Nevets Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 57 minutes ago, John Suburbs said: By your logic, Cersei should not have tried to frame Margaery or her girls either because she had know way of knowing the condition of their hymens, but this is exactly what she did. She already had Pycelles' statement that he had given Margaery moon tea, so she knew somebody was likely screwing around. And if they are all still intact, she can blame her torturers or the men themselves. It's not like she actually gives a damn about them. She cares about Joffrey and if he claims to have sex with a girl who is provably a maiden, he has some explaining to do. 57 minutes ago, John Suburbs said: There is absolutely no question that Sansa went off alone with Joffrey willingly. That fact alone is enough to question her moral purity. Do you have any text to that effect? Taking into account the fact that they are both pre-teens, and are betrothed to boot. 57 minutes ago, John Suburbs said: As I pointed out above, Joffrey does not have to admit to actual sex until after they have examined Sansa. If nobody admits to actual sex, there is no reason to examine her in the first place. Rides through the countryside are not the sort of activity that immediately leads to suspicion of sex. Especially for 11 year olds. 57 minutes ago, John Suburbs said: Of course you don't see them because Sansa doesn't see them. I was referring to the reference, which I couldn't find. Of course, the reason Sansa doesn't see them is probably because they aren't there in the first place. 57 minutes ago, John Suburbs said: This is the girl who is clueless to the fact that she insults herself in front of crowds of people. Apparently I am clueless too. To what are you referring? Final thought: If this was Cersei's plan, then why wasn't it revealed in Feast, when she is doing essentially the same damn thing to the Tyrells. If there was a better occasion for a reveal, I am hard pressed as to when it would be. I expect that, if they hadn't run into Arya, they would have arrived back at camp, and Joffrey would be yelled at for ditching Sandor, Sansa would be yelled at for leaving the column, and everybody would go their separate ways. Nothing I have seen here convinces me otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 On 7/1/2018 at 10:28 AM, John Suburbs said: And how did you reach this conclusion? Sansa has practically no experience riding or doing any other strenuous activity, and suddenly she is out for hours galloping across open country. It would be remarkable if she was not broken after all that. It's only one day of riding. Margaery, in contrast, had been riding frequently for years. Quote Wrong. Arya accuses both Joffrey and Sansa of lying, a charge that Robert knows is true. Yet he cannot even bring himself to rule against his son in this trivial matter. The judicial process would involve each side presenting their evidence to the judge and jury: King Robert. There is simply no way he would rule that Joffrey is a rapist because it would tear the realm apart -- especially since there is so much evidence against Sansa. Cersei wants Arya punished for Joffrey's injuries (we learn later in Feast that she told Jaime to cut off her hand if he found her first). Arya's statement is a defense of her action. Robert declares that each child will be disciplined by their own parent, which means Arya only receives a punishment if Ned thinks that's fit. Quote Again, Sansa is not raped. Sansa seduced Joffrey; she is the one at fault here. Even if everybody in the world was convinced that Joffrey forced himself on her, Sansa would still be at fault because she willingly went off into the woods alone with him. Proper highborn ladies should aspire to be the maid, especially if they hope to be queen some day. Going off alone with your betrothed is an epic failure to live up to that ideal, easily enough cause for the court to conclude that she is not worthy to be queen. It's common knowledge that Sansa did go off into the woods alone with Joffrey, yet nobody seems to care and Sansa remains betrothed to Joffrey until after war breaks out, her family are declared traitors, and Margaery is presented as a replacement. The reasoning for Sansa's betrothal being broken is that her father, who made the agreement, was a traitor. Her going off with Joffrey doesn't come into it. Quote So Ned is now a dedicated enemy to the crown and Robert is supremely pissed. How exactly is this a problem for Cersei? Both Ned & Robert wanted that alliance, so if Cersei & Joffrey try to impede it, they make themselves the enemies of Ned & Robert. Quote Oh hogwash. Where is that quote from, the World Book? Someone recalling "the good old days" before the war? It's from A Storm of Swords, and I did acknowledge it was hyperbolic. Quote If there are no outlaws anywhere in the realm, then why does every other highborn bring guards with them whenever they travel? Why do they have guards at all? Why not just let any random smallfolk walk into the lord's dining hall and have dinner? I didn't say there were "no outlaws anywhere in the realm". And aside from all that, letting people into a lord's dining hall to feast is part of a sacred custom which they don't discard for informality like a public house. Ned does feast with smallfolk, though not "random" ones. Quote Please, use your imagination. Cersei has all kinds of resources at her disposal to make sure Joffrey is safe. Ever heard of outriders? These are men who specialize at watching from afar, staying out of sight and clearing areas of enemy spies and soldiers. They also tend to be very good with their bows and can eliminate enemies from a distance. Cersei also knows the exact route that Joffrey will take and can send an entire company of men to clear the area of any unscrupulous characters. There's no evidence there were such outriders. Adding them requires additional people to be part of the plot, which adds to the risk of people revealing the existence of such a plot. Lancel was both a relative & a lover (and someone easily cowed by Cersei due to his age). If these outriders are tasked with keeping Joffrey safe, they were more negligent than the Hound, since they actually saw him get attacked by a giant wolf (after being more ineffectively attacked by Arya with a stick) and did nothing. Quote He hears Joffrey's story and makes fun of what he says, to Robert's great displeasure, indicating that even this little outburst has put him on thin ice with the king. What he doesn't do is call the queen a liar, which would not only draw the wrath of Cersei, but the Hound as well. Renly is no genius, but even he is smart enough to see the folly in that -- and that's if he even realizes how he was used to set up this whole mummer's farce to begin with. There's no indication at any point that he saw anything as suspicious about Cersei's meeting, even afterward when he's trying to enlist Ned to neutralize her by seizing her children. Quote Again, you don't know what the characters think. Everyone but the Starks (and Robert) might realize that this is not right, but it's not their place to say so. The Starks remain oblivious, so the readers remain oblivious since it is through the Stark POVs that all of this unfolds. GRRM has given multiple perspectives so that we can see things one character sees that others might not. Why hide public opinion of commonly known facts starting early in the first book and continuing all through the rest of the series? It's the logic of a conspiracy theorist to think that in the absence of supporting evidence there must be masses of hidden evidence. Quote Just because Martin has not presented you with the conclusion in the most obvious way imaginable does not mean it cannot be true. Before Dance came out, someone could have suggested that Aegon is still alive and Jon Con is plotting to restore him to the throne. By your logic here, you would conclude that simply because no one in the story even considers this possibility it cannot be true. But you would have been 180 degrees wrong. It could be the case that GRRM reveals that the whole story was just the dream of a magic beetle, and the moral is "Make America Great Again". Nothing in the laws of physics prohibits him from doing that, but I would laugh at anyone who earnestly suggested it. I already acknowledged that I would have disbelieved someone who predicted Aegon would turn up (many still disbelieve even after he did!). If you actually did predict Aegon ahead of time, then that would really be a case of you divining GRRM's intentions in the absence of what the rest of us consider satisfactory evidence. Quote There are no guarantees about anything in life, but this is about as close as you can get. Cersei's plans are not always carefully crafted. She had no way of knowing that getting Robert drunk would actually get him killed, but that was the plan. If it didn't work, he would have returned to the city to hear Ned's charges and it would have been all over for her and her children. Cersei risks nothing additional by giving Robert strongwine. Having Joffrey make a false public accusation against Sansa does risk something, without the added benefit of killing someone she wants dead. Quote OK, but I still don't see what any of this has to do with our discussion. None of these men were accused of rape or other heinous crimes. It has to do with disinheritance. It's risky if the heir is old enough to assert their rights, less so if the heir is young. Quote Meanwhile, Rhaenyra proves my point to the letter: a perceived adulteress whom people accused of siring multiple bastards and who plunged the realm into the worst civil war in its history. This is what happens when queens do not project an image of utmost propriety: their virtue is besmirched, the legitimacy of their children is questioned and rivals emerge to usurp the throne. The same thing is happening to Cersei right now, and the same thing would happen to Sansa for merely allowing herself to be put into a compromising position with the prince. Rhaenyra was far worse than Sansa, yet remained the heir and even became queen for a time. Rhaenyra faced the difficulty that prior precedent was against a woman sitting on the Iron Throne, that her eldest children were notoriously illegitimate was icing on the cake. Additionally, she was named heir with the intent of keeping Daemon Targaryen from being heir, whom she had married by the time of succession. Sansa still went out into the woods alone with Joffrey, but we see that doesn't prevent her from remaining his betrothed. Quote Absolutely not. Where are you getting this from? When the river lords appeal to Robert for justice at the outset of the 5K there is no trial for Gregor Clegane; no opportunity for him to defend himself. Ned determines there and then that he is guilty and immediately attaints him and strips him of all lands and titles. When Balon Greyjoy rebelled, they didn't have hearings and a panel of judges to determine his guilt or innocence. The only time they resort to this is in special circumstances, like when Tyrion is accused of Joffrey's death, the king is nine and doesn't understand what's going on and the Hand is the father of the accused and the grandfather of the victim. When Tyrion was charged in the Vale, Sweet Robin was the one who would pass sentence, and Tyrion gets around that by asking the court "Where is the king's justice?" In normal circumstances, the king rules with absolute authority and the Hand speaks with that authority when the king is absent. There certainly can be a trial, but the king is judge, jury, prosecutor. The king makes the laws, the king enforces the laws, the king interprets the laws. No house, no matter how big or how small, is "entitled" to anything. This is a medieval, feudal society. There is no parliament, no separation of powers, no Magna Carta, not even a Round Table. The king's word is absolute, and if you don't like it you can rebel and try to overthrow him. If successful, you get to be king and exert your absolute rule over the land. Ned says it best: "All justice flows from the king" and it is why whenever he passes sentence he says "In the name of Robert of the House Baratheon..." Gregor Clegane, a knight from a house only recently raised from being kennelmasters, was then in the process of raiding the riverlands. If he had laid down his arms, declared his innocence and demanded a trial, perhaps he could have gotten one, Tywin Lannister, whom Ned was sure was behind it, was not declared guilty. Aside from being the head of a great house, he was also not then at large wreaking havoc. Ned could insist that he present himself in the capital to face justice, but Tywin would have the right to a trial (just as Tyrion did on two occasions). Justice is indeed supposed to flow from the king, which is one of the things he owes his subjects (just as the oaths the Reeds take indicates that the Starks owe it to them). But justice is not simply whatever the king says it is, because Westeros is not an absolute monarchy. Aegon IV had to abide by the outcome of the trial by combat in which the Dragonknight defeated Ser Morgil and upheld Queen Naerys' honor. Rickard expected that he could get a trial by combat rather than simply being executed at Aerys' command, because that was the norm for nobles like himself (as Tyrion repeatedly takes advantage of). Quote Well then why make a big point about swearing before the entire court that she is still a maid? Nobody had accused Cersei of not being a maid. I'm sorry, but like your last comment about Robert not being a one-man jury, your opinions are not even close to the facts on the page. Because she was just recently married to the traitor Renly Baratheon. For all they know, she's carrying his child and the firstborn after the marriage will not be Joffrey's. They could wait a long time to be sure that's not the case, but political considerations push for a betrothal now and verifying her maidenhood accomplishes the same thing more quickly. Additionally, there is symbolic value in minimizing her marriage to the deceased false king. Quote In the first place, Ned and Cat did not spend only one night as husband and wife. More like two weeks, aka a fortnight. Second of all, there are plenty of reasons why smart