Jump to content

Why didn't Tyrion consummate his marriage with Sansa?


Alyn Oakenfist

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, corbon said:

So Sansa was ready to rape Tyrion? No, I know you don't think that, neither do I. nor does anyone. I'm demonstrating the logical flaw in your statement, no more.
But that is the exact result of "fear is enough". Tyrion was afraid, Sansa saw it. She was still consciously choosing to go ahead at that stage.

the big difference is Sansa has no authority over Tyrion. She can't tell him nothing. While she has to obey him by law. Also he is the one, that says get in the bed not the other way around, and if it was the other way around he wouldn't have to listen to her, it is not his duty, but it is hers.

If a p.e.teacher sees a student is afraid and asks a student to do a advanced stunt it is not comparable with a student seeing a teacher is afraid and asking them to do an advanced stunt. If something happens to the student the teacher will be blamed, because he had the authority over the student, if something happens to the teacher the student won't be blamed, because he had no authority and the teacher didn't have to do what the student asked of him.

But as I was saying nothing is achieved with us debating, our opinions are to far away from one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sweetsunray said:

That's not what he states. It doesn't follow that because he affirms that bedding an unflowered girl is perverse that by definition bedding a just-flowered maiden is not perverse

Yes it is what he states & that's exactly what follows. 

 

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

It is an ambiguous situation. That is his opening clarification about underage girls that have flowered.

What is ambiguous is a flowered girl being under 16. That's the in-between. Part woman, part child. Saying a bedding before the girl is flowered is perverse is clear & concise. Not at all ambiguous. 

Again, I ask, what is the purpose of stating that bedding a pre-flowered girl is perverse, if not to differentiate from a post-flowered girl? There's no reason for it & if it weren't to differentiate that it would be stated differently. It would be said a bedding a girl younger than 16 is perverse or when the man is much older it's considered perverse. 

6 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

All will depend on the actual age of flowering, the situation and circumstances and the individual characters involved

No, according to George it doesn't. He doesn't mention the age of flowering at all except to say highborn girls tend to flower younger than low born girls. 

7 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

For example George has several highborn maidens who were voluntarily deflowered at the age of 13-14 without being wed, often with a guy who's barely an adult himself at the time: Asha, Arianne, etc... which given the pairing in the question should be accounted for to have been in the back of George's mind when answering the question. 

I'm not sure what you are getting at here or what difference this makes irt a flowered girl being bed & it's perverseness or lack there of. 

8 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

He will likely have Arya and Sansa engage into a sexual relationship at a very young age to our modern world views, especially with the drop of the 5 year gap, but those would be mutual consentual relationships with a guy of their own choice, likely even outside of marriage. Are these hypothetical men or boys to be regarded as perverts? No. Are adult men getting off on a forcibly wed and raped maidens of 12 and 13 who cannot wait for 2 years before bedding them perverts? Yes

Well, a specific man being a pervert is not the same as an act in itself being perverse.

Secondly, that's not what happened here. Tyrion couldn't "not wait" a few years because of his sexual desire, nor did he rape her but in universe a man would not be considered a pervert for consummating his marriage on his wedding night, as long as the girl has flowered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

(Of age. One f in of) 

Im pretty sure 16 is just for ruling.

So we have Myrcella not getting married to call off her bedding, like Sansa. 

In contrast is fArya, Sansa, RedWidow and Walders daughters

Theres enough cases for both to be thinking one is normal and the other is abnormal

 

"Also, if your sister Arya is returned to us safely, it is agreed that she will marry Lord Walder's youngest son, Elmar, when the two of them come of age."

The two of them come of age. With one f. Means when they are legal adults, aka 16. Cat was doing the negotiations here, and she wed when she was a legal adult already (born in either 264 or 265, wed in 282, and thus 17), despite being bethrothed since she was 12. Even her sister who was wed off quickly, was already 15 (2 years younger than Cat). Cat also knows like Robb that Arya would need time to be prepped into this and thus forcing her to wed as soon as she flowers is not something that Cat would have agreed to. This wasn't the intention with Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

This wasn't the intention with Sansa's betrothal to Joffrey either.

Which is exactly my point. Betrothals exist so they can be of union without consummating. If they were married they would expect a "bedding" because thats what Westerosi do.

Thrones made it specifically clear to Cersei that Tommen will not have a bedding, she said that because otherwise itd be assumed that the husband and wife would sleep together on their wedding night

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yes it is what he states & that's exactly what follows. 

No it doesn't.

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

What is ambiguous is a flowered girl being under 16. That's the in-between. Part woman, part child. Saying a bedding before the girl is flowered is perverse is clear & concise. Not at all ambiguous. 

The in-between is ambuguous, therefore can be perverse or cannot be.

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Again, I ask, what is the purpose of stating that bedding a pre-flowered girl is perverse, if not to differentiate from a post-flowered girl? There's no reason for it & if it weren't to differentiate that it would be stated differently. It would be said a bedding a girl younger than 16 is perverse or when the man is much older it's considered perverse. 

