Did Sansa Lose Lady Because of Lying to Arya

[The Prince of Ice]

At what part in all of this does Sansa's testimony become the critical piece that decides Lady's life? What is so hard to understand about this.

Sansa tells the truth: It is confirmed that Arya attacked Joffrey first to stand up for a peasant. Then Nymeria attacks Joffrey and Arya steals his sword and disposes it. Verdict: Cersei would have called for punishment of the Starks; Lady is the most likely target

Sansa doesn't testify: neither side of the story is confirmed, but Joffrey has evidence of a wolf bite no matter who struck first. Verdict: Cersei calls for punishment of the Starks; Lady is the most likely target

If Joff is proven to be a liar Cersei may not have insisted because of embarrasment.

I think Ned and Bob would take Aryas side in this situation especially if Joff is proven to be a liar.

[twizz]

It's interesting that Ned knows the truth, yet doesn't speak up. How does this play into your version of events, I wonder? If the truth was truly something that could exonerate Arya, then why doesn't Ned speak up? What do you make of his silence, I wonder?

Ned's silence makes sense, he was not a direct witness, Sansa was, which is why he called her to speak..

Ned didn't call on Sansa. The KING did. Like the buffoon he is.

"They were not the only ones present," Ned said. "Sansa, come here." Ned had heard her version of the story the night Arya had vanished. He knew the truth.

"Tell us what happened"

[butterbumps!]

If Joff is proven to be a liar Cersei may not have insisted because of embarrasment.

I think Ned and Bob would take Aryas side in this situation especially if Joff is proven to be a liar.

No. You are missing the problem here. The truth actually hurts Arya, because Arya was the first to attack Joffrey and is therefore wrong according to the law and would require punishment for this indiscretion. As you say, it is unlikely Arya would have truly lost her hand, but that means some other chastening is necessary, and since her wolf cannot be found, Lady is likely to be the object of punishment anyway.

The law is, actually, on Joffrey's side.

[TheMysteriousOne]

If Joff is proven to be a liar Cersei may not have insisted because of embarrasment.

I think Ned and Bob would take Aryas side in this situation especially if Joff is proven to be a liar.

She would still have insisted, it's Cersei.

ETA: What butterbumps said. The law is on Joffrey's side, whether or not Sansa told the truth.

[Mladen]

If Joff is proven to be a liar Cersei may not have insisted because of embarrasment.

I think Ned and Bob would take Aryas side in this situation especially if Joff is proven to be a liar.

Would they? Cersei hit the cord with the question ' What about wolf?' Even if Arya is pardoned due to her status and because she told the truth, she, Sansa and no one can deny that Nymeria did bite Joffrey... And that would lead to demand dead direwolf. In any case, Lady would be dead.

[Kittykatknits]

She did pressure him to punish Arya and Bob said shut up woman pretty much. Ned wasnt gonna let Bob punish her daughter for doing the RIGHT and honorable thing. This is why i say if Bob did punish Arya then Ned would have given up the position as Hand of King.

How can you serve a man who punishes a child for doing the right thing?

That's not the whole story. Back in Tyrion's first chapter, Cersei says she does not want the wolves in KL. In other words, if there is a way for her to get rid of the wolves, then Cersei will take advantage of that fact. She had the desire from the very beginning. In a Jaime chapter later in the series, we also learn that Robert and Cersei had been up all night arguing over the incident, again lending credence to the idea that Cersei wanted the wolves gone and the Starks to be punished in some way.

Cersei saw an opening and took advantage to have Lady killed. Robert, cowardly man that he is, let her.

[mrunderhill]

Tell me how would Sansa hide the fact that Joffrey was indeed bitten by wild animal. Animal would be killed even though Arya was telling the truth. Direwolf wouldn't be seen as dog, and they would even put a dog to death, yet alone direwolf. Nymeria was dead the moment she bit Joffrey, and Arya saved her life by chasing her away with Jory.

It would be revealed that Joffrey tried to kill a 9 year old girl and the direwolf jumped into save her. Joffrey would be disgraced at court and in no place to making demands. Instead he would be worrying about the punishment he was going to receive. However, we will never know the truth, because Sansa decided to betray her sister.

She disobeyed him, or that is what is called when someone doesn't do what was ordered. Ned never spoke of Lannisters as enemies, or Cersei, he spoke about Jaime. And in Sansa's mind those 2 were separable...

She did not only disobey him she also betrayed him. Ned did speak of the Lannisters as enemies, Ned told her they were in a dangerous situation and Ned told her not to trust anyone including Joffrey and the Queen. He carefully explained why she could not say goodbye, but Sansa decided to betray her family.

Yes, you see how it works? You present fallible argument, and someone proves it otherwise. Difference is I do that intenionally, and am capable of admitting mistakes. Thing is Sansa didn't willingly betrayed her father, she didn't know the possible ramifications, and she was manipulated to tell Cersei everything she knew. Cersei used her trust and her childish love for Joffrey to find out some data she needed. We usually call the children who are manipulated victims... It's like real life scenario where kidnapper offering sweets make child to enter the car...

