Tangential discussion: Did Sansa 'betray' Ned?

[James Arryn]

Feel free to offer your opinions, and even more, to respond to points I/others have made in the 'positions you don't agree with' thread, allowing for the option of liberal quotation.

The general question: does Sansa going to Cersei when Ned tells her to pack up, they're leaving, no arguments constitute a betrayal? Or would that require conscious knowledge of the exact repercussions beforehand?

(Hope this helps.)

[Castel]

Yes she did. But it was less of a betrayal from her point of view and more an appeal to outside forces to intercede for her love. This is something people do even today. She didn't know, she couldn't have known. Calling for her death for it (as people did in the other thread) is a bit much

Honestly I thought Queen Cersei and Lyanna were exaggerating when they said people wished death on characters like Cat and Sansa, guess I was wrong.

[James Arryn]

Wow, I missed people calling for her death, so I'll concede that's weird, though the amount of 'off with their heads' in the text and surrounding discussions kinda blurs the lines of reason for me. For example, I am completely opposed to capital punishment, but engaged in a 'How should this person die' thread just for fun last week, mainly trying to tie up the means with the character in an ironic way.

So, I don't take all the comments that literally, but can see how people who do would be seriously offended.

But my contention re: her betrayal stands as written in the other thread.

[Golden Lady]

Personally I think that yes, she did. Her father protected her, he lost his honour and she did nothing.she stayed with joffrey, and even supported him.he killed her father in front of her eyes and she did not do a thing !

[deleted01]

Haven't seen the other thread.

I think Sansa did betray Ned, but she's hardly to blame. Ned should never have told his plans to two young girls, who are not known for keeping secrets, let's be serious. And Sansa truly believed that Joffrey loved her, and that Cersei had taken her under her wing and loved her too. Who doesn't want to please the future in-laws? Let alone the royal bloody family. She made a mistake, a probably well-meant mistake. She didn't want to be taken away from her prince - how could she have known what her prince would do to her after he'd chopped off her fathers' head?

ETA: @Golden Lady: What could she have done? A young girl, arguing against the king? He had her beaten enough times after that for doing nothing, and besides, why would she think he would have listened to her?

I'm not a Sansa fan, but this isn't something I can hold against her.

[Lord Ben]

There is a certain segment of fans that want nearly every character to die as some sort of F you to literature or because they think the way to combat "disney" endings is to have everyone die. That is dumb.

That said, Sansa certainly betrayed him. But she was doing it for the Queen and King/Prince which does excuse it slightly. But you're in a setting where family is SUPER important, more than individuality. So that counts as points against her certainly.

However the butchers bill on that betrayal has already been paid, it let Cersei know that Ned was planning something he wanted the girls out of the city for and IMHO is what caused her to pull LF/City Watch to her side instead of Neds and strike first.

[Ser Hippie]

If Ned doesn't have his talk with Cersei or isn't as lax about the security surrounding his daughters' departure (note, Arya also wanted to see Syrio), then it wouldn't have mattered. Sansa shouldn't have told Cersei, but she's a young girl. Blaming her for what happened doesn't really make sense, as Ned's the one who screwed the pooch.

[Corm]

I think being opposed to capital punishment and wanting a fictional character to die aren't even comparable. I wanted Catelyn to die for a long time, then she did and I was quite happy until she turned up again.

As regards Sansa I think she did betray him but unwittingly and so don't hate her as some others do. That said, you should never betray family so that's a definite strike against her in my book.

[The King in the South]

The concept of betrayal by its very nature implies a sort of knowledge in which one one (the betrayer) understands to harm to the betrayee. I do not believe Sansa was in anyway in tune with, or even close to fully aware of this knowledge, so I can not call her action a betrayal.

I think far too many people on here seriously overestimate the capacity of what an 11 year old can do and see, especially one like Sansa. Just because Arya is in tune with something, does not mean that Sansa is or has to be.

Also, anyone saying Sansa needs to be "punished" for this is frankly disturbing. It's not like she has not suffered enough anyways.

[Castel]

Personally I think that yes, she did. Her father protected her, he lost his honour and she did nothing.she stayed with joffrey, and even supported him.he killed her father in front of her eyes and she did not do a thing !

And this is another thing that I don't get. I also see this a lot, blaming characters because a favorite character died because of something they couldn't predict or control. What exactly was she supposed to do as they killed Ned? Please, enlighten me.

