Why does everybody hate Sansa?

[Lady Blackfish]

It's parental consent that matters, as far as I know. Ermesande's parents consented, right? I don't remember this point myself. From what I know, real medieval Europe had conflicting views on what constituted a binding marriage: consent of the partners, consent of the parents, consummation, dowry, etc. The way it seems to me is that in medieval Europe, the church was trying to put together a definition that reconciled the secular use for marriage (transfer of property) with the religious one (procreation). I don't think GRRM gives us as complete a picture of the role of the church in Westeros, but we get a strong presence of the secular priorities. We also have the notion of brides being stolen, like the story with Lyanna. It aligns with the idea that the father must consent for the marriage to be valid. There may be some interplay with the ideas of consent and consummation, as there might have been in real medieval Europe.

Meaning that Ermesande's marriage may be legal for now but could also possibly be annulled given the right finagling. And Sansa's marriage can't be assumed to not exist, but she might be able to make a case for annulment since there was neither familial consent nor consummation. The way the system is, though, she can't merely assume it never happened. She'd have to pursue annulment.

[Mad Monkey]

Ermesande's parents consented, right?

I always got the impression that she was an orphan. The text describes her as the Lady Hayford in her own right. If either parent were still living, that parent would be the head of household, right? (Just like how Edmure didn't become "Lord" until Hoster died, even while Hoster was declining).

[Lady Blackfish]

Yeah, right again it seems, "last surviving heir". So she was a ward of the crown?

[Mad Monkey]

I think so, but I doubt the Lannisters really cared.

[Alexia]

So Spake Martin - Age of Sexual Relations in Westeros

Age of Sexual Relations in Westeros

The nature of the relationship between Sandor and Sansa has been a hot topic on Revanshe's board. Sansa's youth has been one focus of the discussion. What is the general Westerosi view as to romantic or sexual relationships involving a girl of Sansa's age and level of physical maturity?

A boy is Westeros is considered to be a "man grown" at sixteen years. The same is true for girls. Sixteen is the age of legal majority, as twenty-one is for us.

However, for girls, the first flowering is also very significant... and in older traditions, a girl who has flowered is a woman, fit for both wedding and bedding.

A girl who has flowered, but not yet attained her sixteenth name day, is in a somewhat ambigious position: part child, part woman. A "maid," in other words. Fertile but innocent, beloved of the singers.

In the "general Westerosi view," well, girls may well be wed before their first flowerings, for political reasons, but it would considered perverse to bed them. And such early weddings, even without sex, remain rare. Generally weddings are postponed until the bride has passed from girlhood to maidenhood.

Maidens may be wedded and bedded... however, even there, many husbands will wait until the bride is fifteen or sixteen before sleeping with them. Very young mothers tend to have significantly higher rates of death in childbirth, which the maesters will have noted.

As in the real Middle Ages, highborn girls tend to flower significantly earlier than those of lower birth. Probably a matter of nutrition. As a result, they also tend to marry earlier, and to bear children earlier.

There are plenty of exceptions.

[Alexia]

I'm continuing to dig through SSM to look for info on consent and came up with this...

So Spake Martin

"I was his lord...My right, to make his match" says Lord Hoster about Brynden. Does it mean that the lord can force anyone under his rule to marry whomever he wishes? Can the people in question legally break the commitments made for them by the lord (i.e. promises, betrothals) and what penalty can the lord visit on them for this? What if they just refuse to exchange the marriage vows, etc?

They can indeed refuse to take the vows, as the Blackfish did, but there are often severe consequences to this. The lord is certainly expected to arrange the matches for his own children and unmarried younger siblings. He does not necessarily arrange marriages for his vassal lords or household knights... but they would be wise to consult with him and respect his feelings. It would not be prudent for a vassal to marry one of his liege lord's enemies, for instance.

[Alexia]

On the subject of Ermesande and Tyrek (a fascinating threadjack ;)) I recall that Euron had Asha married with a seal standing in her place. I wonder if a marriage by proxy would work as well with the Seven.

I'm not having any luck digging through the SSM for evidence but that would be my guess.

[Mad Monkey]

I recall that Euron had Asha married with a seal standing in her place. I wonder if a marriage by proxy would work as well with the Seven.

Really? Remember, Euron is a huge asshole and he operates under the Asshole Code which is a lot more liberal than any religion.

[Daena the Defiant]

Yeah, right again it seems, "last surviving heir". So she was a ward of the crown?