Sansa willingly betrayed her family. She may have not known the full ramifications, but she still willingly went and did something to hurt the family interest to benefit her. We don't know how much she was manipulated. Your excuses are becoming more and more ridiculous now. Sansa was safe in her own quarters, but snuck out to go and betray her family. Cersei did not offer her anything to lead to this betrayal. She went and did it out of her own free will so that she could get what she wanted.

I was talking about ASOIAF, not fans... For every act there is some justification behind it. Even for RW, we got Tywin's excuse...

Understanding is not justification. For some acts in ASOIAF there is no justification.

[twizz]

No. You are missing the problem here. The truth actually hurts Arya, because Arya was the first to attack Joffrey and is therefore wrong according to the law and would require punishment for this indiscretion. As you say, it is unlikely Arya would have truly lost her hand, but that means some other chastening is necessary, and since her wolf cannot be found, Lady is likely to be the object of punishment anyway.

The law is, actually, on Joffrey's side.

Your missing the point. The law may have been on Joffrey's side but Robert may not have been, and may have decided to only punish his son for what happened. This is what Ned is banking on by calling on Sansa to tell the truth. Your belief that the truth would actually hurt Arya is foolish, because Ned would never call on Sansa if he believed the truth would cause his daughter to be punished. He knows Robert better then we do, there must be a reason he wants Arya's story corroborated.

[Jasta11]

I'm pretty sure you can blame Lady's death on Cercei first (she's the one that demanded it after all), Robert second (he cowed before his wife) and maybe Sansa a distant third. I'm pretty sure that Robert had to do a ''trial'' of sorts; the Crown Prince was savaged, this is not something which you can just handwave via the law, on that Mr. Underhill is right. But Butterbumps is also right that the truth wouldn't have helped Lady or Arya much, since defending a commoner would certainly not have been a good reason for attacking Joffrey in the eyes of anyone there but Ned. In the end, after Sansa lies, Robert is ready to just drop the affair, but he goes into coward mode once more when Cercei reminds him of Lady.

Basically, if you want a culrprit, look at Cercei.

[Ser Not Appearing]

The answer is yes.

[butterbumps!]

"They were not the only ones present," Ned said. "Sansa, come here." Ned had heard her version of the story the night Arya had vanished. He knew the truth.

"Tell us what happened"

She is there, in the hall in the first place, because the king summoned her.

Even ARYA knows that Nym would have been killed in this. This is why she throws rocks at Nym at the Trident, to make sure Nym doesn't follow her back. Arya knew Nym would be put to death as a consequence of this:

“I told her to run, to go be free, that I didn’t want her anymore. There were other wolves for her to play with, we heard them howling, and Jory said the woods were full of game, so she’d have deer to hunt. Only she kept following, and finally we had to throw rocks. I hit her twice. She whined and looked at me and I felt so ’shamed, but it was right, wasn’t it? The queen would have killed her.”

“It was right,” her father said. “And even the lie was … not without honor.”

[Lala]

I've always felt like Lady's execution was less a "karma to Sansa" than a characterization of the moral ambiguity of Cersei and the weakness of Robert as the "King's Justice"? With a slight nudge towards Sansa's amazing character development as the story progresses.

(1) As previous posters have stated, irrelevant of what happened, Joff was injured by a wolf

(2) Cersei has already shown that she has no interest in what actually happened

(3) Robert has already shown that he is incapable of refusing Cersei's wish to escalate what is, to begin with, a very small disagreement between 4 children

(4) Sansa's testimony

(a) she told the truth - Robert and Ned would have been put in a difficult position since the majority of the party were Lannister bannermen and there was no way Cersei was backing down, it would have likely resulted in the end of her engagement to Joff, which would then further estrange the Lannisters and Starks

(b ) she supported Joffrey - that would've certainly resulted in Arya being punished, and possibly her father as well for not properly "educating" his daughter

(c ) she said nothing - which allows for a muddled, no fault conclusion

(5) Cersei wants someone to be punished - she isn't rational and never approached the situation in a rational manner - it doesn't matter to her whether the guilty party is punished or not, she simply wants "someone" to suffer in return for her son's injury - this is an attitude highly characteristic of Cersei and I think this scene is Martin's way of revealing Cersei's personality to us

(6) Lady is executed - this is Sansa's first "wake up call" - it's not karma, but it is Martin slowly allowing Sansa's character to grow and to realize that the Queen isn't kind and the King isn't just, that not all is as it should be.

In effect, the scene is less about Sansa, than it is about Robert and Cersei, it sets the stage for what Ned finds at King's Landing - a political scene in which the King has lost all effective power.

[ab aeterno]

She did pressure him to punish Arya and Bob said shut up woman pretty much. Ned wasnt gonna let Bob punish her daughter for doing the RIGHT and honorable thing. This is why i say if Bob did punish Arya then Ned would have given up the position as Hand of King.

How can you serve a man who punishes a child for doing the right thing?

Firstly, the wolf was punished by proxy, so yes, the wolf would likely still have been punished, but had the wolves not been there, Arya would have been punished. As for punishing a child for doing the right thing, by Westerosi law it wasn't the right thing. You can't defend a commoner by attacking the Crown Prince, at least not legally in their social context. It wasn't fair, but by Westerosi law it would have been just.