people like Varys and Tywin should suspect that Ned is lying. The entire time that Lyanna and Rhaegar were supposedly together, the entire realm should have been dreading the prospect of yet another Targaryen bastard to deal with. They only just got rid of the last of the Blackfyre pretender some 20 years before, after nearly 100 years of bloodshed. So when Ned comes back to court and reports that Lyanna is dead and there is no royal bastard it must have come as a huge relief. Then a few weeks later, Ned shows up at Winterfell with a mysterious bastard of his own. Readers were quick to pick up on this even though none of the characters do. The only difference between that situation and this is that Martin has chosen to hide the clues to the reader a little more deeply. We get no indication those people think Ned is lying, regardless of what you think. Targaryens aren't always so lucky in producing heirs (the deathrate for newborns was very high then, hence the Westerosi custom of not immediately naming them). Readers came to different conclusions based on evidence that wasn't public knowledge, like Ned's thoughts in which he does not explicitly refer to Jon as his son (and also doesn't think about the other candidates for Jon's mother). Quote There is no need to shout. As I've said, my point is that Robert cannot even bring himself to pass judgement against Joffrey regarding this minor matter, even though he knows Joffrey is 100 percent guilty. So if he is not going to rule against him here, when there would be absolutely no consequences to Joffrey or anyone else, then there is no way he is going to rule against him when the consequences will be stripping him of his inheritance and risk plunging the realm into civil war. And this is especially true given that the undisputed facts of this case -- that Sansa willingly went off alone with Joffrey -- would lay the blame for anything that happened out there squarely on her shoulders. Even Ned would agree with that. Joffrey makes an accusation against Arya, which is why Robert is judging anything at all. His choice is to effectively dismiss the charges against Arya. Robert wasn't present for the incident and only has the word of the three children, his belief about Joffrey is founded on Joffrey cutting up a cat when he was a child, which is not a basis for a public decision on Arya's guilt, so he reaches his desired result without requiring it to publicly depend on that. Quote Of course he does. He risked losing Dorne by not holding Tywin accountable for the deaths of Elia and her children. It was only through the incredible negotiating skills of Jon Arryn that it did not happen. Robert is not going to throw Joffrey under the bus because it would lead to a succession crisis that would eventually pit one of his sons against the other. Not to mention that it would be a huge stain on his own honor for having bred such a vile rapist for a son. And again, the facts of the case place the blame on Sansa. Robert had already outfought the forces of Dorne. He had most of the great houses behind him, and with the addition of the Lannisters he had the wealthiest house (until then unbloodied by the fighting) as his ally. Lannister forces were already in the capital and trying to go after Tywin would be much more likely to reignite war (throwing only Clegane & Lorch under the boss would have been more feasible, though Tywin would put up a lot of resistance). Quote Again, there is no need to shout. Joffrey claims he and Sansa were just minding their own business when Arya and Micah attacked them with clubs. Arya calls him a liar and, yes, accuses him of hurting Mycah. Literally, her words are "he was hurting Mycah." Sansa punts and says she doesn't remember anything. Robert, who knows exactly what the truth is here, does what he always does and tries to brush the whole thing off, but Cersei won't let him. She wants accountability for what happened to her poor Joffrey, and she uses Lady as a proxy for Nymeria. So the two things that should jump out at you here is that if Robert will not lay blame on Joffrey for this little scrap, then he certainly is not going to ruin his own good name, usher in a succession crisis and possibly throw the realm into civil war by accusing him of a major crime, and secondly, if Cersei wants blood from the wolf that wasn't even responsible, then it is beyond incredulous that she places no blame at all on the man she herself brought in to make sure this exact kind of thing does not happen to Joffrey, ever. The minor nature of what happened is what inclines Robert to punt and regard it as a matter for parental discipline rather than more formal justice. If Joffrey can be convicted of a major crime, then it is much easier to disinherit him. Tommen will be a natural Schelling Point for his vassals to acclaim, being named as heir by the king (and being the next eldest son) and not the convicted rapist of a prepubescent daughter of a great house. Quote Robert would have every reason to exonerate him and absolutely no reason to convict him. It was Sansa who willingly jeopardized her honor by going off alone with Joffrey. That alone is enough to rule that she is the one responsible for what happened because, again, men are saintly but weak and women are vile temptresses. It's the same BS attitude that has most people today thinking that a woman is at fault for her rape because she willingly went up to a man's hotel room alone. Only in the past year or two has our culture started to reconsider that load of crap. The medievals did not think that men were so saintly as to be above rape, and Sansa is a prepubescent girl rather than a woman. Quote Yes, queens have endured under worse clouds, and in every case the realm is destabilized because grasping opportunists use it as leverage to question the new king's legitimacy -- just like it's happening now to Cersei. The more minor the cloud, the less harm it will cause. As it is, Sansa did go off into the woods alone with Joffrey and drank more wine than she could normally handle, but we get no indication that fact is any hindrance to the betrothal. Quote He doesn't want to, but he will if Ned chooses to rebel. It's either that or simply let the north form it's own kingdom again, and good luck holding onto the other realms if that happens. Ned will demand justice, and Robert will want to give it to him. As noted, the Baratheons rebelled over less and got their way. Quote But Ned is not going to do any of this because, once again, under the attitudes of this day and age Sansa is the one clearly at fault and Ned has no moral or ethical grounds to defend her. A noble father has every moral, ethical & legal ground to demand justice when his daughter is raped. Dareon insists he had consensual sex with Mathis Rowan's daughter, but Rowan is able to demand he go to the wall. Under the biblical codes I quoted earlier, a woman is expected to cry out if she's being raped, and is executed (along with the man) if she does not do so in a populated area (like her home). Sansa, in contrast, was out in the country and could cry out yet be unheard (though if she does cry out and is heard Joffrey would be in deep shit). On 7/1/2018 at 12:48 PM, John Suburbs said: Plenty of reasons why smart players should suspect Ned. The realm just rid itself of the last Targ bastards that brought 100 years of bloodshed to the realm. The fact that Rhaegar did not produce yet another Targ bastard to plague the realm all over again must have come as a huge relief to all. The only person who can verify this claim, however, is Ned, and a few weeks later he shows up at Winterfell with a mysterious bastard of his own. Readers puzzled it out easily enough, but characters do not, so it is not unreasonable to think that no one suspects the Trident wasn't any more than a simple cock up. But readers who have critical thinking abilities can puzzle out the truth. The readers suspect not because they are so much smarter than the characters, but because they have access to information the characters don't. Quote Correction: one is considered a mystery by you and one is not. Characters bring up the Tower of Joy frequently, but not Ned's story. Not once, ever. The mystery of Jon's parentage is brought up multiple times. The "mystery" of why Joffrey was alone with Sansa or why Cersei had that meeting with Renly & Barristan never is. Quote OK, so it was out of left field. Your whole argument against this idea is that Martin does not reveal secrets out of left field like this. But here is clear and incontrovertible proof that you are wrong. Nobody saw anything odd about the story of Aegon's death, but in reality it left the door wide open for either a fake Aegon or the real Aegon to reemerge, an idea you would have rejected outright because "the characters in the story do not have any Watsonian reason to suspect" that his death was faked. Agreed, characters lack any Watsonian reason to believe any of Rhaegar's children are alive. In those cases readers have access to knowledge that those characters lack (although most readers here still seem to disbelieve in Aegon). Quote Plenty of evidence, as I've posted. Comments from multiple characters that the kings road is dangerous and they're not supposed to leave the column. What has absolutely zero evidence is your contention that all of this applies to everyone else in the world, including armored warrior kings, but not an utterly defenseless prince and his lady. We get enough evidence to fit Sansa's statement that they're not supposed to leave the column. But we already know that Bran & Arya do what they're not supposed to do at risk to their own safety without anyone cracking down and without requiring any conspiracy. The simplest explanation is that Joffrey also disobeyed the rules without repercussion because he felt like it & because he can. That, rather than taking part in political conspiracies, is consistent with everything we later see of Joffrey. Quote It wouldn't take much to stay out of sight from Sansa. She's not terribly observant. They also have to stay out of sight of Arya, whom the Lannisters later try to apprehend but fail to. If an outrider had followed Arya, it would have been easy to find her. Quote And no, no outrider, no matter how good a shot they think they are, is going to launch an arrow at a wolf who is down on the ground wrestling with the prince. Imagine the consequences if they killed Joffrey. Animals can be scared away by charging at them in numbers & making loud noises (though firing an arrow in a manner sure not to hit Joffrey could help with scaring away the wolf). Most animals are scared of humans because humans have been killing them for a long time. When the crown prince is being attacked by one, any supposed outriders watching would have an immediate obligation to try any means of protecting him, completely outweighing staying out of sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 20 hours ago, Nevets said: She already had Pycelles' statement that he had given Margaery moon tea, so she knew somebody was likely screwing around. And if they are all still intact, she can blame her torturers or the men themselves. It's not like she actually gives a damn about them. You mean she forced a statement out of Pycelle after threatening to charge him with murdering Lord Gyles. He is willing to tell Cersei anything she wants to hear at this point, and even if it is true it in no way guarantees anything about Margaery's hymen, nor those of here three friends. 20 hours ago, Nevets said: She cares about Joffrey and if he claims to have sex with a girl who is provably a maiden, he has some explaining to do. If nobody admits to actual sex, there is no reason to examine her in the first place. Rides through the countryside are not the sort of activity that immediately leads to suspicion of sex. Especially for 11 year olds. Joffrey does not have to claim any sex. He is playing an innocent young boy and wouldn't know actual sex if it fell on him. He simply tells a story about things that happened, most likely after she lured him into the river for a swim, but he was scared and didn't look, didn't see, didn't know what actually happened. He can even embellish it with her telling him not to worry, she has done this plenty of times with Robb and her bastard brother. Won't that get the crowd buzzing. If they check her and she's unbroken, well it was a close thing but at least the prince's virtue hasn't been sullied. If she's broken, however... 20 hours ago, Nevets said: Do you have any text to that effect? Taking into account the fact that they are both pre-teens, and are betrothed to boot. Um, how about the text showing that is exactly what she did: Quote Joffrey reflected for a moment. "We could go riding." "Oh, I love riding," Sansa said. Then we see them out riding together, which means that had to go to the stables, have the stableboys ready their mounts, help Sansa onto hers, and off they go in full view of however many smallfolk or highborns happened to be in the area. Nobody is going to say Joffrey dragged Sansa off kicking and screaming because it didn't happen, and they even have witnesses at the inn where they had a pleasant lunch with no signs of distress from Sansa. The fact that they are betrothed is all the more reason why them being alone together like this would be more of a scandal, not less. And the shame would fall directly on her for being so careless with her virtue. 20 hours ago, Nevets said: I was referring to the reference, which I couldn't find. Of course, the reason Sansa doesn't see them is probably because they aren't there in the first place. These are men who are expert at hiding from seasoned soldiers. Small wonder that a dimwitted girl like Sansa does not see them 20 hours ago, Nevets said: Apparently I am clueless too. To what are you referring? Same chapter, immediately following Sansa's panic attack at the sight of Ser Illyn: Quote "As well he should." The queen had descended from the wheelhouse. The spectators parted to make way for her. "If the wicked do not fear the King's Justice, you have put the wrong man in office." Sansa finally found her words. "Then surely you have chose the right one, Your Grace," she said, and a gale of laughter erupted all around her. And later: Quote "Sweet one," her father said gently, "listen to me. When you're old enough, I will make a match with a high lord who is worthy of you, someone brave and gentle and strong. This match with Joffrey was a terrible mistake. That boy is no Prince Aemon, you must believe me." "He is!" Sansa insisted. "I don't want someone brave and gentle, I want him." There are others, but this is the kind of mind Sansa has right now. She's basically clueless about what's happening around her. She still believes that life is like her songs. 