I dunno if House Hayford(?) is a vassal("bannerhouse") to the crown or to Casterly Rock. In any event, safeguarding the inheritence and well-being of minor heirs was one of the duties imposed upon a liege-lord in a classic feudal system, balanced by the vassal's reciprocal pledge of loyalty, service and to act when the liege said act. However, using this system to their advantage, House Lannister took advantage of Lady Ermesande's ward status to glom her lands.

Although, it is a little odd that they would bestow a castle and lands on a relatively tertiary male Lannister like Tyrek. I mean, his father was Tygett, Tywin's *other* dead brother about whom we know nothing.

In some versions of the tale, Maid Marian of Robin Hood fame was the heiress to her father, who was killed in service to Richard in the Crusades, so it fell upon the Crown (currently in use by Prince John) to safeguard her person and fortune. (In others, it should be noted, she was prone to dressing like a man or boy [as a page, really] and bested Robin in a sword fight, and was a skilled archer in her own right, despite being schooled in the graceful court of Eleanor of Aquitaine and serving as one of that awesome Queen's ladies-in-waiting - both Lyanna and Arya have some historical literary precedent, as GRRM no doubt is aware).

So, either she (Ermesande) was a Crown ward, or a ward of Casterly Rock (which at that point in the series is mutually interchangeable anyway).

[Alexia]

I believe Hayford is part of the Crownlands - which would probably make her a ward of the crown.

[Daena the Defiant]

On the subject of Ermesande and Tyrek (a fascinating threadjack ;)) I recall that Euron had Asha married with a seal standing in her place. I wonder if a marriage by proxy would work as well with the Seven.

Ya, but the marriage of Asha via her sea lion to whomever is not really binding - I mean, I doubt that "Andal/green lands" law would recognize it, and even for the Iron Born, it seems a bit of stretch to assume that the daughter of the king (Balon), who is a known warrior and reaver in her own right would be lawfully bound by a marital rite at which she wasn't even present and was impersonated by an animal.

It was more of an act of assholery on the part of Euron to shame and ridicule Asha for her flagrant acts of disobedience.

Along similar lines, the forced marriage of Lady Donella Hornwood and the Bastard of Bolton would probably not be recognized either if the powers-that-be weren't too busy elsewhere fighting a multi-sided civil war. Although he "consummated" the marriage, one suspects that poor Donella did not consent. The whole purpose of witnesses at a wedding is to offer testimony that both parties consented. In this case, the wedding was probably attended by Bolton cronies who would lie anyway.

[Alexia]

Along similar lines, the forced marriage of Lady Donella Hornwood and the Bastard of Bolton would probably not be recognized either if the powers-that-be weren't too busy elsewhere fighting a multi-sided civil war. Although he "consummated" the marriage, one suspects that poor Donella did not consent. The whole purpose of witnesses at a wedding is to offer testimony that both parties consented. In this case, the wedding was probably attended by Bolton cronies who would lie anyway.

Nope, the purpose of witnesses is to witness that the marriage actually took place. I think the marriage between poor Lady Hornwood and Ramsey was probably valid - she was wedded before a heart tree and bedded.

That being said, it is likely that Robb/other pertinent party would have promptly annulled it and maybe even hanged Ramsey over it. Also, Ramsey is NOT heir to the Hornwood lands. Lady Hornwood was not even the heir herself - she was not a Hornwood.

[Mad Monkey]

I wonder if a marriage by proxy would work as well with the Seven.

Also, that's way too easily abused. Could Catelyn have arranged for Robb to marry Margaery using a pile of sticks and a rock that she found as proxies? Could Robert have married Joffrey to Daenerys using a torch and the contents of his chamber pot as proxies?

[Alexia]

Also, that's way too easily abused. Could Catelyn have arranged for Robb to marry Margaery using a pile of sticks and a rock that she found as proxies? Could Robert have married Joffrey to Daenerys using a torch and the contents of his chamber pot as proxies?

:rofl:

I would assume that only your guardian would have the right to arrange the marriage/proxy. That was the Lannister logic - Sansa (and apparently Ermesande) was a ward of the Crown. Euron, as Lord Greyjoy, would have the right to arrange Asha's marriage.

[Daena the Defiant]

Nope, the purpose of witnesses is to witness that the marriage actually took place. I think the marriage between poor Lady Hornwood and Ramsey was probably valid - she was wedded before a heart tree and bedded.

