Why does everybody hate Sansa?

[Daena the Defiant]

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.

That depends, really. As do all things, I guess. If Marguerite really didn't consent and wanted to contest the marriage as being invalid, then she'd have to go and present her cause to whomever it would be with the authority to back up her claim and/or rule on it. In her case, all parties were pretty much (except her) in favor of the marriage being deemed lawfully valid, so she was without recourse.

And the other thing to remember about the Lady Lion of Valois is that she was cast as a huge villainess in the War of the Roses, and the idea that she did not consent to her wedding is something that her enemies would have accused her of as a way of undermining her validity as the proponent of the House Lancaster, while also suggesting that she is unwomanly and such, not being properly docile etc...

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.

But, in their own ways, each of those is seen as an aberration, forced upon women (and girls [and infants]) without the political and military wherewithal to contest or change the situation. No one tried to kidnap Catelyn when she was Hoster's heir and marry her, thus claiming Riverrun. Because, hey, that is an outrageous act of war and would tend to piss off people who can act on their pissed offness.

We don't really know very much about what actually happened to Lady Hornwood, other than it was horrific, and since Sansa actually did mutter her vows in front of witnesses, a petition for annulment would be pretty tricky since the only people who would know that she and Tyrion did not consummate would be Tyrion and Sansa.

At Catherine of Aragon's trial in which she contested the divorce and annulment of her marriage to Henry VIII, she insisted that she and Prince Arthur had never had sex. The Crown resorted to taking testimony from Arthur's valets and such that he boasted of "going to Spain" on his wedding night, even though Catherine maintained that Arthur never even applied for a visa ;) And Catherine of Aragon, sister of of the king, daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand, cousin of the Holy Roman Emperor, was certainly in a far better position than Sansa Stark.

[Alexia]

But, in their own ways, each of those is seen as an aberration, forced upon women (and girls [and infants]) without the political and military wherewithal to contest or change the situation.

And this is a point that I absolutely agree with you - it is not approved of, not seen in a positive light, and brings the Lannisters in for some mockery (remember Wet Nurse ;)). But it is legal in the context of that society.

and since Sansa actually did mutter her vows in front of witnesses, a petition for annulment would be pretty tricky since the only people who would know that she and Tyrion did not consummate would be Tyrion and Sansa.

WRT Sansa, I actually think she could get one. 1) Tyrion is mocked all through the Red Keep for not consummating - her virginity was public knowledge; 2) She's married to the twisted little kinslaying monkey demon, it's a righteous thing to liberate her from such an evil sinner; 3) Lannisters out, new world order in - negotiate her annulment in exchange for concessions from the Starks and the Arryns. Sansa may also still have her hymen although I doubt it. But I don't think an annulment is in LF's plans for her.

At Catherine of Aragon's trial in which she contested the divorce and annulment of her marriage to Henry VIII, she insisted that she and Prince Arthur had never had sex. The Crown resorted to taking testimony from Arthur's valets and such that he boasted of "going to Spain" on his wedding night, even though Catherine maintained that Arthur never even applied for a visa ;) And Catherine of Aragon, sister of of the king, daughter of Isabella and Ferdinand, cousin of the Holy Roman Emperor, was certainly in a far better position than Sansa Stark.

Well, the Crown backed her in the annulment so that she could marry Henry. And when Henry wanted his marriage to her annulled, the Pope was most entertainingly the hostage of her nephew and therefore refused to give it. And thus began the Church of England. ;)

[Alexia]

And the other thing to remember about the Lady Lion of Valois is that she was cast as a huge villainess in the War of the Roses, and the idea that she did not consent to her wedding is something that her enemies would have accused her of as a way of undermining her validity as the proponent of the House Lancaster, while also suggesting that she is unwomanly and such, not being properly docile etc...

:huh: :huh: :huh:

I think you're confusing her with Margaret of Anjou. Margaret of Valois was around during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I - quite some time after the War of the Roses. The St. Batholomew's Day Massacre took place six days after her wedding.

[Daena the Defiant]

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. :)

I know you're not defending them, but it all goes back to an essential element of this series, laws of inheritance and succession and yes, marriage are all somewhat vague, and even when someone bends the rules or outright abuses them, someone's ability to contest or sue or lay a claim is only as valid as their ability to enforce their contestation, suit or claim.

However, don't mistake the inability of a wronged party to actually successfully enforce their claim with it being deemed lawful.