There is a reason for it. It is to indicate that certainly bedding a girl before she flowered is perverse, that a post-flowered girl depends.

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No, according to George it doesn't. He doesn't mention the age of flowering at all except to say highborn girls tend to flower younger than low born girls. 

According to George a girl who has flowered and is under-age has an ambiguous status. According to George many men who have been in the rare situation to be wedded to an underage-but flowered maiden wait until their wife is 15 to 16.

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not sure what you are getting at here or what difference this makes irt a flowered girl being bed & it's perverseness or lack there of. 

Yes, you seem to misunderstand the big picture often, sort of like equating "at least 12" with "approximately 12".

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Tyrion couldn't "not wait" a few years because of his sexual desire

Ah, so if a man desires a child (he thinks of her as a child) he cannot wait.

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

nor did he rape her

No, he didn't. He mollested her and resented her for not loving him because he didn't rape her. Great standard.

1 minute ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

but in universe a man would not be considered a pervert for consummating his marriage on his wedding night, as long as the girl has flowered. 

I disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

the big difference is Sansa has no authority over Tyrion. She can't tell him nothing. While she has to obey him by law. Also he is the one, that says get in the bed not the other way around, and if it was the other way around he wouldn't have to listen to her, it is not his duty, but it is hers.

If a p.e.teacher sees a student is afraid and asks a student to do a advanced stunt it is not comparable with a student seeing a teacher is afraid and asking them to do an advanced stunt. If something happens to the student the teacher will be blamed, because he had the authority over the student, if something happens to the teacher the student won't be blamed, because he had no authority and the teacher didn't have to do what the student asked of him.

But as I was saying nothing is achieved with us debating, our opinions are to far away from one another.

I had my original post open to edit and try and add a different expression, a gentler way of saying the same thing. I'll do it here instead.

Take a normal, healthy, loving marriage by two inexperienced young adults. 
The woman is a virgin, maybe the man is maybe not, I'm not sure it matters.
The woman wants sex on their wedding night. She loves him, she desires him, she wants him. But, this is new, perhaps she's not well educated on what happens, perhaps she is, perhaps she's not even a virgin, just had some bad experiences. She is afraid.

It would be awful and utterly sexist for the man to say "no, no sex tonight. We are not doing this until you are not afraid" and to persist in that attitude even over her objections. He has no right to take that agency from her. Her conscious choice has more power, both for her but most importantly for him, than her fear does.

Fear alone is not enough. Not when assent has been given repeatedly.

Now this is not the exact same situation as we see between Sansa and Tyrion. Sansa doesn't desire this. But Tyrion is not a mind reader. He doesn't have the right to try and read her mind and assert his mind-reading over her choice.
the fact is that neither of them want this but for political reasons it is required of them. Both make expressions to do their "duty". And yes, this is much easier for Tyrion than for Sansa. But that doesn't take away the fact that at every step Sansa has given Tyrion assent and encouragement to go forward. Over her fear. 

His responsibility is to accept her choices, not decide when the choices she makes are not right for her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hugorfonics said:

Which is exactly my point. Betrothals exist so they can be of union without consummating. If they were married they would expect a "bedding" because thats what Westerosi do.

But a "bedding" can be ceremonial or symbolical. And there have been weddings without consummation or even a ceremonial bedding. Emisandre and Tygett were wedded, however, but not bedded.

A wedding does not necessitate an immediate "bedding". While most would just keep it a betrothal. Some require a wedding ceremony, because a wedding still requires at least one party asking for an annulment, whereas no such thing is required with a betrothal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

But a "bedding" can be ceremonial or symbolical.

I dont think thats true.

21 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

And there have been weddings without consummation or even a ceremonial bedding. Emisandre and Tygett were wedded, however, but not bedded.

(Tyrek)

Thats to steal her birthright, plus shes like 1, maybe 2. Far from flowered, or anything resembling adulthood

23 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

A wedding does not necessitate an immediate "bedding"

It almost always is

24 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

a wedding still requires at least one party asking for an annulment, whereas no such thing is required with a betrothal.

What? If neither party wants out of the betrothal then why would it end?

Tommen cant get erect yet, so no sense in the bedding now. Still, with a wedding comes titles and Margery is now queen. Its all about the superfluous titles for the Tyrells

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

The in-between is ambuguous, therefore can be perverse or cannot be.

Sure if it wasn't stated otherwise. 

56 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

There is a reason for it. It is to indicate that certainly bedding a girl before she flowered is perverse, that a post-flowered girl depends

It doesn't say a post flowered girl depends. It says a pre flowered girl is. If it depended for a post flowered girl it would say it depends for a post flowered girl. 

58 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

According to George a girl who has flowered and is under-age has an ambiguous status. According to George many men who have been in the rare situation to be wedded to an underage-but flowered maiden wait until their wife is 15 to 16.

Nope, your inserting your own assertions in again. 