20 hours ago, Nevets said: Final thought: If this was Cersei's plan, then why wasn't it revealed in Feast, when she is doing essentially the same damn thing to the Tyrells. If there was a better occasion for a reveal, I am hard pressed as to when it would be. I expect that, if they hadn't run into Arya, they would have arrived back at camp, and Joffrey would be yelled at for ditching Sandor, Sansa would be yelled at for leaving the column, and everybody would go their separate ways. Nothing I have seen here convinces me otherwise. Who knows? Let's see what Martin has in store for the next two novels. If Lyanna is Jon's mother, then why wasn't it revealed when Ned was in the black cells thinking about Lyanna, the ToJ, the bed of blood and the lifelong burden of the promise? Joffrey may get scolded, but Sansa's reputation would be sullied and the Hound would be dismissed, at the least. Even if Cersei cannot parlay this into a full accusation against Sansa, she has at least put some tarnish on her goody good girl reputation, so that the next time she maneuvers her into this kind of situation she can drop the hammer -- this time in front of the entire court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springwatch Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 If a highborn girl needs an intact maidenhead to prove her virtue, none of them would be allowed to ride at all. But they all do. Therefore, the Faith's examination of Margaery and her cousins cannot be normal practice - it's probably an archaic procedure from their own court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's only one day of riding. Margaery, in contrast, had been riding frequently for years. One full day, hour upon hour, of hard, vigorous riding with "reckless abandon." Sansa would need one tough hymen to withstand that pressure. 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Cersei wants Arya punished for Joffrey's injuries (we learn later in Feast that she told Jaime to cut off her hand if he found her first). Arya's statement is a defense of her action. Robert declares that each child will be disciplined by their own parent, which means Arya only receives a punishment if Ned thinks that's fit. OK, and in her defense, she accuses Joffrey of hurting Mycah and lying. That's the accusation made against Joffrey. 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's common knowledge that Sansa did go off into the woods alone with Joffrey, yet nobody seems to care and Sansa remains betrothed to Joffrey until after war breaks out, her family are declared traitors, and Margaery is presented as a replacement. The reasoning for Sansa's betrothal being broken is that her father, who made the agreement, was a traitor. Her going off with Joffrey doesn't come into it. Because by the time all this hit the fan it was about Arya and her wolf, not Sansa. And of course it became about treason and rebellion later. She was never impugned over her morality at all. 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Both Ned & Robert wanted that alliance, so if Cersei & Joffrey try to impede it, they make themselves the enemies of Ned & Robert. In case you hadn't noticed, Cersei and Robert are already enemies, and Robert's regard for his son is minimal at this point. Plus, on the surface, Cersei is not trying to impede anything; she is merely trying to preserve the virtue of her son, the crown prince, and protect the realm by ensuring that he gets a proper queen, not a morally loose trollop. 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It's from A Storm of Swords, and I did acknowledge it was hyperbolic. I didn't say there were "no outlaws anywhere in the realm". And aside from all that, letting people into a lord's dining hall to feast is part of a sacred custom which they don't discard for informality like a public house. Ned does feast with smallfolk, though not "random" ones. So why even bring it up if you know it's nonsense? Why do you insist that it is perfectly safe for Joffrey and Sansa to be out there alone? The fact is that in both war and peace, the kings road, and virtually everywhere else in the realm, is a dangerous place for unguarded rich people, and particularly rich defenseless children. Do you think people like Rorge and Biter just spring up out of the ether once the armies start marching? How else do you explain all of the thieves, rapers and murderers at the Wall? Does the NW only replenish its ranks during wartime? 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There's no evidence there were such outriders. Adding them requires additional people to be part of the plot, which adds to the risk of people revealing the existence of such a plot. Lancel was both a relative & a lover (and someone easily cowed by Cersei due to his age). If these outriders are tasked with keeping Joffrey safe, they were more negligent than the Hound, since they actually saw him get attacked by a giant wolf (after being more ineffectively attacked by Arya with a stick) and did nothing. Of course there is no evidence because Sansa does not see them. These are trained, professional woodsmen who are experts at seeing but not being seen, by other professional woodsmen let alone clueless little girls. They don't have to be a part of any plot. They just have to follow the queen's orders: follow the prince and make sure no armed bandits are about. Anything beyond that is none of their business, and they risk their heads by reporting anything they see to anyone else but her. They are there to make sure there are no gangs of armed men around, not kids with sticks. Once Nymeria was on Joffrey, no outrider in his right mind would launch an arrow at her and risk hitting the prince. Imagine what would happen if they killed him. And then it was over before it even started. 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: There's no indication at any point that he saw anything as suspicious about Cersei's meeting, even afterward when he's trying to enlist Ned to neutralize her by seizing her children. And like I said, Renly is not the sharpest tool in the shed either, so it is quite probable that he missed the whole thing. Also, we have no POVs from him and we actually get very little face time with him at all, so we have no idea what he thinks of all this, nor do we have any reason for him to stick his neck out for Ned because he doesn't even know whether to trust him. In fact, once he does learn of Ned's intention, to support Stannis, not Renly, he leaves him high and dry. 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: GRRM has given multiple perspectives so that we can see things one character sees that others might not. Why hide public opinion of commonly known facts starting early in the first book and continuing all through the rest of the series? It's the logic of a conspiracy theorist to think that in the absence of supporting evidence there must be masses of hidden evidence. And yet when I do give you multiple perspectives that the kings road is dangerous and that children are not supposed to leave the column, you reject them for the notion that it was perfectly normal for Sansa and Joff to do just that -- without a shred of supporting evidence. 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It could be the case that GRRM reveals that the whole story was just the dream of a magic beetle, and the moral is "Make America Great Again". Nothing in the laws of physics prohibits him from doing that, but I would laugh at anyone who earnestly suggested it. I already acknowledged that I would have disbelieved someone who predicted Aegon would turn up (many still disbelieve even after he did!). If you actually did predict Aegon ahead of time, then that would really be a case of you divining GRRM's intentions in the absence of what the rest of us consider satisfactory evidence. My point exactly. The Aegon plot came out of nowhere, with no previous indication by Martin that any such thing was happening. Nobody but Martin could state definitively that this was the truth before it came out in Dance, but anybody could have postulated that such a thing was at least possible given the description of baby Aegon in the throneroom. So to reject the idea in its entirety for no other reason than "Martin doesn't build mysteries in this way" would have made you 100 percent wrong, but acknowledging that such a thing is at least possible would have put you in the right -- even if, in the end, it turned out to be totally false. Exact same situation here, except that Martin has indeed given us text that shows the ride should not have been allowed and that there was one man in camp whose job was to ensure that it didn't happen. So again, don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to convince you of the truth of what I am saying. If you don't see enough evidence, then you don't see enough evidence. What I am contesting is your utter rejection of the mere possibility that this could be true simply because you don't think this is the way Martin does things. Clearly, it is. 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Cersei risks nothing additional by giving Robert strongwine. Having Joffrey make a false public accusation against Sansa does risk something, without the added benefit of killing someone she wants dead. She risks everything by not making 100 percent sure that Robert dies on this hunting trip: her life, her children's legacies, perhaps their lives too. Even as it worked out, she was still in dire peril just by him making it back to the capital alive. Now that Ned knows the truth from her own lips, Robert has to die here and now. Simply giving him strongwine was taking an incredible risk because there was no way to be sure that it would result in his death. 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: It has to do with disinheritance. It's risky if the heir is old enough to assert their rights, less so if the heir is young. Well, I'll just give up on this then. I have no idea what you're talking about or what this has to do with the price of tea in China. 14 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Rhaenyra was far worse than Sansa, yet remained the heir and even became queen for a time. Rhaenyra faced the difficulty that prior precedent was against a woman sitting on the Iron Throne, that her eldest children were notoriously illegitimate was icing on the cake. Additionally, she was named heir with the intent of keeping Daemon Targaryen from being heir, whom she had married by the time of succession. Sansa still went out into the woods alone with Joffrey, but we see that doesn't prevent her from remaining his betrothed. She failed to inherit the crown like her father wished because a) she was a woman and b) she was seen as an incredible tramp who slept with just about anyone with a title. If there is a better cautionary tale for not having queens who fail to live up to a strict moral code, I can't find one. And again, even if Cersei cannot parlay this one incident to scotch the marriage, she will have tarnished Sansa's good girl image so that the next time she gets out-maneuvered Cersei can drop the hammer -- this time in front of the entire court. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Gregor Clegane, a knight from a house only recently raised from being kennelmasters, was then in the process of raiding the riverlands. If he had laid down his arms, declared his innocence and demanded a trial, perhaps he could have gotten one, Tywin Lannister, whom Ned was sure was behind it, was not declared guilty. Aside from being the head of a great house, he was also not then at large wreaking havoc. Ned could insist that he present himself in the capital to face justice, but Tywin would have the right to a trial (just as Tyrion did on two occasions). Justice is indeed supposed to flow from the king, which is one of the things he owes his subjects (just as the oaths the Reeds take indicates that the Starks owe it to them). But justice is not simply whatever the king says it is, because Westeros is not an absolute monarchy. Aegon IV had to abide by the outcome of the trial by combat in which the Dragonknight defeated Ser Morgil and upheld Queen Naerys' honor. Rickard expected that he could get a trial by combat rather than simply being executed at Aerys' command, because that was the norm for nobles like himself (as Tyrion repeatedly takes advantage of). Tywin, or any other noble, would be judged by the king, or the Hand if the king is indisposed, not by a jury, not by a panel of judges. In what way is Westeros not an absolute monarchy? Does the king share power with anyone? Is there a parliament? A supreme court? The only authority higher than the king in Westeros is the gods. If you don't get satisfaction from the king, you can have a TbC, and even then this was only reserved for the highest of the highborn. Aerys, Robert, Ned, Joffrey, all made absolute rulings from the Iron Throne, with no debate, no appeal, no procedural rules. They heard cases and decided them, and their actions were carried out regardless of whether the accused, or anyone else, thought they were just. Sorry man, these are the facts. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Because she was just recently married to the traitor Renly Baratheon. For all they know, she's carrying his child and the firstborn after the marriage will not be Joffrey's. They could wait a long time to be sure that's not the case, but political considerations push for a betrothal now and verifying her maidenhood accomplishes the same thing more quickly. Additionally, there is symbolic value in minimizing her marriage to the deceased false king. Everyone knows she was married. All they have to do is wait to be sure she is not carrying a child, which they could literally do at her next moonblood. Why bother insisting that she is still maid if it is no big deal? Why would the "symbolic value" of still being a maid be of any greater importance for Margaery then Sansa? At least Margaery's deflowering would have taken place within the bonds of holy matrimony, not in the dirt somewhere out in the woods. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We get no indication those people think Ned is lying, regardless of what you think. Targaryens aren't always so lucky in producing heirs (the deathrate for newborns was very high then, hence the Westerosi custom of not immediately naming them). Readers came to different conclusions based on evidence that wasn't public knowledge, like Ned's thoughts in which he does not explicitly refer to Jon as his son (and also doesn't think about the other candidates for Jon's mother). I know that. This is exactly my point: we get no indication from anyone that they think Ned is lying, and yet the entire RLJ theory is predicated on the assumption that he is in fact lying. So how is this different from here: we get no indication that anyone thinks the ride was suspicious, so this theory is based on the assumption (this time backed by actual evidence) that it was in fact highly suspicious. And once again, you are using absence of evidence to claim a truth even though you say this should not be done: Ned does not specifically refer to Jon as his son, he does not think about the other candidates... He also does not specifically think of Lyanna as Jon's mother. Meanwhile, Ser Rodrik states specifically that the kings road is not safe and Sansa states specifically that they are not supposed to leave the column. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Joffrey makes an accusation against Arya, which is why Robert is judging anything at all. His choice is to effectively dismiss the charges against Arya. Robert wasn't present for the incident and only has the word of the three children, his belief about Joffrey is founded on Joffrey cutting up a cat when he was a child, which is not a basis for a public decision on Arya's guilt, so he reaches his desired result without requiring it to publicly depend on that. The minor nature of what happened is what inclines Robert to punt and regard it as a matter for parental discipline rather than more formal justice. If Joffrey can be convicted of a major crime, then it is much easier to disinherit him. Tommen will be a natural Schelling Point for his vassals to acclaim, being named as heir by the king (and being the next eldest son) and not the convicted rapist of a prepubescent daughter of a great house. And Arya makes an accusation right back at Joffrey, right in front of the king, the queen, everybody. No, Robert's belief is founded on the fact that Joffrey is obviously lying, as even Ned can see, and his story is preposterous. What possible reason could Arya have for attacking the prince if he was just walking along with his lady love minding his own business? And if that was what happened, why wouldn't Sansa simply say so? Robert declines to rule in favor of the truth because he cannot bring shame to himself and his family in even this small matter. There is no way he would rule Joffrey a raper, particularly when all the evidence points to Sansa as the one responsible. If Robert wanted to disinherit Joffrey he could do so at any time and for any reason. But again, your claim that he wants to do this is backed by zero evidence. He even names Joffrey is the next king in his will, although Ned changes the wording. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Robert had already outfought the forces of Dorne. He had most of the great houses behind him, and with the addition of the Lannisters he had the wealthiest house (until then unbloodied by the fighting) as his ally. Lannister forces were already in the capital and trying to go after Tywin would be much more likely to reignite war (throwing only Clegane & Lorch under the boss would have been more feasible, though Tywin would put up a lot of resistance). He outfought the forces of Dorne in the riverlands. He has no chance of outfighting them in Dorne should they decide to secede. Not even the Targaryens -- the ones with dragons -- could do that. And you add even more to my point: he doesn't even take Lorch and Clegane to task. This is simply not Robert's way. He is not going to jeopardize the realm by shaming Joffrey when even the known facts of what happened pin the blame on Sansa. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The medievals did not think that men were so saintly as to be above rape, and Sansa is a prepubescent girl rather than a woman. Women who were attacked, held against their will, beaten and violated were raped, and the men who did this were tried and convicted as rapers. Women who casually went off into the woods with men and were violated were not raped, and the men were not charged -- unless, of course, the man was a commoner and the woman the daughter or wife of a high lord. Then he was a raper no matter what the truth was. Cersei was a prepubescent girl and she still got into big trouble with Jaime. If this had gotten our publicly, her shame would have been enough to make her ineligible for the prince, or later, the king. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The more minor the cloud, the less harm it will cause. As it is, Sansa did go off into the woods alone with Joffrey and drank more wine than she could normally handle, but we get no indication that fact is any hindrance to the betrothal. The known facts of what happened are already enough to tarnish Sansa, although the betrothal might have survived. If the plan was for Joffrey to spin a story about Sansa, then that would have caused real trouble. Either way, Cersei gets what she wants now or she has laid the groundwork to tarnish Sansa again in King's Landing, with the whole court there to see. 15 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Ned will demand justice, and Robert will want to give it to him. As noted, the Baratheons rebelled over less and got their way. Ned will be upset but in complete agreement that Sansa is to blame. She showed incredibly poor discretion by leaving with Joffrey, even though she was instructed not to. The Lyonel Baratheon rebelled because the Targs failed to live up to their promises through no fault of his daughter. Completely different situation here because Sansa is the one at fault. 16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: A noble father has every moral, ethical & legal ground to demand justice when his daughter is raped. Dareon insists he had consensual sex with Mathis Rowan's daughter, but Rowan is able to demand he go to the wall. Under the biblical codes I quoted earlier, a woman is expected to cry out if she's being raped, and is executed (along with the man) if she does not do so in a populated area (like her home). Sansa, in contrast, was out in the country and could cry out yet be unheard (though if she does cry out and is heard Joffrey would be in deep shit). It's not rape. Sansa seduced Joffrey. That is what the evidence will support. And although Ned will not believe it, he will have to concede that Sansa erred big time just by being alone with Joffrey. So there is no way that he can insist that Sansa was violated against her will because she willingly went off into the woods with Joffrey. Dareon is a commoner; Joffrey is the crown prince. High lords can use the law to do anything they want to commoners. Plus, it was Rowan's daughter who cried rape when they were caught together. Sansa will have first denied that sex took place at all, so how is she going to lay a rape charge on Joffrey later? Just by doing that she will be calling herself a liar, so why should anyone believe her now? And once again, no one is getting raped. No need for Sansa to cry out. The whole afternoon seems like one big magical day for Sansa -- until they get back to the column. 16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The readers suspect not because they are so much smarter than the characters, but because they have access to information the characters don't. The characters have all the information they need to at least guess at the truth: the prince and a high lady alone for months and the fear of another Targ bastard with the potential to tear the realm apart once again; the only man to confirm the absence of a royal bastard later turns up at his castle with a bastard of his own. Plenty of characters sussed out the truth of Cersei's children by tracking down Robert's bastards. No reason to expect that they can't do the same with Rhaegar's. 16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: The mystery of Jon's parentage is brought up multiple times. The "mystery" of why Joffrey was alone with Sansa or why Cersei had that meeting with Renly & Barristan never is. Agreed, characters lack any Watsonian reason to believe any of Rhaegar's children are alive. In those cases readers have access to knowledge that those characters lack (although most readers here still seem to disbelieve in Aegon). The mystery of what really happened to baby Aegon is brought up never. So the point remains: none of the characters ever once thought anything was suspicious about Aegon's death, but it still turned into a major plot reveal later, regardless of whether fAegon is legit or not. So there is no way you can argue that Martin would not lay this mystery on the Trident just because none of the characters state that there was anything suspicious about the ride or the lack of consequences for the man who should have been aware of it. 16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: We get enough evidence to fit Sansa's statement that they're not supposed to leave the column. But we already know that Bran & Arya do what they're not supposed to do at risk to their own safety without anyone cracking down and without requiring any conspiracy. The simplest explanation is that Joffrey also disobeyed the rules without repercussion because he felt like it & because he can. That, rather than taking part in political conspiracies, is consistent with everything we later see of Joffrey.. But again, the Hound is there for the expressed reason to protect the prince at all time. That is his only responsibility. So Sansa and Joffrey might get a scolding it this was really on the up and up and nobody had gotten hurt. But once Joffrey returned all bitten and bloody, then at the very least the Hound should have been dismissed, if not imprisoned or even executed, not just for failing to protect the prince well enough but for the complete dereliction of his duty. I keep saying that it's not the fact that Joffrey and Sansa didn't get punished for leaving the column, it's that the Hound did not for his decision to just blow off the entire day. 16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: They also have to stay out of sight of Arya, whom the Lannisters later try to apprehend but fail to. If an outrider had followed Arya, it would have been easy to find her. No they don't. They have no idea who Arya is. They just think she's just another ratty smallfolk playing at being a knight. Why would they be following Arya? Their orders are to protect the prince. 16 hours ago, FictionIsntReal said: Animals can be scared away by charging at them in numbers & making loud noises (though firing an arrow in a manner sure not to hit Joffrey could help with scaring away the wolf). Most animals are scared of humans because humans have been killing them for a long time. When the crown prince is being attacked by one, any supposed outriders watching would have an immediate obligation to try any means of protecting him, completely outweighing staying out of sight. The whole thing was over in a matter of seconds. They might not even have the prince in sight at this point because they are quite sure that there are no large groups of armed men about -- just two small children playing with sticks. And mayhaps they did rush to the prince's aid afterward. We have no information as to how they got back to the column. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Springwatch said: If a highborn girl needs an intact maidenhead to prove her virtue, none of them would be allowed to ride at all. But they all do. Therefore, the Faith's examination of Margaery and her cousins cannot be normal practice - it's probably an archaic procedure from their own court. A broken hymen does not prove intercourse, but an unbroken one is pretty solid proof of virginity. If pelvic exams were not common in Westeros, than I would think the court would have let out a gasp or something when Septa Moelle said she herself examined Margaery in this way. The only buzzing came after the each steadily incriminating revelations of her turpitude. In our own medieval period, pre-marital exams were common, as were the ways to beat them. They were all but required when the bride was to be the queen and the realm had to be certain that she has known no other man but the king, lest there be questions and perhaps bloodshed over the heir's right to inherit the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevets Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 3 hours ago, John Suburbs said: Then we see them out riding together, which means that had to go to the stables, have the stableboys ready their mounts, help Sansa onto hers, and off they go in full view of however many smallfolk or highborns happened to be in the area. Nobody is going to say Joffrey dragged Sansa off kicking and screaming because it didn't happen, and they even have witnesses at the inn where they had a pleasant lunch with no signs of distress from Sansa. I was referring to text suggesting that it would be a scandal in the first place. You seem so sure of this fact I would expect some text to back it up. 3 hours ago, John Suburbs said: The fact that they are betrothed is all the more reason why them being alone together like this would be more of a scandal, not less. And the shame would fall directly on her for being so careless with her virtue. Given that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together, I would think it would be beneficial to get to know one another (i.e., spend time together) If you have text as to this, I would like to see it. The public attitude, that is. 1 hour ago, John Suburbs said: I know that. This is exactly my point: we get no indication from anyone that they think Ned is lying, and yet the entire RLJ theory is predicated on the assumption that he is in fact lying. So how is this different from here: we get no indication that anyone thinks the ride was suspicious, so this theory is based on the assumption (this time backed by actual evidence) that it was in fact highly suspicious. Do you have text that suggests that that kind of behavior (going for a ride unaccompanied) is generally regarded as suspicious. 