[The Prince of Ice]

No. You are missing the problem here. The truth actually hurts Arya, because Arya was the first to attack Joffrey and is therefore wrong according to the law and would require punishment for this indiscretion. As you say, it is unlikely Arya would have truly lost her hand, but that means some other chastening is necessary, and since her wolf cannot be found, Lady is likely to be the object of punishment anyway.

The law is, actually, on Joffrey's side.

I dont know the exact laws in Westeros but wouldnt Joff be in some kind of trouble for assaulting Mycah for no reason other than that Arya and him were dueling?

So Arya had it right to hit Joffery defending Mycah but this being a medieval society the common folk get burned even though there innocent.

[TheMysteriousOne]

I dont know the exact laws in Westeros but wouldnt Joff be in some kind of trouble for assaulting Mycah for no reason other than that Arya and him were dueling?

So Arya had it right to hit Joffery defending Mycah but this being a medieval society the common folk get burned even though there innocent.

No, LOL. Joffrey is the crown prince and Mycah was just some commoner.

[The Prince of Ice]

Firstly, the wolf was punished by proxy, so yes, the wolf would likely still have been punished, but had the wolves not been there, Arya would have been punished. As for punishing a child for doing the right thing, by Westerosi law it wasn't the right thing. You can't defend a commoner by attacking the Crown Prince, at least not legally in their social context. It wasn't fair, but by Westerosi law it would have been just.

Westerosi laws arent written down so how in the hell do you know that you cant defend a commoner by attacking a crown prince?

[Mladen]

Your missing the point. The law may have been on Joffrey's side but Robert may not have been, and my have decided to only punish his son for what happened. This is what Ned is banking on by calling on Sansa to tell the truth. Your belief that the truth would actual hurt Arya is foolish, because Ned would never call on Sansa if he believed the truth would cause his daughter to be punished. He knows Robert better then we do, there must be a reason he wants Arya's story corroborated.

Ned doesn't know Robert. Robert knew that it was Joffrey's fault, he knew what kind of person his son is. Sansa gave him wonderful excuse to put all thing aside. If Robert preyed, he would ask for no one to ever know what happened.

It would be revealed that Joffrey tried to kill a 9 year old girl and the direwolf jumped into save her. Joffrey would be disgraced at court and in no place to making demands. Instead he would be worrying about the punishment he was going to receive. However, we will never know the truth, because Sansa decided to betray her sister.

She attacked him, and animal bit him. That's the truth, and no matter how Sansa says it, animal would be killed, no doubt in that. There was a reason why Arya chased Nymeria, and it wasn't because she let her out for a walk...

[TheMysteriousOne]

Westerosi laws arent written down so how in the hell do you know that you cant defend a commoner by attacking a crown prince?

Dunk and Egg. Dunk attacked Prince Aerion Targaryen to save a common girl, and was taken away and charged with assaulting one of the blood royal and had to go on trial. He chose trial by combat and won, if he didn't win he would've been killed.

[Natasi]

I still don't quite understand the plot purpose of this incident. I see that it tells the reader what Joff's true character is like. I see that it establishes Cersei's as well. What I don't see is why Lady had to die. Is it supposed to say something about Sansa's character or her development in the future? It seems cruel that she should be the only Stark child who must continue on without her direwolf.

[butterbumps!]

Your missing the point. The law may have been on Joffrey's side but Robert may not have been, and my have decided to only punish his son for what happened.

How? How, on gods green earth, do you believe that if Robert learned the full truth (Arya attacked him first over a peasant), that he'd miraculously grow a set of balls and stand up to Cersei's thrist for the wolf to be killed? Because he does a great job of this afterward?

This is what Ned is banking on by calling on Sansa to tell the truth. Your belief that the truth would actual hurt Arya is foolish, because Ned would never call on Sansa if he believed the truth would cause his daughter to be punished.

Robert has her summoned before Ned calls her to the stand. For all we know, Ned may have counseled her to speak neutrally here. We just don't know what Ned had thought on the matter.

He knows Robert better then we do, there must be a reason he wants Arya's story corroborated.

How would this change anything? Arya attacks Joffrey first. How would this make Robert more amenable to forgoing punishment?

I dont know the exact laws in Westeros but wouldnt Joff be in some kind of trouble for assaulting Mycah for no reason other than that Arya and him were dueling?

So Arya had it right to hit Joffery defending Mycah but this being a medieval society the common folk get burned even though there innocent.

No. Legal precedent states that anyone who raises a hand to the Crown Prince gets that hand cut off. As I brought up, when Dunk strikes the Crown Prince who abusing a peasant puppeteer in the Hedge Knight, he's put on trial and would have received corporal punishment if he hadn't chosen a trial by combat. No one is allowed to strike the Crown Prince.

Arya's defense of Mycah is morally correct, but Cersei was hellbent on getting vengeance for her precious Joff Joff, so the Starks were going to be chastened. Again, even Arya knows the direwolf would be put to death as soon as it happens, and it's this reason that she throws rocks at Nym.