59 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Yes, you seem to misunderstand the big picture often, sort of like equating "at least 12" with "approximately 12

At least I was big enough to admit I read it wrong. You have been arguing for 2 pages that many means the others are rare & that pre-flowered girls being bedded is perverse = post flowered girls being bedded is also perverse.

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Ah, so if a man desires a child (he thinks of her as a child) he cannot wait

? Don't even know what kind of sarcastic nonsense you are spewing now. 

Where did I say anything even implying that if a man desires a child he cannot wait? 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

No, he didn't. He mollested her and resented her for not loving him because he didn't rape her. Great standard.

I can only assume that this necessity of yours to argue against things I haven't said or to assume one thing means another is in some effort to "win" but if that's your agenda, you can win. It's not a competition or a race to me. 

I never said anything in regards to what type of standard it was. I said he didn't rape her, something that is abundantly clear yet had to be pointed out to you none-the-less. 

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

disagree

That's alright. You're wrong, but it's alright. 

I know it's very hard to keep emotions out of an emotional subject like this but it does neither of us any justice to argue from a purely emotional standpoint. 

It's been well established that irl this is wrong, horrific, perverse, etc. It's also been well established that in universe Tyrion isn't doing anything considered wrong. Your feelings on the matter don't change that. Facts don't care about your feelings, sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the ongoing debate, here are some relationships/marriages where the woman was bedded before reaching the legal age of adulthood. (Kudos to joannalannister on Tumblr).

Arryn, Aemma. married at age 11 to Jaeherys. She was bedded many times in the early years of her marriage and had many miscarriages.

Frey, Amerei. Her first husband Pate died when she was 17, so she was obviously wedded and bedded when she was 16 or younger.

Walda Frey was 14 or 15 when she was wedded and bedded by Roose Bolton.

Lannister, Genna. Betrothed at 7, wedded and bedded somewhere between age 12 and 14. (Emmon Frey is 7 or 8 years older).

Jayne Lothson became a mistress of Aegon IV Targaryen at age 14, in exchange for her father becoming Hand. 

Alysanne Targaryen was wedded and bedded at age 13 or 14.

Daenerys Targaryen, daughter of Aerys II, wedded and bedded at age 13.

Targaryen, Daenerys, wife of Maron Martell. Wedded and bedded at age 14 or 15.

Helaena Targaryen, wedded and bedded at age 13 to her brother Aegon.

Rhaella Targaryen. wedded and bedded at age 11 or 12 or 13. Gave birth to Rhaegar at age 12 or 13 or 14. 

Rhaelle Targaryen. Although her precise age is unknown, she was wedded and bedded in 245, when she was somewhere between 12 and 16 years old.

Shasta Targaryen, wedded and bedded at age 14.

Velaryon, Daenaera. wedded and bedded before age 16. She was presented to the king at the age of 6, “a surpassingly beautiful child.” The exact date of her marriage is unknown, but she first gave birth at 16, so she was married sometime before that. 

Webber, Rohanne, wedded at 12, wedded again and bedded at 13, gave birth to her first child at 13. Precise ages for her successive marriages are unknown, but she was married five times before age 25.

Edwell Celtigar offering his then 12- and 13-year-old daughters as brides for Maegor the Cruel.

Elinor Costayne having three boys with Theo Bolling by the age of 19, making it very likely she was married before she was 16.

The 15-year-old Prince Viserys marries the 11-year-old Aemma Arryn? Oh it’s fine, we’ll add a note that he waited two years to consummate it, I’m sure there will be no problems after that. 

Borros Baratheon offering his four prepubescent daughters in marriage to the 19-year-old Aemond Targaryen.

Floris Baratheon being betrothed at 14, and dying in childbirth at 16.

Butterwell in The Mystery Knight has a 15 year old bride if I recall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

That is not what it says. It says many men wait. Not men will wait, not it is the norm to wait, not it is rare to not wait. Coupled with the other parts of the SSM that say explicitly a flowered maiden is fit to be wedded & bedded, it isn't perverse to bed after a girl is flowered, it seems that wedding & bedding a girl who is flowered is an acceptable thing in universe. 

I said often, not always. :)

It is acceptable to wed and bed a girl who has flowered. That we know. We also know that most highborn girls have their first menstrual period at the age of twelve or thirteen, according to Sansa's Septa. But, we also know, that, to prevent their brides from dying at a very young age in childbirth, many men will wait until their bride is older, so she will survive childbirth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

I said often, not always. :)

You did. Others insisted that it was the defining cultural paradigm, that not waiting a few extra years after flowering was perverse, culturally repugnant, or whatever you want to call it.

17 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

It is acceptable to wed and bed a girl who has flowered. That we know.

Yes, we do know that. But one or more people have strenuously argued that because many men do wait, not waiting is therefore, in-world, considered perverse.

17 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

We also know that most highborn girls have their first menstrual period at the age of twelve or thirteen, according to Sansa's Septa. But, we also know, that, to prevent their brides from dying at a very young age in childbirth, many men will wait until their bride is older, so she will survive childbirth. 