This is one those conceptual things that we, I think, as citizens of the western world totally take for granted. If someone scooped my little sister off the street and made her marry some dude so they can claim our father's house in Staten Island, (setting aside the criminality of such an act - she's only 17), we would a.) immediately have the marriage annulled and b.) fight tooth and nail to make sure they keep his hands off our father's property.

Since our family has no personal army, we'd go to the courts, demonstrate the illegality of these actions and rely upon the police to enforce the court's ruling.

In a feudal system, when the party that would be ruling on the legality of the situation is the same party acting illegally, and the party to whom would befall the duty of enforcing the law is also the same, you're pretty much screwed unless the wronged party has his or her own army in his or her pocket.

It's pretty clear that everyone is appalled at Lady Hornwood's treatment, but no one has the time or resources to address it. Everyone is scandalized at the wedding of Lady Ermesande, but no one has the will to complain. No one is really being screwed, and besides who wants to challenge the Lannisters on this?

The issue with Darry is somewhat similar. By all rights, Lady Amarei Darry is not the proper heiress of Darry, but the Lannisters decided that it suits them best to pretend she is and anyone who disputes it is welcome to do so and take their best shot, if they dare.

[Daena the Defiant]

:huh: :huh: :huh:

I think you're confusing her with Margaret of Anjou. Margaret of Valois was around during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I - quite some time after the War of the Roses. The St. Batholomew's Day Massacre took place six days after her wedding.

Queen Margeret of Anjou (Margurite d'Anjou), wife of Henry VI, was derided as an unwomanly amazon, a foreign harlot, and to top it all off, she didn't even actually marry the king!?!?. However, she was born of the House of Valois.

Her detractors of the day had a slew of insults and epithets for her, but the most flattering of them was the Lady Lion of the Valois, since she often travelled with the Lancastrian forces because her husband was a mentally ill wreck of man, and well, someone had to fight for the rights of their son.

Marguerite d'Anjou is, imho, one of the neglected heroines of European history.

[Alexia]

In a feudal system, when the party that would be ruling on the legality of the situation is the same party acting illegally, and the party to whom would befall the duty of enforcing the law is also the same, you're pretty much screwed unless the wronged party has his or her own army in his or her pocket.

This is exactly what I've been doing such a bad job of trying to say.

Sansa, for example, was screwed as long as she was in Kings Landing with no allies of her own. Now that she is out of there and in the Vale, it is very unlikely that her marriage will last the series. Why? Because the Stark heir is valuable and its in the interests of the Vale lords to marry her to one of their own. She could leave LF at any time (she just needs to realize it) knock on Bronze Yohn's door and tell him who she is.

Now that she has political allies with the only fresh army in Westeros, the Lannisters will not be getting her back.

[Alexia]

Queen Margeret of Anjou )Margurite d'Anjou) was derided as an unwomanly amazon, and was also born of the House of Valois. Her detractors of the day had a slew of insults and epithets for her, but the most flattering of them was the Lady Lion of Valois, since she often travelled with the Lancastrian forces because her husband was a mentally ill wreck of amn, and well, someone had to fight for the rights of their son.

Marguerite d'Anjou is, imho, one of the neglected heroines of European history.

I rather like her although she did contribute to the downfall of the Lancasters IMO, although I suppose its hard to make up for Henry VI craziness. I didn't know she was also a Valois. And offtopic, the Shakespeare Theatre in DC is showing Henry V and I really want to go see it!

I was talking about this Margaret of Valois. ;)

Incidentally, who else thinks Baelor the Blessed and King Aerys were both inspired by Henry VI?

[Daena the Defiant]

I rather like her although she did contribute to the downfall of the Lancasters IMO, although I suppose its hard to make up for Henry VI craziness. I didn't know she was also a Valois. And offtopic, the Shakespeare Theatre in DC is showing Henry V and I really want to go see it!

You should totally read some Sharon Kay Penman. The Sunne in Splendor is her novelization of the War of the Roses and it really offers a two-sided portrayal. Queen Margaret (Marguerite d'Anjou) was vilified by centuries of historians for basically being a foreign queen fighting against the Yorkists, but as later historians have come to show us, she was pretty cool ;), if very French and haughty.

[Alexia]

You should totally read some Sharon Kay Penman. The Sunne in Splendor is her novelization of the War of the Roses and it really offers a two-sided portrayal. Queen Margaret (Marguerite d'Anjou) was vilified by centuries of historians for basically being a foreign queen fighting against the Yorkists, but as later historians have come to show us, she was pretty cool ;), if very French and haughty.

