Will all of Eddard Stark's children abandon his example?

[Free Northman Reborn]

The discussion on Sansa's future with Harry the Heir got me thinking about Eddard Stark's life philosophy, and how good a father he was compared to so many villains in this series, how hard he tried to instil the importance of living an honourable life in his children.

While Martin has gone to some lengths to show the weaknesses of an honourable approach in the Game of Thrones, is his enduring message going to be that none of Eddard's surviving children will end up following his teachings? How tragic will it be if Eddard's legacy is lost, with Jon being forced to break his vows to save the world, Arya becoming a murderous assassin for hire, and Sansa becoming a Littlefinger 2.0?

Is there still hope that Bran or Rickon will help Eddard's legacy live on? Or is Martin's intention to show that a strong, steadfast and honourable father figure is a weakness to children in this life?

 

[Cragen]

In hard times there is need for hard mans in charge, so I think that is what we will see in future from Starks. Basically, back to the roots of Kings of Winter. Most important thing that Ned passed to his children is importance of family unity or idea of pack. That is what distinguished Starks from Lannisters and I think that will be base of Starks future success.

[Neolaina]

I'm currently reading someone's analysis of the Great Northern Conspiracy, and I hit a line pertinent to Jon, re: some late-game analysis.

Quote

Let us recall the lesson Qhorin Halfhand teaches Jon: “Our honor means no more than our lives, so long as the realm is safe.” (Jon VIII, ACOK) By the end of ADWD, Jon’s resolved to do as he deems right and damn what people say about him.

“You have my word, Lord Snow. I will return, with Tormund or without him.” Val glanced at the sky. The moon was but half full. “Look for me on the first day of the full moon.”

“I will.” Do not fail me, he thought, or Stannis will have my head. “Do I have your word that you will keep our princess closely?” the king had said, and Jon had promised that he would. Val is no princess, though. I told him that half a hundred times. It was a feeble sort of evasion, a sad rag wrapped around his wounded word. His father would never have approved.

I am the shield that guards the realms of men, Jon reminded himself, and, in the end, that must be worth more than one man’s honor. (Jon VIII, ADWD)

Despite his quintessential Stark looks, Jon is no clone of Ned. Who in any case confesses to treason he didn’t commit to spare Sansa’s life and almost singlehandedly perpetrates the greatest lie in the series on Jon’s behalf (if R+L=J) for years before that. Jon’s understanding of obligation, sworn or not, has always been flexible because his very existence is proof that the most honorable of men can fail in their duty. If Ned, his role model in behavior, can’t keep his marriage vows, how can Jon expect better of himself, with the added stigma of being a bastard?

Jon was forced to break his vows by abiding by Qhorin's words, words that reflect Ned's actions, greatly. Honour is definitely important to Ned Stark, but Ned clearly imparted onto his children the worth of preserving the peace through personal sacrifice, as well. That said, part of Ned's demeanor contributes to his fatal flaw; this is not a trait that need be handed down to his children, in order for them to follow in his footsteps.

With regard to Arya, I still can't make a guess as to what she'll become. Yes, assassin. Maybe. Who the fuck knows. I'm with Cragen on the "pack survives" thought.

With regard to Sansa, I've got nothing. Littlefinger 2.0's a bit strong, at present. She hasn't particularly manipulated degrees of world history, as for yet. Depending on what she comes to accomplish, or machinate, might be that ole dead Ned would be brimming with pride for her.

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 minutes ago, Cragen said:

In hard times there is need for hard mans in charge, so I think that is what we will see in future from Starks. Basically, back to the roots of Kings of Winter. Most important thing that Ned passed to his children is importance of family unity or idea of pack. That is what distinguished Starks from Lannisters and I think that will be base of Starks future success.

Well, as much as I agree that the Starks have been too soft on their enemies in recent times, I also hope that the enduring legacy of Eddard's many years of honourable rule will emerge over the course of the next books, as more of his former vassals display the attitude of the Mountain Clans, who are willing to go to war to save "Ned's girl" from the Boltons. Not because they fear Ned, or because he has power over them, but because of loyalty based on the respect he earned from them  over the years.