Yes. No one has disputed that in the slightest. 
Just some have insisted that this "many" creates a cultural paradigm where it is perverse not to wait.
It is very difficult to argue against such intense, passionate, irrationality. There's just not much to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

said often, not always:)

I gotcha. :) Still though, many doesn't mean often. It could mean often, but it doesn't have to. 

35 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

It is acceptable to wed and bed a girl who has flowered. That we know. We also know that most highborn girls have their first menstrual period at the age of twelve or thirteen, according to Sansa's Septa. But, we also know, that, to prevent their brides from dying at a very young age in childbirth, many men will wait until their bride is older, so she will survive childbirth.

Agreed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I gotcha. :) Still though, many doesn't mean often. It could mean often, but it doesn't have to. 

But I feel like most parents, husbands and in-laws would not wanna increase a risk, that is already incredibly high, the risk of dying in childbirth and the child dying or being unhealthy as well. Why would any good person want to do that? And even a bad person would not wanna risk the well- being of their heir- the main reason for the marriage in the first place. If it is already so uncertain to have a healthy child, why would husbands additionally want to increase that risk? The only people I can see doing that would be incredibly dumb ones or incredibly malicious people like the mountain, who also wouldn't have to fear their in- laws retaliating as well. Or of course for political reasons like in this case. 

So this knowledge in combination with the fact, that most of the very young marriages are Targaryen ones, who also survived decades of inbreeding, seem to have, like we can see with Dany, an all together better physical healing ability, and do things differently (incest) in general plus the fact, that Tyrion feels uneasy about Sansa's age gives us strong hints, that most men, even the evil ones, would wait with the consummation to increase the possibility for an healthy heir. 

Another hint would be that that's how they did it in the actual Middle Ages and GRRM has repeatedly said he modeled the Westerosi society after a medieval society and the childbirth rates are even higher in Westeros, than they were in the actual Middle Ages so it seems only plausible, that they would mainly wait as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

But I feel like most parents, husbands and in-laws would not wanna increase a risk, that is already incredibly high, the risk of dying in childbirth and the child dying or being unhealthy as well. Why would any good person want to do that? And even a bad person would not wanna risk the well- being of their heir- the main reason for the marriage in the first place.

Certainly, but sometimes the benefit outweighs the risk. For instance there would be times where the bride is very developed for her age, more likely to be able to carry a child to term, & the political benefits are such that the marriage needs consummated right away. Coupled with the fact that while they can get pregnant after one time having sex, that chance is increased each time they have sex. They may choose to consummate the marriage & then wait until later to actually try for an heir. That wouldn't always work of course, but it would sometimes. 

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

If it is already so uncertain to have a healthy child, why would husbands additionally want to increase that risk? The only people I can see doing that would be incredibly dumb ones or incredibly malicious people like the mountain, who also wouldn't have to fear their in- laws retaliating as well. Or of course for political reasons like in this case. 

They wouldn't have to be particularly dumb or malicious, it's always dangerous to have a child in these times. Many women that are of age die during child birth. Like I said if the benefits outweigh the risk they would be willing enough to consummate, not necessarily try for a child right away. 

In Tyrion & Sansas case, Tyrion wasn't supposed to be getting her with child (although it could have happened) He is only supposed to be consummating the marriage. I do wonder if consummation is considered complete after there is penetration or if there has to be a finishing of sorts. I would think it would be technically complete after penetration so that's another way to try to avoid an unwanted pregnancy during consummation. It's certainly not fool proof but it would increase chances. 

Then there is also moon tea. If one needed to consummate the marriage for political reasons but the bride was young or fragile & there was fear she wouldn't survive a pregnancy, they could use moon tea to help avoid a pregnancy. 

I don't recall any instances where the in-laws retaliate against the grooms house for a bride dying in child birth. As unfortunate as it is, I think it's viewed as a necessary risk sometimes. If there was a political reason to consummate the marriage immediately, the brides parents would likely have been aware of it & knew what they were getting into irt the risks involved. 

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

So this knowledge in combination with the fact, that most of the very young marriages are Targaryen ones, who also survived decades of inbreeding, seem to have, like we can see with Dany, an all together better physical healing ability, and do things differently (incest) in general plus the fact, that Tyrion feels uneasy about Sansa's age gives us strong hints, that most men, even the evil ones, would wait with the consummation to increase the possibility for an healthy heir. 

It's possible but that isn't what it says. The younger marriages seem to be the minority to begin with. (We don't know really because we don't have information on the ages of the brides in many of the marriages) But of those that are married young, we can assume that, at least some of the time, the marriage was made so young for political reasons (else why not just wait until the bride is a little older?) If there is a political reason to rush the marriage there would likely be a political reason to have the marriage consummated & viewed as complete or final. Obviously sometimes that isn't the case as evidenced by "many" men waiting until they are older to consummate, but many doesn't mean most. It could be most that wait, leaving it to be the minority that don't. Or it could be just "many" that wait, leaving it that half wait & half don't or more wait than don't but not a significant amount more. 

