If we were viewing Sansa through someone else's eyes she would not appear nearly as self centered or pratty.

What causes her negative perception in the first few books is that we have her own views and interpretations on things. Now these are not quite as bad upon further review, they still do not exonerate her.

Here is an example.

In your previous post you made a very solid point and mentioned her being trained about duty from birth. You used that to exonerate her decision to run to the King/Queen over Ned breaking her Betrothal. The problem is that your own very point works against that. Since it is her duty, first and for most, to her Father until she is wed. He broke the betrothal, thus breaking any obligatory duty she had to Joff.

She, by your very valid point, is perfectly aware of this. She makes this choice based, not on her duty to her father, but her own self interest.

Now she is an 11 year old girl who is infatuated with the romantic idea of being a princess and queen and having perfect children. So we have to keep that in context as well, but that still only lessons the weight of the act. It does not exonerate it.

That being said great insight

[The Broke Howard Hughes]

Both made foolish mistakes although Ned's were out of pity and concern and Sansa's were out of teenage foolishness and fantasy.

[The Ned's Little Girl]

{snipped}

In your previous post you made a very solid point and mentioned her being trained about duty from birth. You used that to exonerate her decision to run to the King/Queen over Ned breaking her Betrothal.

{snipped}

Thanks for your thoughtful response. But I actually wasn't trying to exonerate Sansa's going to see Cersei so much as attempt to refute the idea that her behavior was motivated purely by selfish desires of hers. I was echoing and amplifying butterbumps! excellent point which she made in this quote:

Sansa's motivation is "love" for Joffrey. You have called her love of Jof selfish as a motive. I, and others, have pointed out that this "love" is motivated by duty. The root of Sansa's motivation is duty, by way of "love." The duty is embedded in this "love" motive.

This "love" thing was her duty (by the mores of her society) as well as her desire. That's how I see it, though and I do understand how anybody can see it differently even though I believe that's more because of looking at her through our own modern lens mainly.

As far as Sansa going behind Ned's back to Cersei, I specifically wasn't going into that. Only making the point that I don't think Sansa's behavior was purely selfish. As far as I can see, Sansa isn't any more selfish than any other person walking around in Westeros. Sure, she wants a happy ending for herself; who doesn't? Her being so frequently characterized and vilified as selfish, short-sighted and disloyal gets my goat a bit.

[Mourneblade]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. But I actually wasn't trying to exonerate Sansa's going to see Cersei so much as attempt to refute the idea that her behavior was motivated purely by selfish desires of hers. I was echoing and amplifying butterbumps! excellent point which she made in this quote:

This "love" thing was her duty (by the mores of her society) as well as her desire. That's how I see it, though and I do understand how anybody can see it differently even though I believe that's more because of looking at her through our own modern lens mainly.

As far as Sansa going behind Ned's back to Cersei, I specifically wasn't going into that. Only making the point that I don't think Sansa's behavior was purely selfish. As far as I can see, Sansa isn't any more selfish than any other person walking around in Westeros. Sure, she wants a happy ending for herself; who doesn't? Her being so frequently characterized and vilified as selfish, short-sighted and disloyal gets my goat a bit.

For the most part then we are in agreement, however she has her own POV's to blame for her being perceived as shallow, selfish, etc. Our initial perception of her is reinforced with a sledgehammer in her first few POVs. I feel GRRM did this with purpose. We now have 5 books to see growth, but it has been slow.

Most of the time we need to step back and put it into context of an 11 year old girl. What exacerbates this is the Arya Factor, more than the Ned factor, although the Ned factor does work against her as well.

I am of the opinion though that if we gloss over her faults in the early books we will truly not appreciate her overcoming those later.

[thepooperthatwaspromised]

As much as I have my own visceral reactions to both Ned and Sansa's behaviors, instead of viewing them as a love/honor vs. family rubric, I have come to view them as a family vs. family rubric, for both of them.