[Cragen]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, as much as I agree that the Starks have been too soft on their enemies in recent times, I also hope that the enduring legacy of Eddard's many years of honourable rule will emerge over the course of the next books, as more of his former vassals display the attitude of the Mountain Clans, who are willing to go to war to save "Ned's girl" from the Boltons. Not because they fear Ned, or because he has power over them, but because of loyalty based on the respect he earned from them  over the years.

It's not just Ned honorable rule that earned their loyalty, hole purpose of Wintertown is to offer hiding from winter for those who need it, for thousands of years Starks provided protection for Northman, protection from Andals, Ironborns, Wildlings, slavers, winter etc. On the other hand Starks were ruthless when they deal with treson or rebellion. Remember Jon Snow conversation with those Mountain calnsman on the wall, about wards that Starks took. I would say it's healthy combination of power, justice and care for their dominion that earned Starks there status.

[King Ned Stark]

Not just the mountain clans, but the Glovers, Manderlays, Mormonts, even Alys Karstark when looking for protection seeks out "the last living son of Eddard Stark".  Ned's legacy seems to not only be enduring, but growing stronger, as if he is reaching out from the grave.  Tywin has somewhat the same affect, but trending the opposite way, as if they are opposite sides of a coin.  IMHO, Tywin's lifelong beliefs and policies are failing his people and his family, whereas Ned's are holding his people together in the face of incredible adversity.  Just my opinion though.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Not just the mountain clans, but the Glovers, Manderlays, Mormonts, even Alys Karstark when looking for protection seeks out "the last living son of Eddard Stark".  Ned's legacy seems to not only be enduring, but growing stronger, as if he is reaching out from the grave.  Tywin has somewhat the same affect, but trending the opposite way, as if they are opposite sides of a coin.  IMHO, Tywin's lifelong beliefs and policies are failing his people and his family, whereas Ned's are holding his people together in the face of incredible adversity.  Just my opinion though.

Well, I would like an ultimate message like that to counter the cynicism that so many try to celebrate as their take from the series.

[Cragen]

49 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Not just the mountain clans, but the Glovers, Manderlays, Mormonts, even Alys Karstark when looking for protection seeks out "the last living son of Eddard Stark".  Ned's legacy seems to not only be enduring, but growing stronger, as if he is reaching out from the grave.  Tywin has somewhat the same affect, but trending the opposite way, as if they are opposite sides of a coin.  IMHO, Tywin's lifelong beliefs and policies are failing his people and his family, whereas Ned's are holding his people together in the face of incredible adversity.  Just my opinion though.

This remanded me how foolish Robert was when Ned confront him about Dany. Jon Arryen honor save his and Neds life and later Ned and Jon honor and friendship keep realm together not fear and blood. Putting taht on side, northerners loyalty to Starks go way further then Neds rule, it's go thousands years back of Starks rule and protection of North, Stark name mean safety. You forgot about Dustin, Rysell, Bolton they don't look like they have appreciated Ned rule, loyalty to Starks didn't stop Rickard Karstark to murder Robs prisoners. To rule lands big as North you need more then honor, you need healthy amount of fear.

[chrisdaw]

No, Arya will in the end return to Arya and the duty of Arya Stark.

Sansa will turn the IT over rather than let Tyrion take the world down with him.

Bran will refuse Bloodraven's plan for Westeros to survive the Long Night as it will require sacrificing innocents, particularly children.

And when Dany attempts to sacrifice their child to save Westeros Jon will either kill her to prevent it or execute her for the attempt, or if she is successful for the murder. And when her corpse burns she will be reborn as the dragon and save Westeros.

Innocent children above all else, then duty and honour, and in the end that code will be what saves the day.

[Cragen]

6 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

No, Arya will in the end return to Arya and the duty of Arya Stark.

Sansa will turn the IT over rather than let Tyrion take the world down with him.

Bran will refuse Bloodraven's plan for Westeros to survive the Long Night as it will require sacrificing innocents, particularly children.