Also I don't think it's fair to remove Targ's out of the equation. (Not that you were, but earlier it was said) If we are talking about young marriages in Westeros irt to what is accepted, what is within normal standards etc, we cannot remove a large portion of the known marriages to prove the point that it isn't accepted or that it is rare. Targ's "founded" Westeros as we know it today & while they do seem to have something special going on they certainly aren't immune to dying in child birth, many of them did. 

I would think that sometimes the case would be that the man doesn't care a lot about whether or not the mother survives the child birth, only that they get their heir (hopefully this would be a small amount, but would still happen) I haven't added them all up or anything but we do know of several cases where the mother died in child birth & the child survived. 

8 hours ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Another hint would be that that's how they did it in the actual Middle Ages and GRRM has repeatedly said he modeled the Westerosi society after a medieval society and the childbirth rates are even higher in Westeros, than they were in the actual Middle Ages so it seems only plausible, that they would mainly wait as well.

I'm not wholly familiar with what was mainly done in the middle ages. I do know that young marriages took place & were consummated but as to how often or not I'm not sure. Nor am I familiar with whether or not the birth rates are higher in Westeros than in Middle Ages (I would imagine it would depend on what particular times we are speaking of, but again I don't know) It is important to note, because, GRRM does model Westeros society after a medieval society, that the particular thing he chooses to mention when talking about marriages in Westeros is: 

 

Quote

and in older traditions, a girl who has flowered is a woman, fit for both wedding and bedding.

He also talks about the middle ages  when he says: 

 

Quote

As in the real Middle Ages, highborn girls tend to flower significantly earlier than those of lower birth.

At the end of the day George's world is based on the Middle Ages but there are clear differences (dragons being one) so he is at liberty to change or remove whatever portion/s he would like. I think these quotes show though that he intended to liken his society to the Middle Aged societies he is talking about here. I don't see much reason in mentioning them otherwise. So from this we can take that a girl who is flowered is a woman (or part woman because he later says it's an ambiguous state; part woman, part child) fit for wedding & bedding & also that in his world High born girls tend to flower younger than those of lower birth. 

This is nothing concrete, no ages are mentioned, no statistics or idea on how young a high born girl flowers, only significantly younger than a low born girl. No age as to when a low born girl typically flowers, no number as to how many men marry a newly flowered girl to begin with only that "many" wait to consummate. 

It's just too vague to make any concrete conclusions. Really the only thing we can draw from this is that there are no hard & fast rules, they might be wed newly flowered or they might not be wed until they are closer to 16, They might be bedded when newly flowered or they might not until they are closer to 16. The only thing he says for certain is that bedding them before they are flowered would be perverse. So even that, probably sometimes happens but it wouldn't be accepted & would likely only be done in secret by particularly depraved individuals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/17/2020 at 10:56 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

I said often, not always. :)

It is acceptable to wed and bed a girl who has flowered. That we know. We also know that most highborn girls have their first menstrual period at the age of twelve or thirteen, according to Sansa's Septa. But, we also know, that, to prevent their brides from dying at a very young age in childbirth, many men will wait until their bride is older, so she will survive childbirth. 

Which was a thing in real life.  Many medieval marriage contracts stipulated that sexual intercourse should not take place until the bride was 15 or 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Certainly, but sometimes the benefit outweighs the risk. For instance there would be times where the bride is very developed for her age, more likely to be able to carry a child to term, & the political benefits are such that the marriage needs consummated right away. Coupled with the fact that while they can get pregnant after one time having sex, that chance is increased each time they have sex. They may choose to consummate the marriage & then wait until later to actually try for an heir. That wouldn't always work of course, but it would sometimes. 

yeah, that's why I added for political reasons.

 

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's possible but that isn't what it says.

I just think it's logical though.

 

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The younger marriages seem to be the minority to begin with.

exactly

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

(We don't know really because we don't have information on the ages of the brides in many of the marriages)

but not including those we see in the story (asoiaf)

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

the marriage was made so young for political reasons (else why not just wait until the bride is a little older?) If there is a political reason to rush the marriage there would likely be a political reason to have the marriage consummated & viewed as complete or final.

agreed

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Obviously sometimes that isn't the case as evidenced by "many" men waiting until they are older to consummate, but many doesn't mean most. It could be most that wait, leaving it to be the minority that don't. Or it could be just "many" that wait, leaving it that half wait & half don't or more wait than don't but not a significant amount more. 

But not all marriages are made for political reasons and even among those, which of course amog the nobility are the majority. I'd say Sansa's and Tyrion's situation is the exception. Because usually a political marriage is done by the family of the bride and said family wouldn't want their daughter and the baby to be harmed. I'd say Sansa's situation is so special, because everyone can "steal" her any time. But that's not a normal situation.

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Also I don't think it's fair to remove Targ's out of the equation. (Not that you were, but earlier it was said) If we are talking about young marriages in Westeros irt to what is accepted, what is within normal standards etc, we cannot remove a large portion of the known marriages to prove the point that it isn't accepted or that it is rare. Targ's "founded" Westeros as we know it today & while they do seem to have something special going on they certainly aren't immune to dying in child birth, many of them did. 