1 hour ago, John Suburbs said: The characters have all the information they need to at least guess at the truth: the prince and a high lady alone for months and the fear of another Targ bastard with the potential to tear the realm apart once again; the only man to confirm the absence of a royal bastard later turns up at his castle with a bastard of his own. Plenty of characters sussed out the truth of Cersei's children by tracking down Robert's bastards. No reason to expect that they can't do the same with Rhaegar's. I expect that some (Varys in particular) have figured it out, but have no way to confirm it, and Ned isn't giving them anything to work with. And as long as he is content to remain in Winterfell, and remain silent, nobody worries too much. Jon's entry into the NW simplifies things, as well. 4 hours ago, John Suburbs said: Who knows? Let's see what Martin has in store for the next two novels. If Lyanna is Jon's mother, then why wasn't it revealed when Ned was in the black cells thinking about Lyanna, the ToJ, the bed of blood and the lifelong burden of the promise? Um, maybe because it was the first book, and he wanted to wait a while. By the time Feast comes out, it is 3 books and 20 years later, and we have gotten plenty of reveals so it's a perfect spot for this. Also, given that Jon's parentage is a central mystery of the series, he doesn't want to give it away too early. It'll probably come out in the next book,, though. 1 hour ago, John Suburbs said: Ned will be upset but in complete agreement that Sansa is to blame. She showed incredibly poor discretion by leaving with Joffrey, even though she was instructed not to. She was instructed not to leave the column, an injunction it appears nobody takes very seriously. He said nothing about spending time with Joffrey. And I'm still curious about where it says that spending extensive time with Joffrey, even alone, is incredibly poor discretion Also, if the fact that this is scandalous is so blindingly obvious, then why didn't that thought at least occur to Sansa. She isn't that stupid, especially if Martin wants to inform us of this incredibly important fact. She can still go riding; it's not as if she doesn't ignore good sense if it suits her (at least at this point), but we do need to know it is against good sense in the first place I will admit that this fanfic has been entertaining to read; but I still can't see that it is anything more than that. Nor can anyone else, it would appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Dips A lot Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 In my opinion, there's no diplomatic advantage in marrying Joffrey to Sansa. After Ned's execution, I think any rational diplomat sees the Tyrells as the more feesible ally. What good does marrying the King to a kingdom in open rebellion? Congrats you just married the sister of the king who wants your head on a spike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Ser Dips A lot said: In my opinion, there's no diplomatic advantage in marrying Joffrey to Sansa. After Ned's execution, I think any rational diplomat sees the Tyrells as the more feesible ally. What good does marrying the King to a kingdom in open rebellion? Congrats you just married the sister of the king who wants your head on a spike. Well, the original idea was OK. On paper, they matched very well. Sansa is of highest birth, beautiful, educated. She gives every maiden in Westeros run for her money, in terms of marrying prospects. So, Robert's idea was solid. When war started, Sansa was no more than a hostage. Perhaps she could have been used at the end as a seal of peace treaty between Starks and Lannisters but we all know how the war ended. And once more convenient ally came along, she was set aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tianzi Posted July 3, 2018 Share Posted July 3, 2018 On 5/30/2018 at 9:10 PM, Angel Eyes said: So what did Cersei think of Joffrey being betrothed to Sansa? Did she approve? Disapprove because House Lannister has no rival and she sees everyone as beneath them? Or were there alarm bells going off in her head about the "younger and more beautiful queen"? Nah, this prophecy bs only came up in Martin's head several volumes later. Cersei hates everyone but I think that she was semi-ok with Sansa as a person, if not with the Stark family. She was agreeable, easily manipulated, not cunning, in love with Joffrey at first and powerless later. In short - not a threat. Cersei is even shown later to stubbornly cling to the project of Sansa as her daughter in law, even when alliance with Tyrells make more sense. All the 'hoped that Joff would rape Sansa'-like speculations are rather laughable. First, Cersei was way less bonkers in the beginning. Also, even with the hating everyone thing, at that time her hatred for Robert was occupying the front seat and there was, well, this business about covering up the affair. Sansa and Joff's wedding wasn't scheduled to happen nowhere nearly in the future, Sansa was not even considered a maiden then but a child (she hadn't flowered), so even if Cersei had a problem there, it could have waited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FictionIsntReal Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 9 hours ago, John Suburbs said: One full day, hour upon hour, of hard, vigorous riding with "reckless abandon." Sansa would need one tough hymen to withstand that pressure. When we get discussion of girls losing their maidenhead by riding, it's because they've done so over a long period of time, not because of some notably intense incident of riding. Joffrey is the one riding a fast horse that way because he feels like it (calculated plans are typically not executed with abandon), he doesn't know in advance how a novice rider like Sansa on a mare will respond. Nor does her personally know whether she still has her hymen unless he examines for himself. Quote OK, and in her defense, she accuses Joffrey of hurting Mycah and lying. That's the accusation made against Joffrey. It's a mitigating statement about her attack on Joffrey. Made by someone who doesn't understand how little anyone cares about Mycah. There's no reason for the king to address Joffrey's alleged action against Mycah, because highborns can do that with impunity. Quote Because by the time all this hit the fan it was about Arya and her wolf, not Sansa. And of course it became about treason and rebellion later. She was never impugned over her morality at all. That her morality was never impugned is precisely my point! You have repeatedly stated that it's some great shame for Sansa to have gone off alone with her betrothed which would prevent her from becoming queen later, but nobody's subsequent reaction is consistent with this. Quote In case you hadn't noticed, Cersei and Robert are already enemies, and Robert's regard for his son is minimal at this point. Plus, on the surface, Cersei is not trying to impede anything; she is merely trying to preserve the virtue of her son, the crown prince, and protect the realm by ensuring that he gets a proper queen, not a morally loose trollop. Cersei & Robert have an unhappy marriage, which largely manifests in them sleeping with other people & drinking. Cersei is still able to get Robert to take two Lannisters as his personal squires, arrange to foster Sweetrobin with Tywin, and even name Jaime as Warden of the East. Robert views Cersei as a cold woman who doesn't want to have intercourse with him, spoils their eldest child when he misbehaves, and makes a lot of demands (which Robert often complies with after some grumbling). Robert does not know the truth about Cersei plotting against him, so she is not a political enemy. Quote So why even bring it up if you know it's nonsense? Why do you insist that it is perfectly safe for Joffrey and Sansa to be out there alone? The fact is that in both war and peace, the kings road, and virtually everywhere else in the realm, is a dangerous place for unguarded rich people, and particularly rich defenseless children. Do you think people like Rorge and Biter just spring up out of the ether once the armies start marching? How else do you explain all of the thieves, rapers and murderers at the Wall? Does the NW only replenish its ranks during wartime? I deemed it hyperbole, not nonsense. Rorge & Biter were in the dungeon prior to the outbreak of the war. Prior to that, Rorge used Biter in a fighting pit in Fleabottom, not the countryside (crime has long been higher in urban areas). They only got out of their sentence to the Wall because of war breaking out and Lorch attacking Yoren's group. Yoren had been recruiting for many years, and brags that he'd never lost any recruits on the road but to natural causes (and one whom Yoren killed himself). Quote Of course there is no evidence because Sansa does not see them. These are trained, professional woodsmen who are experts at seeing but not being seen, by other professional woodsmen let alone clueless little girls. They don't have to be a part of any plot. They just have to follow the queen's orders: follow the prince and make sure no armed bandits are about. Anything beyond that is none of their business, and they risk their heads by reporting anything they see to anyone else but her. Why does the king's entourage include a group of "trained, professional woodsmen" who are exclusively loyal to the queen? If they're not entrusted with any secret plot, why are making sure to be invisible while following Joffrey? It's easier to protect someone when you're visible enough to deter a potential threat, unless you have reason to think an attack is likely at some specific spot and hope to lure out the threat (which would still be using the person you're supposed to be protecting as bait). Quote They are there to make sure there are no gangs of armed men around, not kids with sticks. Once Nymeria was on Joffrey, no outrider in his right mind would launch an arrow at her and risk hitting the prince. Imagine what would happen if they killed him. And then it was over before it even started. It's not that hard to deliberately aim off to the side. Even easier to make a lot of noise while doing so. Nymeria only relents once Arya orders her to, and considering she'd previously been attacking Joffrey herself before he knocked away her stick and threatened her with a sword, they would have no reason to expect her to do that. Even when Joffrey was swinging her sword at her, that would be a situation in which they ought to intervene for Joffrey's own good. Arya is the daughter of a great house, and however much Joffrey would like to it would be impermissible for him to even spar wtih Robb using sharp steel. Quote And like I said, Renly is not the sharpest tool in the shed either, so it is quite probable that he missed the whole thing. Also, we have no POVs from him and we actually get very little face time with him at all, so we have no idea what he thinks of all this, nor do we have any reason for him to stick his neck out for Ned because he doesn't even know whether to trust him. In fact, once he does learn of Ned's intention, to support Stannis, not Renly, he leaves him high and dry. Renly doesn't have to be a genius to know whether Cersei meeting with him & Barristan is a normal thing, or something so out of the ordinary it must be suspicious. Renly was trying to enlist Ned's support against Cersei, so he had good reason to enlist what arguments he could make against her in order to achieve that. Quote And yet when I do give you multiple perspectives that the kings road is dangerous and that children are not supposed to leave the column, you reject them for the notion that it was perfectly normal for Sansa and Joff to do just that -- without a shred of supporting evidence. I agree: they're not supposed to leave the column. But the danger seems low enough that we get no evidence of actual highway banditry in the Riverlands until the war, and there's no repercussion for the kids leaving the column. Quote My point exactly. The Aegon plot came out of nowhere, with no previous indication by Martin that any such thing was happening. Nobody but Martin could state definitively that this was the truth before it came out in Dance, but anybody could have postulated that such a thing was at least possible given the description of baby Aegon in the throneroom. So to reject the idea in its entirety for no other reason than "Martin doesn't build mysteries in this way" would have made you 100 percent wrong, but acknowledging that such a thing is at least possible would have put you in the right -- even if, in the end, it turned out to be totally false. Exact same situation here, except that Martin has indeed given us text that shows the ride should not have been allowed and that there was one man in camp whose job was to ensure that it didn't happen. There's no evidence in those early books that Aegon survived (which is part of why many readers still don't believe he did). You are pointing to certain things and trying to claim that it is evidence for another theory, and we're saying the supposed evidence doesn't hold up. The Aegon reveal actually culminates with Young Griff himself (though many think he'll be revealed not to be Aegon), but here we don't have a reveal even after Joffrey dies. Or perhaps you want to argue that, like Aegon, he's not really dead! Quote So again, don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to convince you of the truth of what I am saying. If you don't see enough evidence, then you don't see enough evidence. What I am contesting is your utter rejection of the