[James Arryn]

I'll post my position in a bit, but for now would like to ask that people divorce the question from the discussion about what 'punishment' or whatever should be, whether Sansa should die, all that. I suppose that's a (bizarre, imo) discussion in and of itself, but imo has no bearing on the question asked in this thread.

[Winter's Knight]

There is a certain segment of fans that want nearly every character to die as some sort of F you to literature or because they think the way to combat "disney" endings is to have everyone die. That is dumb.

That said, Sansa certainly betrayed him. But she was doing it for the Queen and King/Prince which does excuse it slightly. But you're in a setting where family is SUPER important, more than individuality. So that counts as points against her certainly.

However the butchers bill on that betrayal has already been paid, it let Cersei know that Ned was planning something he wanted the girls out of the city for and IMHO is what caused her to pull LF/City Watch to her side instead of Neds and strike first.

Actually, according to that argument, your king is above everything else in a feudalistic society.

[deleted01]

Just read the other thread.. wow. Same old shit.

Anywho, after taking a look at some of the fascinating opinions that came up, I have to say that I stand by my view that Sansa betrayed Ned, that she knew at least in part what she was doing by going behind his back, but she didn't do it to hurt him or the rest of her family. The idea that she was so focused on her "need" to be with Joffrey, and so not be parted from her dream, is interesting. I think most children of that age are selfish, and what they want is always at the forefront of their minds. I think all Sansa could see was her heart being broken by being torn away from her prince and her future as queen, something she'd dreamed of for so long. Not for a moment do I believe she expected Ned to be thrown into a dungeon and then killed, and for war to be declared on her "traitor mother and brother". I think she truly saw Joffrey as this amazing, handsome prince, who would love her forever and shower her with gifts, give her the life she'd always dreamed of and make her his queen. I don't think she saw a drop of evil in him until he lopped her fathers' head off.

The thing that annoys me about Sansa is that her life is still a song. She's been through hell, there's no denying that, but lo and behold, someone comes and rescues her! And who other than the man who loved her mother dearly, probably the one person who will actually look after and love her. Some readers admire her ability to forget the bad things that have happened to her, such as when it starts snowing in the Eyrie, but I shake my head when I read scenes like that. It seems that she hasn't learned much, despite her perils, and that infuriates me. She isn't a very believable character, for me, and she is one I definitely cannot identify with.

As for her 'punishment', I've seen no such comments, and I think she suffered quite enough at the hands of King Festering Boil.

Oh, and I do blame her, at least partially, for what happened with Mycah and Lady. I understand the arguments against blaming her, and I know she must have been scared, but she lied, for no other reason than so she didn't lose her prince. Being scared is understandable, but she had her father and his household guard around her, she should have trusted in her father to protect her. Sansa has never seemed to care about those weaker or socially 'beneath' her, and so I read that as Joffrey meaning more to her than the death of the butchers' boy. Because after all, he was only a butchers' son, who cares about him? <_<

Edit: damn typos..

[Lord Ben]

The concept of betrayal by its very nature implies a sort of knowledge in which one one (the betrayer) understands to harm to the betrayee. I do not believe Sansa was in anyway in tune with, or even close to fully aware of this knowledge, so I can not call her action a betrayal.

I think far too many people on here seriously overestimate the capacity of what an 11 year old can do and see, especially one like Sansa. Just because Arya is in tune with something, does not mean that Sansa is or has to be.

Also, anyone saying Sansa needs to be "punished" for this is frankly disturbing. It's not like she has not suffered enough anyways.

Answering your paragraphs

1. You don't go against your family. Ever. Kinslayers aren't mere murderors, they're reviled as unnatural by pretty much everyone, even the kinslayers themselves typically. Winter is coming and you have to be the pack that sticks together, not a lone wolf. Family bonds/responsibilities is one of the primary driving mechanisms in the stories.

2. Ignore Westeros ages. It's clearly not a setting where people do impressive things at young ages. To believe Rob Stark is a cabable leader/commander at 14 but then excuse Sansa for being "only 11" is to cherry pick when you judge people as Westerossi and when you apply modern expectations on them.