But they also marry their siblings and that's otherwise a taboo among non Targs in Westeros, so IMO it's fair to say that their "culture" didn't have the biggest impact on what's acceptable for other Westerosi people.

 

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would think that sometimes the case would be that the man doesn't care a lot about whether or not the mother survives the child birth, only that they get their heir (hopefully this would be a small amount, but would still happen) I haven't added them all up or anything but we do know of several cases where the mother died in child birth & the child survived.

I agree, still the risk is higher, that the child dies as well and if the marriage was done to make a political alliance the husband would not want to anger his in-laws by risking their daughter's life and that of the baby. The husband probably wants to get something more out of the connection, than just a wife in a political marriage.

 

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I'm not wholly familiar with what was mainly done in the middle ages. I do know that young marriages took place & were consummated but as to how often or not I'm not sure.

young marriages took place, but were the exception, because of the high deaths in childbed of very young mothers.

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Nor am I familiar with whether or not the birth rates are higher in Westeros than in Middle Ages (I would imagine it would depend on what particular times we are speaking of, but again I don't know)

I didn't know that myself, but have seen many ppl among those some historians mention it. I think @Lord Varys was the first one to tell me, that death in childbed is depicted as even more frequent, than it actually happened in the MA. But yes the MA is a long time period.

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

and in older traditions, a girl who has flowered is a woman, fit for both wedding and bedding.

 I thought he was talking about "older traditions" in the the 7 kingdoms, before asoif takes place. Otherwise that's a misconception.

 

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

(or part woman because he later says it's an ambiguous state; part woman, part child)

yeah, I'd say that's a teenager. He also states you are an adult at 16.

 

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

This is nothing concrete, no ages are mentioned, no statistics or idea on how young a high born girl flowers, only significantly younger than a low born girl.

Septa Mordane says most high born girls flower at 12 or 13 so Sansa is definitely not exceptionally early or more developed, than other girls her station or age. That's not so accurate for the real MA though, even high born girls got their period later.

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

No age as to when a low born girl typically flowers, no number as to how many men marry a newly flowered girl to begin with only that "many" wait to consummate. 

True, I just think it's logical that most would wait, because Sansa's situation isn't an everyday situation and the above named reasons.

 

On 18. Februar 2020 at 4:20 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's just too vague to make any concrete conclusions. Really the only thing we can draw from this is that there are no hard & fast rules, they might be wed newly flowered or they might not be wed until they are closer to 16, They might be bedded when newly flowered or they might not until they are closer to 16. The only thing he says for certain is that bedding them before they are flowered would be perverse. So even that, probably sometimes happens but it wouldn't be accepted & would likely only be done in secret by particularly depraved individuals. 

true. We can conclude, that girls' safety or well-being just wasn't important enough for "hard rules". And of course in general in the MA they had the belief, that what's on the outside is reflective of the insight, why of course Tyrion was also so hated by the commoners, because someone, who looks like him must be evil on the insight. Someone who looks like the Hound must be terrifying on the insight...

I actually think GRRM didn't know himself 100% and he kinda got in "hot water", because the plot was moving along, but Sansa didn't age quickly enough. It is kinda weird, that so many men are that attracted to an 11-13 year old girl. Can't see that being normal for a medival setting, maybe 14 or 15, but 12?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

but not including those we see in the story (asoiaf)

The marriages we see in the story wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount though. There are many, many marriages we don't have the ages for. 

31 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

exactly

Being a minority though, doesn't necessarily make it "rare"

Rare, to me, would be hardly ever, almost never, once in a great, great while etc.

32 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

But not all marriages are made for political reasons and even among those, which of course amog the nobility are the majority. I'd say Sansa's and Tyrion's situation is the exception. Because usually a political marriage is done by the family of the bride and said family wouldn't want their daughter and the baby to be harmed. I'd say Sansa's situation is so special, because everyone can "steal" her any time. But that's not a normal situation.

I would say the vast majority of noble marriages are made for political reasons. Not all of them would necessitate consummation right away. 

Certainly Tyrion & Sansas situation is not a common one. I agree, that most families would not want their daughter & the baby harmed but I don't know how much say they would have in the situation after they have agreed to allow the marriage & they would have almost no say after they are wed. Plus, like I said, if the family agreed to the wedding they likely knew it needed to be consummated. 

My point is I don't think there are a whole bunch of fathers putting up a big fight because their daughters marriage is going to be consummated too early. I would expect the norm would be either to wait until the bride is old enough to consummate before getting married or to be willing to take the risk for whatever political benefits the marriage is having. 

Keep in mind also, "old enough" to consummate is a very subjective term. Some girls would not be "ready" health wise to bear a child even at 15 or 16, some would be ready at 12 or 13. Also consummation does not always = child bearing. As in Sansa & Tyrions case the consummation wasn't meant to produce an heir, just to seal the deal. 