mere possibility that this could be true simply because you don't think this is the way Martin does things. Clearly, it is. If you tried to argue that triangles have three sides because that adds up to 360 degrees, I would tell you that's a terrible argument. Quote She risks everything by not making 100 percent sure that Robert dies on this hunting trip: her life, her children's legacies, perhaps their lives too. Even as it worked out, she was still in dire peril just by him making it back to the capital alive. Now that Ned knows the truth from her own lips, Robert has to die here and now. Simply giving him strongwine was taking an incredible risk because there was no way to be sure that it would result in his death. The risk of Robert finding out already exists before she plots to give him strongwine. Her replacing his usual wine doesn't put her at additional risk beyond that. Cersei plotting against the daughter of Robert's Hand (whom Robert himself chose as his son's betrothed), specifically to disrupt Robert's political goals, does put her at risk. A claim that Sansa has lost her maidenhead can be disproved, showing her accuser to be a malicious liar. Quote She failed to inherit the crown like her father wished because a) she was a woman and b) she was seen as an incredible tramp who slept with just about anyone with a title. If there is a better cautionary tale for not having queens who fail to live up to a strict moral code, I can't find one. Rhaenyra failed by pretty much any moral code one might fail to name, and by doing so cemented the pre-existing precedent that women do not inherit. Unlike Rhaenyra, Sansa is not about to inherit in her own right. Furthermore, her action of going off alone with her betrothed prince is so innocuous that nobody makes an issue of it even when there's overwhelming political reasons to break the betrothal. Quote And again, even if Cersei cannot parlay this one incident to scotch the marriage, she will have tarnished Sansa's good girl image so that the next time she gets out-maneuvered Cersei can drop the hammer -- this time in front of the entire court. Your theory had been that Cersei was trying to break Robert's planned political alliance. And now it works even if that doesn't happen, because it will help tarnish the image of a pre-pubescent 11 year old girl? What actually happened was that Sansa's image was only tarnished in Arya's eyes for staying silent and later siding with Joffrey & the Lannisters. Quote Tywin, or any other noble, would be judged by the king, or the Hand if the king is indisposed, not by a jury, not by a panel of judges. In what way is Westeros not an absolute monarchy? Does the king share power with anyone? Is there a parliament? A supreme court? Tyrion was judged by a panel of judges: Tywin, Mace Tyrell & Oberyn Martell. Oberyn notes that Cersei unsuccessfully tried to bribe him. Westeros is still a feudal society where much power resides in the nobility rather than the king. Absolute monarchy would require a lot more centralization of power. Quote The only authority higher than the king in Westeros is the gods. If you don't get satisfaction from the king, you can have a TbC, and even then this was only reserved for the highest of the highborn. A king who truly had absolute power could simply order the death of someone Rickard without a trial. Aerys is considered the Mad King because he acted like being king really gave him that power. Quote Everyone knows she was married. All they have to do is wait to be sure she is not carrying a child, which they could literally do at her next moonblood. Why bother insisting that she is still maid if it is no big deal? Why would the "symbolic value" of still being a maid be of any greater importance for Margaery then Sansa? At least Margaery's deflowering would have taken place within the bonds of holy matrimony, not in the dirt somewhere out in the woods. They don't want to wait, Mace Tyrell just switched sides to save their bacon and wants that betrothal right away. And the value is much greater for Margaery because of who she married: a man who traitorously claimed the crown at the time. Quote I know that. This is exactly my point: we get no indication from anyone that they think Ned is lying, and yet the entire RLJ theory is predicated on the assumption that he is in fact lying. So how is this different from here: we get no indication that anyone thinks the ride was suspicious, so this theory is based on the assumption (this time backed by actual evidence) that it was in fact highly suspicious. There is insufficient public knowledge for the character's in the book to make the Watsonian deduction that R+L=J. Readers come to that conclusion due to private knowledge that they, but not other characters, have. You are making an argument based on public knowledge that none of the characters find suspicious. In summary: in both cases the public evidence would be an unreasonable basis for those respective conclusions. Quote And once again, you are using absence of evidence to claim a truth even though you say this should not be done: Ned does not specifically refer to Jon as his son, he does not think about the other candidates... He also does not specifically think of Lyanna as Jon's mother. Meanwhile, Ser Rodrik states specifically that the kings road is not safe and Sansa states specifically that they are not supposed to leave the column. I don't claim it should not be done. Absence of evidence IS some evidence of absence! Quote No, Robert's belief is founded on the fact that Joffrey is obviously lying, as even Ned can see, and his story is preposterous. What possible reason could Arya have for attacking the prince if he was just walking along with his lady love minding his own business? And if that was what happened, why wouldn't Sansa simply say so? Why "even Ned"? He's Arya's father and will naturally tend to side with her. To say that Robert's belief that Joffrey is lyng is based on the fact that he's lying would be for him to assume the conclusion. Arya could have hit Joffrey with a stick because it's fun, and the direwolf attacked because it's a wild animal of a species never intended to be a pet and inclined to join in any attack. Quote Robert declines to rule in favor of the truth because he cannot bring shame to himself and his family in even this small matter. There is no way he would rule Joffrey a raper, particularly when all the evidence points to Sansa as the one responsible. Shame wasn't at stake, and it's never mentioned as a possible motivation. It was kids fighting, and that's how Robert decided it should be treated. Quote If Robert wanted to disinherit Joffrey he could do so at any time and for any reason. But again, your claim that he wants to do this is backed by zero evidence. He even names Joffrey is the next king in his will, although Ned changes the wording. Stability is valued enough that kings normally don't disinherit based on a whim. Robert says that the one thing keeping him from abandoning his throne is that it would result in Joffrey's kingship and Cersei acting as regent. Trying to alter the succession on his deathbed is what Aegon IV did, and even Robert knows not to follow that example. As it was, Robert's will-as-written was ignored. A public announcement made long in advance of the king dying is more apt to gain the public assent of those ruled. Quote He outfought the forces of Dorne in the riverlands. He has no chance of outfighting them in Dorne should they decide to secede. Not even the Targaryens -- the ones with dragons -- could do that. And you add even more to my point: he doesn't even take Lorch and Clegane to task. This is simply not Robert's way. He is not going to jeopardize the realm by shaming Joffrey when even the known facts of what happened pin the blame on Sansa. Dorne has been within the fold for some time. they are not going to subject themselves to more war after that rebellion. Robb does so because he's never known war and the claims to the throne were unsettled enough that he didn't have a king to declare his loyalty to (Stannis hadn't declared yet). Quote The known facts of what happened are already enough to tarnish Sansa, although the betrothal might have survived. If the plan was for Joffrey to spin a story about Sansa, then that would have caused real trouble. Either way, Cersei gets what she wants now or she has laid the groundwork to tarnish Sansa again in King's Landing, with the whole court there to see. You say what happened was enough to tarnish Sansa, but we see that no tarnishing actually happened. Quote Ned will be upset but in complete agreement that Sansa is to blame. She showed incredibly poor discretion by leaving with Joffrey, even though she was instructed not to. The Lyonel Baratheon rebelled because the Targs failed to live up to their promises through no fault of his daughter. Completely different situation here because Sansa is the one at fault. Ned wasn't upset with Sansa for her supposedly "incredibly poor discretion". Nobody was. And if Joffrey tried that he'd be as much at fault as the proverbial parenticidal orphan. Quote It's not rape. Sansa seduced Joffrey. That is what the evidence will support. And although Ned will not believe it, he will have to concede that Sansa erred big time just by being alone with Joffrey. So there is no way that he can insist that Sansa was violated against her will because she willingly went off into the woods with Joffrey. No one in the text indicates that Sansa "erred big time" by going off alone with Joffrey. Quote And once again, no one is getting raped. No need for Sansa to cry out. The whole afternoon seems like one big magical day for Sansa -- until they get back to the column. If Sansa doesn't actually have intercourse but Joffrey claims they did, he's vulnerable to be disproven by an examination of her maidenhead. Joffrey is not capable of determining how much riding would be necessary to make such an accusation with any confidence. Quote The characters have all the information they need to at least guess at the truth: the prince and a high lady alone for months and the fear of another Targ bastard with the potential to tear the realm apart once again; the only man to confirm the absence of a royal bastard later turns up at his castle with a bastard of his own. Plenty of characters sussed out the truth of Cersei's children by tracking down Robert's bastards. No reason to expect that they can't do the same with Rhaegar's. All of Cersei's children look like her & Jaime but not Robert. All of Robert's bastards (and he had them with women of every common hair color) have the black Baratheon hair. That's why the truth about Cersei's bastards was found. Ned's bastard looks like him, with no detectable evidence of some other family's look. Quote The mystery of what really happened to baby Aegon is brought up never. So the point remains: none of the characters ever once thought anything was suspicious about Aegon's death, but it still turned into a major plot reveal later, regardless of whether fAegon is legit or not. So there is no way you can argue that Martin would not lay this mystery on the Trident just because none of the characters state that there was anything suspicious about the ride or the lack of consequences for the man who should have been aware of it. If Aegon is really fake, then there wasn't a "mystery" planted early on. Everyone believed Aegon was really dead with no reason to believe otherwise, then in book 5 we're told it was a swapped out baby, then (per this theory) it will turn out our original belief was correct the whole time. Quote But again, the Hound is there for the expressed reason to protect the prince at all time. That is his only responsibility. So Sansa and Joffrey might get a scolding it this was really on the up and up and nobody had gotten hurt. But once Joffrey returned all bitten and bloody, then at the very least the Hound should have been dismissed, if not imprisoned or even executed, not just for failing to protect the prince well enough but for the complete dereliction of his duty. He's Joffrey's servant who does what Joffrey tells him. Just as Sansa can order Lady to stay behind, when Joffrey gives an order to the Hound it's expected that he'll obey. Quote I keep saying that it's not the fact that Joffrey and Sansa didn't get punished for leaving the column, it's that the Hound did not for his decision to just blow off the entire day. You also keep saying that leaving the column itself was highly dangerous, and that Sansa going off alone with Joffrey was enough to tarnish her reputation. Quote No they don't. They have no idea who Arya is. They just think she's just another ratty smallfolk playing at being a knight. Why would they be following Arya? Their orders are to protect the prince. All of the Stark children are formally introduced to the Lannister party. They would be following Arya because she first struck Joffrey, then the direwolf she's accompanied by bit him. If she were actually a smallfolk, that would mean her death. Quote The whole thing was over in a matter of seconds. They might not even have the prince in sight at this point because they are quite sure that there are no large groups of armed men about -- just two small children playing with sticks. And mayhaps they did rush to the prince's aid afterward. We have no information as to how they got back to the column. It's hard to protect the prince from these supposedly super dangerous woods if you let him out of your sight. If they were rushing to the prince's aid they'd make their presence known, but Sansa never notices these outriders (nobody does, as there's no evidence for their existence, just your attempt to preserve an incoherent theory). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtherFromAnotherMother Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 On 6/30/2018 at 10:21 AM, John Suburbs said: What is irrelevant is your argument that Martin is somehow bound by an invisible rule of literature that he can only craft his story by laying "blatantly obvious" clues throughout the text. You continue to use this argumentation technique. You twist what I said about one specific mystery (how George made the mystery of who Jon's mother is obvious in that it is a mystery) and state that I think he has to have obvious clues throughout the text for all his mysteries when you know I never said this. I only said Jon's mom is meant to be a mystery. Please stop doing this. On 6/30/2018 at 10:21 AM, John Suburbs said: Honestly, mother, your argument on this point is essentially: "No, this cannot be possible because nowhere else in the story does Martin have a mystery surround Sansa and Joffrey alone together on the Trident." No, this is not my argument. My argument is that there is no evidence anywhere in the text of what you are proposing. Your theory requires characters to break character. It also doesn't function in story. It does not serve any relevant purpose to where we are in the story. It's reveal would do nothing. On 6/30/2018 at 10:21 AM, John Suburbs said: On 6/29/2018 at 3:37 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said: Yes! Absolutely I do! Most members of this forum would remember, but most readers would not. Wow, not only no respect for Martin, but you think his readers are complete idiots as well. You are doing the argumentation technique I spoke of earlier again. You know I respect Martin, so why say this? Then you say I think his readers are idiots? C,mon John, stop doing this. Because I don't think most readers would remember a trip Sansa and Joffrey went on in a book written 20+ years ago does not mean I think they are idiots. Again, we are talking about most readers, not members of this website. Most people do not remember extremely minor details from books they read 20+ years ago. Again, most people, not members of this website who have read the series multiple times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtherFromAnotherMother Posted July 4, 2018 Share Posted July 4, 2018 On 6/30/2018 at 10:21 AM, John Suburbs said: How can you be certain she did not? A few outriders who are good with bows would have the skills to track the Prince without being seen and eliminate any foes from a distance if necessary. The fan fiction gets a new detail. Now we have outriders who do nothing when Joff is attacked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 On 7/3/2018 at 6:24 PM, Nevets said: I was referring to text suggesting that it would be a scandal in the first place. You seem so sure of this fact I would expect some text to back it up. The whole thing got overshadowed when Joffrey was attacked by a wolf. If it evolved as planned, the focus would have been on Sansa's loose morals. Feel free to conduct all the research you want on medieval courtship. In this day and age, it would be a scandal if they were seen holding hands. On 7/3/2018 at 6:24 PM, Nevets said: Given that they are going to spend the rest of their lives together, I would think it would be beneficial to get to know one another (i.e., spend time together) If you have text as to this, I would like to see it. The public attitude, that is. Sure, to get to know one another, to converse, to dine, to play parlor games, all under the watchful eyes of parents and chaperones. Not to go out into the woods and shag. On 7/3/2018 at 6:24 PM, Nevets said: Do you have text that suggests that that kind of behavior (going for a ride unaccompanied) is generally regarded as suspicious. We have ample historical texts that show that young people were not allowed to fraternize before marriage. It simply was not allowed. Heck, most highborn couples did not even meet until their wedding day. There were probably Targaryen couples who were alone together before marriage, but they are a special case because they were siblings before they were spouses. Nowhere that I can find do we have couples from different houses casually riding off together before marriage. Post it you got it. The virtue of medieval ladies was guarded like gold, because that is how valuable it was to their husbands and fathers. On 7/3/2018 at 6:24 PM, Nevets said: I expect that some (Varys in particular) have figured it out, but have no way to confirm it, and Ned isn't giving them anything to work with. And as long as he is content to remain in Winterfell, and remain silent, nobody worries too much. Jon's entry into the NW simplifies things, as well. I'm stunned. Are you saying that it is possible for something to be true even though there is no evidence for it in the text and there is no way to confirm it (yet)? But that just can't be, Martin simply does not write like that. On 7/3/2018 at 6:24 PM, Nevets said: Um, maybe because it was the first book, and he wanted to wait a while. By the time Feast comes out, it is 3 books and 20 years later, and we have gotten plenty of reveals so it's a perfect spot for this. Also, given that Jon's parentage is a central mystery of the series, he doesn't want to give it away too early. It'll probably come out in the next book,, though. Well, gee, the Trident was in the first book too, so maybe Martin wants to wait a while on this one as well? Yet again, you seem to think that Martin is bound by your rules of revelation. But he is the author, no you. On 7/3/2018 at 6:24 PM, Nevets said: She was instructed not to leave the column, an injunction it appears nobody takes very seriously. He said nothing about spending time with Joffrey. And I'm still curious about where it says that spending extensive time with Joffrey, even alone, is incredibly poor discretion Also, if the fact that this is scandalous is so blindingly obvious, then why didn't that thought at least occur to Sansa. She isn't that stupid, especially if Martin wants to inform us of this incredibly important fact. She can still go riding; it's not as if she doesn't ignore good sense if it suits her (at least at this point), but we do need to know it is against good sense in the first place The only person who doesn't take it seriously is Arya, and that is just her nature. Medieval ladies, especially those who wanted to be queen, were expected to live up to the highest ideals of chastity, purity and modesty. Going off alone with your betrothed is a gross violation of that code. It's just a basic historical fact. Martin writes real-world fiction, not Disney fantasy. For him to just blunder his way over this basic, elemental fact of medieval morality would be like him having Tywin Lannister enter King's Landing on the Harley. Sansa is wholly unprepared for a betrothal of this kind. She is giddy in love and not thinking about consequences at this point. All she wants is to be with her prince. Martin does not want to inform us of this incredibly important fact, that's why he unveils the whole episode through Sansa's POV. You don't need to know anything, because he expects at least some of his readers will have a modicum of knowledge about medieval customs and mores to be able to see what Sansa cannot. There are umpteen examples in the book where Sansa's perception of events is entirely wrong: the dinner conversation with Lady Olenna, the talk with Randa Royce coming down from the Eyrie, the way she insults herself. In fact, it seems to be a Stark trait: they are all wholly oblivious that what's going on around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 On 7/3/2018 at 7:30 PM, Tianzi said: All the 'hoped that Joff would rape Sansa'-like speculations are rather laughable. First, Cersei was way less bonkers in the beginning. Also, even with the hating everyone thing, at that time her hatred for Robert was occupying the front seat and there was, well, this business about covering up the affair. Sansa and Joff's wedding wasn't scheduled to happen nowhere nearly in the future, Sansa was not even considered a maiden then but a child (she hadn't flowered), so even if Cersei had a problem there, it could have waited. Sorry, that's not even close to what I'm proposing. Nobody was going to get raped. It was just a setup to smear her reputation and hopefully undo the betrothal. Cersei is "less bonkers" now? This is the woman who birthed three children from her twin brother and tried to pass them off as the royal children. Cersei is also clearly terrified at the prospect of Ned become Hand and that "he intends to move against us." He is Robert's best friend, so she knows she cannot touch him directly, but he can get at him through Sansa... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springwatch Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 31 minutes ago, John Suburbs said: Medieval ladies, especially those who wanted to be queen, were expected to live up to the highest ideals of chastity, purity and modesty. Going off alone with your betrothed is a gross violation of that code. It's just a basic historical fact. Martin writes real-world fiction, not Disney fantasy. For him to just blunder his way over this basic, elemental fact of medieval morality would be like him having Tywin Lannister enter King's Landing on the Harley. What about Arianne? Lady Barbara? Cersei? Alysane Mormont? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tianzi Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 1 hour ago, John Suburbs said: Sorry, that's not even close to what I'm proposing. Nobody was going to get raped. It was just a setup to smear her reputation and hopefully undo the betrothal. Cersei is "less bonkers" now? This is the woman who birthed three children from her twin brother and tried to pass them off as the royal children. Cersei is also clearly terrified at the prospect of Ned become Hand and that "he intends to move against us." He is Robert's best friend, so she knows she cannot touch him directly, but he can get at him through Sansa... Joffrey and Sansa were kids. Sansa wasn't as much as a horse rider as Marg and her hymen could have very well been undestroyed. Robert loved Ned and since the stakes would be higher than some family dog, he could have been very well taken Ned's side. I'm not sure what you mean about touching him directly, but at that time the plans to send Robert to the other side were already in motion, sooo... Yes, Cersei was way less bonkers then, she eliminated Robert (some luck with that, admittedly), was going to eliminate Ned in a reasonable way, had Joff not interfered. Btw, she also did a fairly good job with passing the three as royal children, and if Joff wasn't the uncontrolable little shit, no one except Stannis would've cared so much about who was his sperm donor (Renly even admits to not believing the 'rumors' of paternity of Cersei's children and only using them as an excuse). So, back to the topic, I don't think she thought much of Sansa back then. And, more importantly, there's no indication in the text that she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevets Posted July 5, 2018 Share Posted July 5, 2018 3 hours ago, John Suburbs said: Medieval ladies, especially those who wanted to be queen, were expected to live up to the highest ideals of chastity, purity and modesty. Going off alone with your betrothed is a gross violation of that code. It's just a basic historical fact. Martin writes real-world fiction, not Disney fantasy. For him to just blunder his way over this basic, elemental fact of medieval morality would be like him having Tywin Lannister enter King's Landing on the Harley. And yet nobody in the story notices or cares, then or afterwards. Which would suggest that, even if it is something she shouldn't have done, it has no importance to the story. And it wouldn't be that hard to drop a hint. Simply have Septa Mordane tell Sansa in a flashback in her next POV that what she did was stupid and she shouldn't do it again. By the way, Cersei tells Joffrey to "entertain Sansa". Exactly what did she expect? For them to go back to the inn and chill out there? Because that sounds even worse. And what would have happened if Arya had come along. She was invited to the meeting and would have been expected to attend. Even Sansa was surprised she didn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 On 7/4/2018 at 5:18 AM, FictionIsntReal said: When we get discussion of girls losing their maidenhead by riding, it's because they've done so over a long period of time, not because of some notably intense incident of riding. Joffrey is the one riding a fast horse that way because he feels like it (calculated plans are typically not executed with abandon), he doesn't know in advance how a novice rider like Sansa on a mare will respond. Nor does her personally know whether she still has her hymen unless he examines for himself. It's a mitigating statement about her attack on Joffrey. Made by someone who doesn't understand how little anyone cares about Mycah. There's no reason for the king to address Joffrey's alleged action against Mycah, because highborns can do that with impunity. That her morality was never impugned is precisely my point! You have repeatedly stated that it's some great shame for Sansa to have gone off alone with her betrothed which would prevent her from becoming queen later, but nobody's subsequent reaction is consistent with this. Cersei & Robert have an unhappy marriage, which largely manifests in them sleeping with other people & drinking. Cersei is still able to get Robert to take two Lannisters as his personal squires, arrange to foster Sweetrobin with Tywin, and even name Jaime as Warden of the East. Robert views Cersei as a cold woman who doesn't want to have intercourse with him, spoils their eldest child when he misbehaves, and makes a lot of demands (which Robert often complies with after some grumbling). Robert does not know the truth about Cersei plotting against him, so she is not a political enemy. I deemed it hyperbole, not nonsense. Rorge & Biter were in the dungeon prior to the outbreak of the war. Prior to that, Rorge used Biter in a fighting pit in Fleabottom, not the countryside (crime has long been higher in urban areas). They only got out of their sentence to the Wall because of war breaking out and Lorch attacking Yoren's group. Yoren had been recruiting for many years, and brags that he'd never lost any recruits on the road but to natural causes (and one whom Yoren killed himself). Why does the king's entourage include a group of "trained, professional woodsmen" who are exclusively loyal to the queen? If they're not entrusted with any secret plot, why are making sure to be invisible while following Joffrey? It's easier to protect someone when you're visible enough to deter a