I'm adding that to my Amazon wish list. I read Allison Weir's The War of the Roses and that's pretty much where I get my knowledge on Margaret, Henry VI, and Co. from.

[Daena the Defiant]

Incidentally, who else thinks Baelor the Blessed and King Aerys were both inspired by Henry VI?

No joke.

The whole Targaryen dynasty is bedazzled with gems that GRRM plucked here and there from the most famous episodes of European monarchy. Rhaenrya and Aegon III are totally Queen Maude and King Stephen, Maegor the Cruel is a nightmare composite of Henry VIII and Ivan the Terrible, Cersei Lannister is an evil distillation of Elisabeth Woodville, queen of Henry IV, with a dash of Margeurite d'Anjou thrown in.

It does disappoint me slightly that the Targaryen family has many historical analogues that GRRM modelled on renowned and/or notorious kings and princes, but his Targaryen women lack their Eleanor of Aquitaine, or Blanche of Castille, or Isabella, She-Wolf of France. I know Daena the Defiant is cool and all, but still. Elizabeth Bathory as Shiera Seastar does not count either :(

[Alexia]

Did you know that there was a law on the books in Westeros giving lords the right to sleep with peasant brides on their wedding night? It was around until a Targaryen queen (can't remember her name) convinced her husband to get rid of it.

English history is very heavily drawn on here. :)

[Lady Blackfish]

Alexia, I think that was Alysanne wasn't it? Alysanne supposedly looks like Kate Hepburn as Lion in Winter style Eleanor of Aquitaine :)

[Daena the Defiant]

Did you know that there was a law on the books in Westeros giving lords the right to sleep with peasant brides on their wedding night? It was around until a Targaryen queen (can't remember her name) convinced her husband to get rid of it.

English history is very heavily drawn on here. :)

That's Queen Alysanne, I think, the wise and compassionate queen to King Jaehaerys I, the Conciliator :). She may have been his sister, and Amok might think she looks a tad like Katherine Hepburn, but she seemed like a great broad.

[Alexia]

You ladies are of course correct. :)

Lords in Westeros once had the right to the first night (the custom of bedding newlywed common women before their husbands), but Queen Alysanne convinced King Jaehaerys I to abolish it (TSS: 94)

[Daena the Defiant]

Sansa, for example, was screwed as long as she was in Kings Landing with no allies of her own. Now that she is out of there and in the Vale, it is very unlikely that her marriage will last the series. Why? Because the Stark heir is valuable and its in the interests of the Vale lords to marry her to one of their own. She could leave LF at any time (she just needs to realize it) knock on Bronze Yohn's door and tell him who she is.

Now that she has political allies with the only fresh army in Westeros, the Lannisters will not be getting her back.

This is also an example of how Cersei bit off more than she could chew when she decided to fuck with Margaery. Screwing around with Sansa is one thing, last daughter of a shattered dynasty, whose allied bloc of houses is also on its last legs, but screwing around with Margaery is altogether different since Margaery's family is all still alive, in power, and really, really ambitious, with money and swords to throw where they want to throw them.

Cersei tried to dispute the legitimacy of the wedding of Joffrey and Margaery, but the Tyrells were in a position to press the situation. Cersei, for some mysterious reason, wanted to pretend that it was valid, but the Tyrells want to insist it was not consummated, thus making Tommen a proper substitute (no ickiness regarding a 'brother's widow'), and since they are the second wealthiest house in the 7K, and have the largest army in the capitol, they got what they wanted.

[Alexia]

This is also an example of how Cersei bit off more than she could chew when she decided to fuck with Margaery.

This is one of the things that I think got screwed over when Martin scrapped the five year gap. That Cersei and Margaery would eventually go head-to-head and fight for power I think is a given, considering both personalities. But it happened too fast for me to suspend my sense of disbelief. The Cersei of the first three books was not that stupid - incompetent to be sure but she was no man's fool. She would have known better.

Cersei was in my short list of favorite characters before I read AFFC and now I don't even know what to think of her. Why, Martin, why? :tantrum:

[Hot Pie for President]

Huh? When turned this thread into a westeros divorce lawyer guidebook?!

@ Errand Bard regarding Cat-arriving-in-Winterfell-timeline: You're right, as always.

I might be reading your post wrong but there is one thing for which I respect Catelyn very much. An authoritative mother (what IMO Lady Stark was, but we can think about Cersei too) could very well made her children hate any one in that harsh world and especially a bastard half-brother who could some day turn to be claimant for all that belongs to them (the legitimate children.) Well Cat never did that and offered her kids the freedom of choise. Whatever she had kept in her heart, Lady Stark was benevolent enough to not create prejudice in her children minds against Jon. On the contrary She must have known for sure that Rob and Arya had excellent relations with Jon. And she left thеm be.