3. I think her character arc will show tremendous change as she experiences the world. For her character to grow from an immature selfish little princess into something else it should be recognized where her character story started. She started by being caught up in love, selfish, and so eager to be queen that she betrayed her family and father in order to curry favor with the Queen. I think her actions should have repercussions like every other character, just like Ned's decision to act honorably meant his head. Those repercussions have mostly already occured and anything left has pretty much been set in motion with her being carried off by LF for his own purposes. I do think it will "and should" get a bit worse though first. Whatever plans LF has I doubt they're for her own direct benefit and that should play itself out.

[Lord Ben]

Actually, according to that argument, your king is above everything else in a feudalistic society.

The King isn't above everything else? That's why they call it King! I'm not arguing for the moral "rightness" of hereditary monarchies but lets recognize the world the characters exist in.

[David Selig]

No. Betrayal is way too strong of a word for what she did. She disobeyed her father, something which every child does. She didn't know how serious the situation was (partly because she was unobservant and in love with Joffrey, but mostly because her father didn't tell her), Don't forget that even after the Lady's death and Jaime's attack on Ned and his men, the engagement between Sansa and Joffrey wasn't called off which from her PoV naturally meant that the problems between the Starks and the Lannisters aren't that serious and can be fixed.

However the butchers bill on that betrayal has already been paid, it let Cersei know that Ned was planning something he wanted the girls out of the city for and IMHO is what caused her to pull LF/City Watch to her side instead of Neds and strike first.

Why is it necessary for Cersei to hear that Ned is sending his daughters away to act? The king is dying, Cersei knows Ned is aware of the twincest and is not the kind of man who'd stay silent, she needed to ensure she controllled the strongest force in the city.

Then there's the timeline. Ned instructed LF to buy the loyalty of the City watch during the night. Sans went to Cersei the next morning only an hour before Ned was arrested. I find it unlikely that LF sat on his ass and did nothing for many hours at the most crucial time. Chances are he'd already fixed things so Cersei would have the Watch on her side by the time Sansa went to her.

[Ser Hippie]

So if we blame Sansa for harming her family at age 11, what do we do with Ned who basically puts his head on a platter for Cersei by

(1) Telling her his plans

(2) Refusing to work with Renly

(3) Refusing to work with LF to control Joffrey (and instead blindly accepting the gold cloaks would be his)

(4) Neglecting to take any precautions w/regards to Robert's will, instead blindly assuming it would be respected

(5) Apparently neglects to ensure the "secret" departure of his daughters is kept secret, he couldn't, you know, assign a guard to Sansa to be safe, regardless of anything else?

Sansa is 11. Ned is the highly respected and seasoned Lord and Warden of the North. Whose "betrayal" of their family warrants more scorn?

Some people seem absurdly eager to paint an eleven year old girl as some sort of nefarious Judas when Ned is the one that preciptates the disaster.

As for the earlier post about Sansa being saved by LF; sure, she gets saved by a creepy man who has sexual fantasies about her and controls her to the extent that she's trapped within his web. What a lucky girl.

[Winter's Knight]

The King isn't above everything else? That's why they call it King! I'm not arguing for the moral "rightness" of hereditary monarchies but lets recognize the world the characters exist in.

Yes, even above your family-if the King says marry X and your father forbids it, within the norms of a feudal society, obeying your father would make you a traitor.

[Dr. Pepper]

Yes, in the most basic sense it's a betrayal. Her internal thought process indicates that she knows it was not proper to go behind her father's backs. However, the betrayal isn't in the same category as Robb breaking his betrothal contract with the Freys or Jaime lying to Tyrion about Tysha. Sansa was acting from a position of ignorance. She knows that Ned wants them to leave KL and break the betrothal but she does not know why. At the time, the Queen had presented as a stand-in mother figure for Sansa. What Sansa did was the equivalent of a teenager today being told by her father she couldn't go out with the boy and then running to her mother to ask permission. It's still a betrayal of trust of sorts, but it's a completely forgivable action.

The admirable thing is that she learned very quickly from this. She still isn't able to fully understand the games the high nobles play, but she's watching and listening and internalizing these lessons as they come.

[Lord Ben]

Yes, even above your family-if the King says marry X and your father forbids it, within the norms of a feudal society, obeying your father would make you a traitor.

Correct, you can't defy the King. But it doesn't mean you have to run and squeal to his wife every time you Dad tells you to do something you disagree with.