And when Dany attempts to sacrifice their child to save Westeros Jon will either kill her to prevent it or execute her for the attempt, or if she is successful for the murder. And when her corpse burns she will be reborn as the dragon and save Westeros.

Innocent children above all else, then duty and honour, and in the end that code will be what saves the day.

You are not paying attention.

[Hannis]

Tywin was the polar opposite of Ned Start. He is very practical while Ned was Idealistic. Stark children turned out better I guess. 

Look at Lannister children. 

tyrion - is stupid. his only duty was to produce an heir with Sansa so that north will have a stark heir and can north can go back to hteir own business. he may not get to rule the west but he could have ruled north.

cersei - mother of madness - need i say more?

Jamie - he realizes very late that he should have listened to his father, stepped down as kings guard and stepped in to shoes of Tywin. 

[chrisdaw]

43 minutes ago, Cragen said:

You are not paying attention.

The moral of a story isn't paid halfway in. It's testament to GRRM that people think otherwise when it should be as unthinkable as Luke embracing the dark side.

[Cragen]

31 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

The moral of a story isn't paid halfway in. It's testament to GRRM that people think otherwise when it should be as unthinkable as Luke embracing the dark side.

But in our story there is no dark side, there is character development. If characters end up same as they were at beginning, what is point of story? Things, that happened to our characters, have consequence on their personalities. You can't expect that Arya end up same little girl from beginning, I don't think she will become heartless assassin either. Whatever end look like there will be sense of losing, losing of family, friends and innocence.

[chrisdaw]

There's a dark side, it's Tywin ordering the death of the children, the Freys breaking guest rights, those who let revenge rule them in place of the common good and whoever would sacrifice a child to save the world. Arya began a wilful and disobedient child, she'll end having sacrificed her personal freedoms and pleasures for duty. It's an about turn, towards the characteristics of her mother (while she lived) and father, Stark ethos as the text presents them.

[Cragen]

4 minutes ago, chrisdaw said:

There's a dark side, it's Tywin ordering the death of the children, the Freys breaking guest rights, those who let revenge rule them in place of the common good and whoever would sacrifice a child to save the world. Arya began a wilful and disobedient child, she'll end having sacrificed her personal freedoms and pleasures for duty. It's an about turn, towards the characteristics of her mother (while she lived) and father, Stark ethos as the text presents them.

All those actions that you mentioned are not influenced by some evil forces, they are consequences of people fighting for power and there own interests. There is clear motivation for all those people. Meaning of greater good is not universally accepted, depending on everybody POV greater good is different. Tywin killing children in his eyes is greater good, because he, with this act, prevent future war and consolidate power of his family.

[the wolf that never was]

I think Ned's children will follow his example and try to do the right thing in their own ways.Sansa is becoming more shrewd and conniving perhaps but she's not littlefinger she never has been and never will be because even after everything she's gone through one thing she still has and always will is a good heart.

All the stark children will always try to do the right thing

Another thing is honour itself isn't something I feel they need.Yes Ned did emphasise honour above all but it's all very constraining not only I am of the opinion that trying to live your entire by some preordained principles,oath or code is stupid because often in real life not only could you have conflicting principles but they also might end up conflicting with what is actually the right thing to do just maybe not the honourable thing to do.

For instance Jon was trying to do the right thing when he broke his vows and joined the wildlings even though it entailed breaking his vows he knew he had to do it.Ned's children will always do the right thing Ned taught them that but it doesn't have to be the honourable thing.

One of the problems of the having honour and living by oaths is sometimes they make you do terrible things.take Barristan Selmy a good man and honourable,watched as the mad king burnt and strangled the Starks.Was that the right thing?Maybe at the end of that day he went to sleep excusing his inaction to himself by saying he was honour-bound and he had to keep his oath but we know through his POVs that he has always felt guilty after that unfortunate evebt because he knows that it wasnt The right thing to do.

[CJ McLannister]

What is honor?  That is one of the fundamental questions of the story.  Is it honesty?  Is it loyalty?  Is it living by your vows?  Taking care of your family?  Protecting the innocent?  Following the law?

What do you do when those things contradict each other?  Is honor just another trick of perception?