So If I understood you right - then you are wrong. (IMO)

If I do not - just ignore all that rant.

It's inexplicable to me how this idea gets repeated amongst readers. Cat is all about living in the real world, in fact people hate her for raining on people's parade. With Ned, Robb, Edmure, everyone we see her interacting with, she is all about "Wake up and look at reality". GRRM gives us scenes of Ned with almost all of his children, and with Cat we only get interactions with Robb. There is nothing this "Cat spoils Sansa and mishandles Arya" thing comes from except what readers want to believe.

I agree so far that Cat would never ever force her children to decide between her or Ned. She's not Cersei. What I was thinking about is more subtle, a passive agressive behaviour in the early years of their (Ned+Cat) marriage. I don't think she allowed herself to be conscious of those feelings, exactly because she knows it would be of no good for her familiy. But she isn't a robot. As for being benevolent, as Dreadwolf stated: she tries to be, for sure. But it wasn't very benevolent but more a clue for held back agressions that made her say that she wished Jon dying instead of Bran.

As I said, Cat causing Sansa's snooty-ism is only a theory of mine. Or more something like a notional personality profile caused by too much time to think about the characters and dangerous psychological half-knowlegde, in which I leave the canon an dare to step on the thin ice of speculation. By the way, I'm not of the "Cat spoils Sansa and mishandles Arya"-faction. Who ever said Arya was mishandled by Cat?!

Then that would make [Ned] a pretty irresponsible parent

Betrothing her to Joff and expecting to improve the relationship between the houses never speaking with her about his character, leaving her little dreamy worldview untouched, never telling her that the court is a snakepit despite the fact she has to be queen one day, not telling her (or Arya, btw) that leaving KL is for their safety and not because of a little controversy makes him, in my eyes, a pretty irresponsible parent.

[Datepalm]

Betrothing her to Joff and expecting to improve the relationship between the houses never speaking with her about his character, leaving her little dreamy worldview untouched, never telling her that the court is a snakepit despite the fact she has to be queen one day, not telling her (or Arya, btw) that leaving KL is for their safety and not because of a little controversy makes him, in my eyes, a pretty irresponsible parent.

It mostly makes him a wildly sentimental one, who dosen't want to admit his little girls are of marrigiable age and tangled hip deep in politics and swordplay. Ofcourse, thats our Ned, and its a bit understandable considering what the last round of marriage contracts in his family led to.

[Lummel]

There are things you can teach and other things that you have to learn.

How is Ned going to explain realpolitik to a twelve year old?

"Listen sweetheart, my little lady Stark, your marriage is a political sham, act happy, it's best for everybody. Remember: trust Starks, your Mother's kin, Northerners, Snakes, Scorpions and Andals in that order"

[Hot Pie for President]

It mostly makes him a wildly sentimental one, who dosen't want to admit his little girls are of marrigiable age and tangled hip deep in politics and swordplay. Of course, thats our Ned, and its a bit understandable considering what the last round of marriage contracts in his family led to.

I agree fully. And I love Ned for his intention to keep his children innocent. But still, it's irresponsible. He was watching his twelve year old daughter move towards desaster and did not even try to warn her. Betrothing her to Joff was like placing her in an rubber boat three miles upstream the Niagara Falls. Not preparing her for Joff's character was like to deny her a paddle.

There are things you can teach and other things that you have to learn. How is Ned going to explain realpolitik to a twelve year old? "Listen sweetheart, my little lady Stark, your marriage is a political sham, act happy, it's best for everybody. Remember: trust Starks, your Mother's kin, Northerners, Snakes, Scorpions and Andals in that order"

I like that last sentence.

It might have been enough if someone told her that she might one day find herself in the position that she would have to decide between her familiy and the loyalty towards her fiancée.

The chief cause of the wide spread Sansa-hate is the moment when she hesistated about telling the truth about Arya's wolf. She obviously wasn't sure if she could tell the truth, thereby be loyal to her family and affront her future husband and mother-in-law, or if she was expected to lie for her fiancé. In staying loyal to Joff, would her family be mad at her or would they have been proud of her for fulfilling her diplomatic duty?

A situation like this was, regarding the immense love between Starks and Lannisters, foreseeable. Thus, it would have been nice to prepare her.