Sansas situation is definitely not normal in the sense that her family isn't the ones who procured this marriage & as you say, anyone can "steal" her at any time but the rest of it would be relatively the same; irt consummation. 

38 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

But they also marry their siblings and that's otherwise a taboo among non Targs in Westeros, so IMO it's fair to say that their "culture" didn't have the biggest impact on what's acceptable for other Westerosi people.

They do but the rest of the realm was never allowed to marry their siblings, so no, that particular practice was not passed on to the rest of Westeros. The young marriages were likely done long before the Targs even arrived but my point is just because a group of the Westerosi noble people seem to tend to marry younger than others (I don't know that this is even the case, I think it may just be that we get the ages of the Targs getting married while we do not get the ages of many other marriages throughout Westeros history) doesn't mean we get to remove them from the group. They are still people of the 7K, they are still practicing the 7K culture, with the exception of incest, which wasn't tolerated well in some cases anyway. 

42 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I agree, still the risk is higher, that the child dies as well and if the marriage was done to make a political alliance the husband would not want to anger his in-laws by risking their daughter's life and that of the baby. The husband probably wants to get something more out of the connection, than just a wife in a political marriage.

The husband would want an heir, certainly. Whether or not they would want to or care about angering their in-laws would depend on who their in-laws are & how powerful they are. If the man's family is much more powerful than the womens he wouldn't care much about angering them other than on a level of what is morally right - which would matter to some & not to others. 

I don't think this would be the case often, I'm just saying it's a very real possibility. 

I also don't think the brides family would have much legal ground to stand on to start a war over a man consummating a marriage with his wife. It's what they do, even when the bride is too young sometimes. I think if this were a real worry we would hear of some instance where the brides family is angry & tries to exact some revenge on the groom or grooms family. But we don't that I recall.

46 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

young marriages took place, but were the exception, because of the high deaths in childbed of very young mothers.

What is considered "young" though? Is there a specific age range? I would imagine it would change through the years. Considering the low life expectancy & the dangers of bearing child too late in life also, combined with the high infant mortality rate, they have an incentive to want to start bearing children as young as possible. Again, what is possible is going to be different depending on the individual person. 

51 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I thought he was talking about "older traditions" in the the 7 kingdoms, before asoif takes place. Otherwise that's a misconception.

 

Possibly, but that wasn't how I read it. I could be wrong. 

What is a misconception? 

52 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

Septa Mordane says most high born girls flower at 12 or 13 so Sansa is definitely not exceptionally early or more developed, than other girls her station or age. That's not so accurate for the real MA though, even high born girls got their period later.

Yeah, idk about the real MA but in George's world a high born girl would flower, generally speaking, significantly younger than a low born girl. 12 is on the young side of average I would say, at least judging by when I & my friends started their periods. Of course it happens younger sometimes & older sometimes. 

54 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

True, I just think it's logical that most would wait, because Sansa's situation isn't an everyday situation and the above named reasons.

I don't come to the same conclusion. While it's true Sansas specific situation is not an everyday situation, marriages being made for political reasons are an "every day" situation & if the marriage was deemed necessary at a young age it is likely a consummation would be deemed necessary also. I agree it wouldn't be the majority of the situations, but I don't think I can agree that it would be rare. 

59 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

true. We can conclude, that girls' safety or well-being just wasn't important enough for "hard rules". And of course in general in the MA they had the belief, that what's on the outside is reflective of the insight, why of course Tyrion was also so hated by the commoners, because someone, who looks like him must be evil on the insight. Someone who looks like the Hound must be terrifying on the insight...

Yeah exactly. 

59 minutes ago, Nagini's Neville said:

I actually think GRRM didn't know himself 100% and he kinda got in "hot water", because the plot was moving along, but Sansa didn't age quickly enough. It is kinda weird, that so many men are that attracted to an 11-13 year old girl. Can't see that being normal for a medival setting, maybe 14 or 15, but 12?

Possibly. A friend of my younger sisters had twins when she was 12. I remember thinking it was the most unreal thing to me. I was 16 at the time & just could not even imagine being pregnant, let alone delivering & caring for 2 babies!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The marriages we see in the story wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount though. There are many, many marriages we don't have the ages for. 

yeah, but don't you think GRRM shows us a representative sample in the text? If he wanted to give the impression such young marriages were more common, wouldn't he give us other examples than Tywin, a man who doesn't care for children in general and ordered the gang rape of a young girl, just to teach his son a lesson,  ordering both and LF making both possible, a man without scruple, who made one 11 year old a prostitute and wanted to marry another 11 year old.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Rare, to me, would be hardly ever, almost never, once in a great, great while etc.

yeah, it's probably more than rare then.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I would say the vast majority of noble marriages are made for political reasons. Not all of them would necessitate consummation right away

agreed

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Keep in mind also, "old enough" to consummate is a very subjective term. Some girls would not be "ready" health wise to bear a child even at 15 or 16, some would be ready at 12 or 13.

but you could never see that from the outside, which girl would be able to bear a healthy child yet, since not everything is developing at the same rate. So a very young looking bride could f.example be already able to bear a healthy child, while a girl who is other ways more developed is not.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

My point is I don't think there are a whole bunch of fathers putting up a big fight because their daughters marriage is going to be consummated too early. I would expect the norm would be either to wait until the bride is old enough to consummate before getting married or to be willing to take the risk for whatever political benefits the marriage is having. 