potential threat, unless you have reason to think an attack is likely at some specific spot and hope to lure out the threat (which would still be using the person you're supposed to be protecting as bait). It's not that hard to deliberately aim off to the side. Even easier to make a lot of noise while doing so. Nymeria only relents once Arya orders her to, and considering she'd previously been attacking Joffrey herself before he knocked away her stick and threatened her with a sword, they would have no reason to expect her to do that. Even when Joffrey was swinging her sword at her, that would be a situation in which they ought to intervene for Joffrey's own good. Arya is the daughter of a great house, and however much Joffrey would like to it would be impermissible for him to even spar wtih Robb using sharp steel. Renly doesn't have to be a genius to know whether Cersei meeting with him & Barristan is a normal thing, or something so out of the ordinary it must be suspicious. Renly was trying to enlist Ned's support against Cersei, so he had good reason to enlist what arguments he could make against her in order to achieve that. I agree: they're not supposed to leave the column. But the danger seems low enough that we get no evidence of actual highway banditry in the Riverlands until the war, and there's no repercussion for the kids leaving the column. There's no evidence in those early books that Aegon survived (which is part of why many readers still don't believe he did). You are pointing to certain things and trying to claim that it is evidence for another theory, and we're saying the supposed evidence doesn't hold up. The Aegon reveal actually culminates with Young Griff himself (though many think he'll be revealed not to be Aegon), but here we don't have a reveal even after Joffrey dies. Or perhaps you want to argue that, like Aegon, he's not really dead! If you tried to argue that triangles have three sides because that adds up to 360 degrees, I would tell you that's a terrible argument. The risk of Robert finding out already exists before she plots to give him strongwine. Her replacing his usual wine doesn't put her at additional risk beyond that. Cersei plotting against the daughter of Robert's Hand (whom Robert himself chose as his son's betrothed), specifically to disrupt Robert's political goals, does put her at risk. A claim that Sansa has lost her maidenhead can be disproved, showing her accuser to be a malicious liar. Rhaenyra failed by pretty much any moral code one might fail to name, and by doing so cemented the pre-existing precedent that women do not inherit. Unlike Rhaenyra, Sansa is not about to inherit in her own right. Furthermore, her action of going off alone with her betrothed prince is so innocuous that nobody makes an issue of it even when there's overwhelming political reasons to break the betrothal. Your theory had been that Cersei was trying to break Robert's planned political alliance. And now it works even if that doesn't happen, because it will help tarnish the image of a pre-pubescent 11 year old girl? What actually happened was that Sansa's image was only tarnished in Arya's eyes for staying silent and later siding with Joffrey & the Lannisters. Tyrion was judged by a panel of judges: Tywin, Mace Tyrell & Oberyn Martell. Oberyn notes that Cersei unsuccessfully tried to bribe him. Westeros is still a feudal society where much power resides in the nobility rather than the king. Absolute monarchy would require a lot more centralization of power. A king who truly had absolute power could simply order the death of someone Rickard without a trial. Aerys is considered the Mad King because he acted like being king really gave him that power. They don't want to wait, Mace Tyrell just switched sides to save their bacon and wants that betrothal right away. And the value is much greater for Margaery because of who she married: a man who traitorously claimed the crown at the time. There is insufficient public knowledge for the character's in the book to make the Watsonian deduction that R+L=J. Readers come to that conclusion due to private knowledge that they, but not other characters, have. You are making an argument based on public knowledge that none of the characters find suspicious. In summary: in both cases the public evidence would be an unreasonable basis for those respective conclusions. I don't claim it should not be done. Absence of evidence IS some evidence of absence! Why "even Ned"? He's Arya's father and will naturally tend to side with her. To say that Robert's belief that Joffrey is lyng is based on the fact that he's lying would be for him to assume the conclusion. Arya could have hit Joffrey with a stick because it's fun, and the direwolf attacked because it's a wild animal of a species never intended to be a pet and inclined to join in any attack. Shame wasn't at stake, and it's never mentioned as a possible motivation. It was kids fighting, and that's how Robert decided it should be treated. Stability is valued enough that kings normally don't disinherit based on a whim. Robert says that the one thing keeping him from abandoning his throne is that it would result in Joffrey's kingship and Cersei acting as regent. Trying to alter the succession on his deathbed is what Aegon IV did, and even Robert knows not to follow that example. As it was, Robert's will-as-written was ignored. A public announcement made long in advance of the king dying is more apt to gain the public assent of those ruled. Dorne has been within the fold for some time. they are not going to subject themselves to more war after that rebellion. Robb does so because he's never known war and the claims to the throne were unsettled enough that he didn't have a king to declare his loyalty to (Stannis hadn't declared yet). You say what happened was enough to tarnish Sansa, but we see that no tarnishing actually happened. Ned wasn't upset with Sansa for her supposedly "incredibly poor discretion". Nobody was. And if Joffrey tried that he'd be as much at fault as the proverbial parenticidal orphan. No one in the text indicates that Sansa "erred big time" by going off alone with Joffrey. If Sansa doesn't actually have intercourse but Joffrey claims they did, he's vulnerable to be disproven by an examination of her maidenhead. Joffrey is not capable of determining how much riding would be necessary to make such an accusation with any confidence. All of Cersei's children look like her & Jaime but not Robert. All of Robert's bastards (and he had them with women of every common hair color) have the black Baratheon hair. That's why the truth about Cersei's bastards was found. Ned's bastard looks like him, with no detectable evidence of some other family's look. If Aegon is really fake, then there wasn't a "mystery" planted early on. Everyone believed Aegon was really dead with no reason to believe otherwise, then in book 5 we're told it was a swapped out baby, then (per this theory) it will turn out our original belief was correct the whole time. He's Joffrey's servant who does what Joffrey tells him. Just as Sansa can order Lady to stay behind, when Joffrey gives an order to the Hound it's expected that he'll obey. You also keep saying that leaving the column itself was highly dangerous, and that Sansa going off alone with Joffrey was enough to tarnish her reputation. All of the Stark children are formally introduced to the Lannister party. They would be following Arya because she first struck Joffrey, then the direwolf she's accompanied by bit him. If she were actually a smallfolk, that would mean her death. It's hard to protect the prince from these supposedly super dangerous woods if you let him out of your sight. If they were rushing to the prince's aid they'd make their presence known, but Sansa never notices these outriders (nobody does, as there's no evidence for their existence, just your attempt to preserve an incoherent theory). Sorry, went through all of this again but I lost it. I'll summarize: One day's hard riding is plenty to break a hymen. They are fragile. Joffrey does not have to declare he had sex with Sansa the moment he rides into camp. He just says something strange and shameful happened, and then they examine her. But it's 99 percent certain she will be broke. Cersei's comment about riding from a young age just means she doesn't have to arrange for a "reckless abandon" ride for Margaery and her maids. They are already likely broken, a long time ago. There is plenty of text that shows highborns are not to leave the column without guards. There is no text that shows what Sansa and Joffrey did was normal in the eyes of the crowd. So unless you can provide evidence, anything at all, that Joff and Sansa do not have to follow the rules common to all other highborns, all of the text points to the fact that they should not have been out there. Cersei's men do not even know that the prince is out there. Just to comb the area of any suspicious characters. Not a difficult thing for soldiers. And the fact is that the odds of trouble are very low, but they would be zero with the Hound, so there is no excuse for him not to be there. Whether Aegon is real or fake, it is a perfect example of this kind of twist. Nobody raised suspicion about the state of Aegon's unrecognizable body in the throne room, no one suspect that he could still be alive, or that a fake could be brought up, or that JonCon did not really die drunk and destitute. If someone were to say that was a possibility, you would have the same response: no, because Martin would have raised those suspicions somewhere in the text already. You would have been wrong about that, just like you are probably wrong about this. The Hound is not Joffrey's servant; he answers to Cersei, and ultimately Robert. Joffrey can order him to do all sorts of thigs, but not to just take the day off so he can be with his girlfriend. That is a direct violation of his standing orders from the king and queen, who outrank Joffrey, and would at minimum be a firing offense. Even Joffrey does not recognize Arya when he sees her, just like Myrcella and Tommen don't later at the Red Keep. They were introduced to Lady Arya, dressed as Lady Arya and surrounded by her Stark family. The dirty, scabbed girl in riding leathers is unrecognizable. The woods are not super dangerous. There is in fact very little risk to Joffrey's person. But that is beside the point. Protocol dictates that the prince be accompanied by a guard whenever he travels, just as the king and the Hand are. Again, to say that Joffrey is immune from these rules just because no one states the opposite is ludicrous. He follows the same rules as all the other highborns in the story, even more stringent ones, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Suburbs Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 On 7/4/2018 at 1:39 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said: You continue to use this argumentation technique. You twist what I said about one specific mystery (how George made the mystery of who Jon's mother is obvious in that it is a mystery) and state that I think he has to have obvious clues throughout the text for all his mysteries when you know I never said this. I only said Jon's mom is meant to be a mystery. Please stop doing this. Sorry, but your the one who keeps conflating the two. If you agree that all mysteries are different, then you should have no problem seeing that Martin could craft this specific mystery in this specific way. But despite any and all logic, you argue that this is not possible because you "understand" Martin. On 7/4/2018 at 1:39 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said: No, this is not my argument. My argument is that there is no evidence anywhere in the text of what you are proposing. Your theory requires characters to break character. It also doesn't function in story. It does not serve any relevant purpose to where we are in the story. It's reveal would do nothing. And you're flat wrong about that. I've given you three examples in text that points to highborns travelling on this very road not venturing out without guards: Sansa's statement about leaving the column, Rodrick's statement about the dangers of the kings road, and Robert and Ned having guards despite being armed and armored themselves. You've given me nothing that suggests even the remotest possibility that Joffrey and Sansa are not subject to the same rules as all other highborns in the realm I'm breaking character? Are you serious? Cersei the evil queen who plots and schemes against everyone because she thinks the whole world is out to get her, and yet she is motherly and tender toward Sansa? Joffrey, the psycho prince/king who orders his knights to beat little girls for his amusement and likes to disembowel pregnant cats is only out for a happy, carefree ride with his lady love, a love that instantly disappears when her sister's wolf bites him? Please, your characterizations are diametrically opposed to what's actually in the text. On 7/4/2018 at 1:39 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said: You know I respect Martin, so why say this? You don't respect him. You think he contrives altogether unlikely and wildly historically inaccurate circumstances just because he is too lazy to find a credible way to advance the plot. This one is so obviously divergent from how medieval lords and ladies are supposed to behave, it wouldn't be odder for Martin to have Tywin Lannister ride into King's Landing on a Harley. On 7/4/2018 at 1:39 PM, OtherFromAnotherMother said: Then you say I think his readers are idiots? C,mon John, stop doing this. Because I don't think most readers would remember a trip Sansa and Joffrey went on in a book written 20+ years ago does not mean I think they are idiots. Again, we are talking about most readers, not members of this website. Most people do not remember extremely minor details from books they read 20+ years ago. Again, most people, not members of this website who have read the series multiple times. This was a major development in the story that carries repercussions to this very day. To say that readers have completely forgotten the events that led up to Lady's death is the height of arrogance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.