Ned grew up with Robert and viewed him as a brother, and continued, despite warning signs, to view later Robert through this lens. His father, sister, and 2 brothers are dead. His surrogate father, Jon Arryn, is dead. His last remaining loyalty is to Robert, not as a king, but as a brother, and is what drives many of his actions.

Sansa, who grew up as a Stark, is to become a Baratheon. Joffrey and Cersei are her future family. Following both the model of her own mother, and the feeling, however misguided, of an affinity to Joffrey, she takes an instant familial approach to her relationship with them.

Every action each takes from the moment Robert reaches Winterfell will be a question of which family every decision will favor: the past or the future.

In certain moments where he shouldn't, Ned chooses his past family - Robert.

In certain moments when she shouldn't; Sansa chooses her future family - Joffrey

To me it is an extremely realistic of how real people (of those age groups) react to those questions - Ned goes with history, even if present Robert defies this. Sansa goes with future.

Neither is right, and I have my own views about who come across as more "sympathetic", but I don't think the question is complete without viewing it through this rubric.

[Mladen]

That's because she doesn't display any morality. My impression is that she is amoral, just like Jaime was. I don't think pushing Bran out of the window was relatable neither her actions in the Purple Wedding. Even sociopaths can love a few people and put their needs above everyone else.

I agree. The difference between Ned and Olenna is that he is much more honorable and decent than her. But, we see her doing what must be done to protect her family. Is that so unheard of? In many ways, I wish Ned had a bit of Olenna. Not the child-killing part, but the part where she questioned Sansa about Joffrey, to find out whether her suspicions are true. That is something Ned should have done, after Trident incident and especially after Robert told him that Joffrey is problematic. The most amazing thing in the conversation about Joffrey between Ned and Robert is that Ned pities Robert but never questions the decision that his daughter is marrying this type. This is not an evidence, just an observation from the show: nobody hit the point like Arya when she asked him: "How can you allow her to marry someone like that?" And that ultimately is the question, how he can allow that marriage with all the signs pointing it's a bad idea.

One thing that is rarely discussed is the why of Ned having a seemingly very different relationship with his younger daughter, who he takes aside, and gives a very honest heart to heart talk...which he never does with Sansa. He doesn't seem as able to relate to her as he does with Arya.

I doubt Ned felt any different about Arya then he felt about Sansa. I don;t think he could ever possibly relate to Arya's wild nature, and he says so. Mainly, he just intervened when Mordane was helpless with Arya, nothing more. And given that he most likely knew thing or two about Lyanna, he allowed her interests to continue, without suppressing them. No, we see Ned's parenting with Arya, but I wouldn't say he is more able to relate to her more than Sansa.

[thepooperthatwaspromised]

Sorry, only adding this because although I don't think Sansa deserves all the hate she gets, imo, Ned did one thing semi-right:

Sansa, I'm not sending you away for fighting, though the gods know I'm sick of you two squabbling. I want you back in Winterfell for your own safety. Three of my men were cut down like dogs not a league from where we sit, and what does Robert do? He goes hunting.

No question he should have given an Arya-sized tete-a-tete, both in regards to this and his subsequent half-assed explanation of Joffrey's inadequacies, but he did stress the life-and-death nature of his reasoning. Unfortunately, I believe this is another nail in the overall "Sansa did wrong" coffin.

[cocoalover1956]

Sorry, only adding this because although I don't think Sansa deserves all the hate she gets, imo, Ned did one thing semi-right:

Sansa, I'm not sending you away for fighting, though the gods know I'm sick of you two squabbling. I want you back in Winterfell for your own safety. Three of my men were cut down like dogs not a league from where we sit, and what does Robert do? He goes hunting.

No question he should have given an Arya-sized tete-a-tete, both in regards to this and his subsequent half-assed explanation of Joffrey's inadequacies, but he did stress the life-and-death nature of his reasoning. Unfortunately, I believe this is another nail in the overall "Sansa did wrong" coffin.