Ah, but what's a wedding?

By which, what does it mean for a wedding to take place? I mean, you can trundle two unwilling parties in front of the officiator who would perform the rite and announce them man and wife, all of which occurring in front of witnesses, but if either the bride or the groom doesn't voluntarily speak did the wedding really take place?

If the consent of either parties isn't really an element - and let's be honest, it's almost always the bride we're talking about in these situations, then westerosi culture would be replete with kidnappings of young women of wealth who were married against their wills so that their husbands can claim their lucre.

[Alexia]

By which, what does it mean for a wedding to take place? I mean, you can trundle two unwilling parties in front of the officiator who would perform the rite and announce them man and wife, all of which occurring in front of witnesses, but if either the bride or the groom doesn't voluntarily speak did the wedding really take place?

If they don't speak, than the wedding didn't take place. If they do say their vows, whether it was voluntary or not, then the wedding took place.

I already mentioned upthread Marguerite de Valois, who refused to consent in front of witnesses and the priests ignored it and married her off anyway - taking a head jerk as a nod of consent. Because her guardian wanted the marriage to take place. Lady Hornwood was a woman with no male guardian to protect her from the Bastard of Bolton, Sansa was in the same position.

If the consent of either parties isn't really an element - and let's be honest, it's almost always the bride we're talking about in these situations, then westerosi culture would be replete with kidnappings of young women of wealth who were married against their wills so that their husbands can claim their lucre.

No, because that's the kind of thing families go to war over. And Westerosi culture already seems pretty replete with forced marriages for the purpose of claiming wealth - Lady Hornwood, Lady Sansa, Lady Ermesande.

[Daena the Defiant]

:rofl:

I would assume that only your guardian would have the right to arrange the marriage/proxy. That was the Lannister logic - Sansa (and apparently Ermesande) was a ward of the Crown. Euron, as Lord Greyjoy, would have the right to arrange Asha's marriage.

But here's the point you are sorta, kinda skipping. The wedding of Tyrek to Ermesande is pretty much a sham. By everything we know, she is far, far to young to consent to a marriage (she's still a baby in swaddling clothes). It is derided as a gross abuse on the part of the Lannisters, but who would say so? It was all designed to make sure that when Lady Ermesande is old enough to come on the market, she would already be spoken for.

A marriage by proxy doesn't mean that if someone wants to marry, say, Margaery to their son, they get a donkey, bedeck it in golden roses and call her "milady" and marry her to their son. Usually, marriage by proxy requires some previous authorization on the part of one of the parties to be wed to 'allow' the proxy to be, well, the proxy. At the very least, someone in loco parentis to the party being married, permitting the use of a proxy. This would actually be more common with a betrothal, though. I will betroth my daughter to your son, and entertain no new suits until she is old enough to actually make her consent known.

Otherwise, you'd have everyone marrying Danaerys by proxy without her consent, a world away, and pretending to be royalty.

[Alexia]

On proxy marriage (I love Google):

Proxy Marriage

It was common for European monarchs and nobility to be wed by proxy marriage. A famous example of this is the marriage of Napoleon I of France to Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma. Catherine of Aragon wed Prince Arthur by proxy. A famous 17th-century painting by Peter Paul Rubens depicts the proxy marriage of Marie de Medici.[1]

Also, if you live in Colorado, California, Texas, or Montana, you can get married by proxy, even in this day and age.

[Alexia]

But here's the point you are sorta, kinda skipping. The wedding of Tyrek to Ermesande is pretty much a sham. By everything we know, she is far, far to young to consent to a marriage (she's still a baby in swaddling clothes). It is derided as a gross abuse on the part of the Lannisters, but who would say so? It was all designed to make sure that when Lady Ermesande is old enough to come on the market, she would already be spoken for.

I'm not denying that its abusive - because it really is. But it appears to be legal in Westeros and the weddings appear to be valid.

I am in no way, shape, or form defending these marriages. They are incredibly abusive, involve rape, are demeaning of women and women's rights, etc. But if we are asking if they are legal then between the canon and the SSM I think that they are. That doesn't mean the Lannister actions are approved of by their peers - I think the reaction of the Starks to Lady Hornwood's marriage takes care of that theory, no?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. :)

[Alexia]

Otherwise, you'd have everyone marrying Danaerys by proxy without her consent, a world away, and pretending to be royalty.

How could they do that, without some sort of legal claim to guardianship of her?