I'd say most husbands would not want to anger the father though, since in a political marriage the husband usually gets more than just a wife. The father probably negotiated certain terms and if those were broken it might be similar to Robb breaking his oath(not so extreme of course)Also the father could negotiate, that the daughter lives with the family, until she is old enough to live with husband. For example with Lysa and Jon, Jon wanted military support. Usually the husband gets a dowry as well.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Also consummation does not always = child bearing.

but there is still always the risk of getting pregnant, when having sex, so it's a risk to be considered.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

doesn't mean we get to remove them from the group.

true, but I still don't think they are representative of what the rest of the Westerosi ppl are doing.

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

The husband would want an heir, certainly. Whether or not they would want to or care about angering their in-laws would depend on who their in-laws are & how powerful they are. If the man's family is much more powerful than the womens he wouldn't care much about angering them other than on a level of what is morally right - which would matter to some & not to others. 

usually it's  done to make an alliance, so even if the woman's family is less powerful the husband would want to have them on his side, so he can count on them in times of conflict or something similar like the Starks could count on the Tullys. If Ned had mistreated Cat things might have been different, just like the Tyrells wanted to make sure Joff wouldn't mistreat Margaery.

Of course some fathers would just not really care about a daughter on a personal level just like Bolton f.example, but I still argue he'd care on a political level, that his daughter an grandchild wouldn't die, because then the alliance would also be questionable again, the father would lose at least some of his power over the husband.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I don't think this would be the case often, I'm just saying it's a very real possibility. 

 

oh I certainly agree, that it definitely happened and obviously was legal, I just don't think it was the norm.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I also don't think the brides family would have much legal ground to stand on to start a war over a man consummating a marriage with his wife. It's what they do, even when the bride is too young sometimes. I think if this were a real worry we would hear of some instance where the brides family is angry & tries to exact some revenge on the groom or grooms family. But we don't that I recall.

no, no war but they could certainly retaliate by not upholding their parts of the commitment. For example no military aid.

 

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

What is considered "young" though? Is there a specific age range? I would imagine it would change through the years. Considering the low life expectancy & the dangers of bearing child too late in life also, combined with the high infant mortality rate, they have an incentive to want to start bearing children as young as possible. Again, what is possible is going to be different depending on the individual person.

12, 13 was the exception throughout the MA, during the Elizabethan era they even considered 18 the perfect age for childbirth.

straight from wiki :) 

"William Shakespeare's drama Romeo and Juliet puts Juliet's age at just short of fourteen years; the idea of a woman marrying in secret at a very early age would have scandalized Elizabethans. The common belief in Elizabethan England was that motherhood before 16 was dangerous; popular manuals of health, as well as observations of married life, led Elizabethans to believe that early marriage and its consummation permanently damaged a young woman's health, impaired a young man's physical and mental development, and produced sickly or stunted children. Therefore, 18 came to be considered the earliest reasonable age for motherhood and 20 and 30 the ideal ages for women and men, respectively, to marry. Shakespeare might also have reduced Juliet's age from sixteen to fourteen to demonstrate the dangers of marriage at too young of an age; that Shakespeare himself married Anne Hathaway when he was just eighteen (very unusual for an Englishman of the time) might hold some significance."

In the 14th century in Italy there was a time were they married girls sometimes significantly earlier at 13, 14, but usually the marriage wasn't consummated until later. just in very rare case the marriage would be consummated before witnesses, so husband could claim whatever there was to claim, but that didn't happen often.

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

What is a misconception? 

That girls marrying at 12, 13 or even 14 was uncommon in the MA

1 hour ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Yeah, idk about the real MA but in George's world a high born girl would flower, generally speaking, significantly younger than a low born girl. 12 is on the young side of average I would say, at least judging by when I & my friends started their periods. Of course it happens younger sometimes & older sometimes. 

Girls got their periods apparently two years later on average in the MA, but that probably includes both noble and low-born. 12 today is actually exactly the average. 

2 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Possibly. A friend of my younger sisters had twins when she was 12. I remember thinking it was the most unreal thing to me. I was 16 at the time & just could not even imagine being pregnant, let alone delivering & caring for 2 babies!  

wow, yeah. I mean it definitely does happen. Nowadays the medical possibilities are of course much better. young girls often have a preterm birth. Today usually no problem, in the MA of course a different story. But I assume the 12 year old was pregnant by someone closer to her own age. I just find a weird, that so many men in their 20ties find sansa attractive at 12. Similar with Dany, but at least she is 14, when most men find her attractive except Drogo of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...