Not necessarily. Ignoring Ned's warning was wrong, but if she didn't think Cersei and Joffrey were really dangerous, she clearly wasn't trying to do her family harm by going to them.

[thepooperthatwaspromised]

Not necessarily. Ignoring Ned's warning was wrong, but if she didn't think Cersei and Joffrey were really dangerous, she clearly wasn't trying to do her family harm by going to them.

i totally agree. never tried to say she did. just talking about the lens by which certain readers view her.

[mambru]

One thing that is rarely discussed is the why of Ned having a seemingly very different relationship with his younger daughter, who he takes aside, and gives a very honest heart to heart talk...which he never does with Sansa. He doesn't seem as able to relate to her as he does with Arya.

Sure. But IMO, it doesn't absolve him of his duty as a father to instruct her in right and wrong - much less the duty to warn her of danger and protect her from it. To say "It's hard for me to talk to her, so I'm not going to try," is neglect on his part.

I mean, if a modern father saw his teen daughter dating an unsuitable boy, we would consider he has the duty to warn her why he believes he is unsuitable (his controlling and manipulating nature indicates sociopathy and the potential to abuse her, this boy uses drugs,etc.) We consider that because he is the father, he has the experience to know better than her and the duty to teach her, even if, as a teen in our society, she may ignore the advice. If he sees his daughter start to do things he considers wrong even though her behavior has always been good before, precisely BECAUSE of this relationship (she tells a lie to protect the boyfriend from the consequences of his bad actions), his duty as a father to confront her about her wrongdoing and instruct her is even MORE critical. If he shrugs it off and says, "Meh, I never felt comfortable talking to that girl, let it pass," and says nothing, we would consider that neglect.

And if this father knows that the boy is closely associated with a very dangerous person, that this person has committed a serious crime that the father is aware of but the daughter knows nothing about and has befriended this dangerous person, the father's duty to warn the daughter about the danger she's running is much greater. And if on TOP of that the father publicly kowtows to this dangerous criminal's immoral wishes and never says a word to his daughter that he thinks they are wrong, IMO, his neglect worsens into condonation at that point.

If we would think of this modern father as neglectful, why should we exempt Ned? His daughter is not a teenager, she's eleven. And a girl of our world has a great deal more freedom than a Westerosi girl. Sansa did not choose this bad relationship for herself, Ned agreed to it for her. And she does NOT have the power to break up with this boy on her own - only Ned can do that. She has every reason to be in denial about Joffrey's true nature even after the Trident - she HAS to marry him anyway, and what eleven year old would willingly face the fact that she's doomed to a miserable marriage with her father's complicity?

So she lies at the Trident to try to incriminate neither her fiance nor her sister. Ned does not tell her she's wrong to have done so; his silence CONDONES Sansa's actions. The Queen orders Lady killed, Ned does it, and never tells Sansa he did something wrong or that the Queen did; he's CONDONING the Queen's wrongdoing. He continues the betrothal; he's CONDONING Joffrey as a suitable groom for his daughter, nothing wrong with him, nope, nope. He sees Sansa still upset about the Trident and wrongly blaming Arya for the incident, angry because of the doubts it awoke in herself? He says nothing to correct her warped perception of Joffrey, of what happened, of the danger they're both in, nothing. And IMO, the fact that the last words he said to her are the ONLY words he said to dissuade her from this relationship, and that they amount to "That boy is bad news, forget him" is WAY too little, too late.

In certain moments where he shouldn't, Ned chooses his past family - Robert.

In certain moments when she shouldn't; Sansa chooses her future family - Joffrey

Wow, that's really cool. I hadn't realized that both Ned and Sansa acted inadvertently against their own blood families due to their love of someone who WASN'T, who should have mattered less - Joffrey for Sansa and Robert and Jon Arryn for Ned. Quite a paralel.

I would also add that Sansa acted wrongly over an infatuation with Joffrey while Ned acted wrongly over an infatuation with "honor".