Is it ever honorable to rebel against your king/lord?  Are assassins honorable because they follow a code?  Do noble ends justify deceit and treachery?

[chrisdaw]

9 hours ago, Cragen said:

All those actions that you mentioned are not influenced by some evil forces, they are consequences of people fighting for power and there own interests. There is clear motivation for all those people. Meaning of greater good is not universally accepted, depending on everybody POV greater good is different. Tywin killing children in his eyes is greater good, because he, with this act, prevent future war and consolidate power of his family.

The emperor was attempting to gain control of the galaxy to enforce a total peace. His motivation was clear and from his POV he was doing good. The heroes rejected that premise, people in and out of world labeled it evil and it was overcome.

Westeros is not going to be saved by the Starks embracing Tywin's methods.

[DMC]

15 hours ago, Neolaina said:

Jon was forced to break his vows by abiding by Qhorin's words, words that reflect Ned's actions, greatly. Honour is definitely important to Ned Stark, but Ned clearly imparted onto his children the worth of preserving the peace through personal sacrifice, as well.

This.  I disagree with the implication in the OP that Jon's actions in ADWD do not reflect Ned's legacy.  Quite the opposite, in my view.  Even back in AGOT, when Aemon confronts Jon with the love/duty conflict, Jon instinctively responds that Ned would do whatever is right.  That's what I interpret Ned's legacy as; sacrificing one's honor to do what you think is right, oftentimes in terms of protecting your family.  Jon's decision-making seems to always include a What Would Ned Do aspect.  When he sends Val to find Tormund in ADWD:

Quote

"I will." Do not fail me, he thought, or Stannis will have my head. "Do I have your word that you will keep our princess closely?" the king had said, and Jon had promised that he would. Val is no princess, though. I told him that half a hundred times. It was a feeble sort of evasion, a sad rag wrapped around his wounded word. His father would never have approved. I am the sword that guards the realm of men, Jon reminded himself, and in the end, that must be worth more than one man's honor.

Jon slightly defies the word of a Baratheon King to do what he thinks his right.  I don't think the fact Ned did the exact same thing is a coincidence.

As for the other kids, I think it's important to keep in mind their character and actions are heavily influenced by what they have been though, e.g. Bran has been guided by a demigod since his fall, Sansa has lived in perpetual fear since Ned was arrested, and Arya is perhaps the most damaged of them all.  I think, in one way or another, Bran and Arya will eventually embody Ned's legacy in the end -

Spoiler

At the end of the Mercy chapter for AWOW, Arya reclaims her identity, which to me indicates her time with the FM, or as a nihilistic assassin in general, is at an end.

For Sansa, I could see her developing somewhat differently, but, well, there's a reason LF sees her as Cat 2.0.

[Carey Snow]

16 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The discussion on Sansa's future with Harry the Heir got me thinking about Eddard Stark's life philosophy, and how good a father he was compared to so many villains in this series, how hard he tried to instil the importance of living an honourable life in his children.

While Martin has gone to some lengths to show the weaknesses of an honourable approach in the Game of Thrones, is his enduring message going to be that none of Eddard's surviving children will end up following his teachings? How tragic will it be if Eddard's legacy is lost, with Jon being forced to break his vows to save the world, Arya becoming a murderous assassin for hire, and Sansa becoming a Littlefinger 2.0?

Is there still hope that Bran or Rickon will help Eddard's legacy live on? Or is Martin's intention to show that a strong, steadfast and honourable father figure is a weakness to children in this life?

 

Well, Robb followed his father's teachings for sure. Way to early to know about Rikkon. Jon is following the letter of the law as far as his vow, he did what he promised to do. Not sure how this disqualifies him. The girls are very complex as they both actually saw their father beheaded. I feel they both were severely traumatized... obviously. They still have Ned's teachings in them, but they are very much their own persons now. 

 

We also have to keep in mind that these kids were raised thinking their father had a child outside of wedlock. He made a mistake of passion (in their minds) and was able to raise that kid (Jon) and admit his failings to the woman he wronged. 

So the Stark children's view of Ned will be slightly different from the reader's view of Ned, who never cheated on Cat as we know.