Good Queen Alysanne

Yes - indeed, Gyldayn explicitly suggests as much, at least according to one source:

And thus that dreadful year 120 AC ended as it begun, with a woman laboring in childbirth. Princess Rhaenyra’s pregnancy had a happier outcome than Lady Laena’s had. As the year waned, she brought forth a small but robust son, a pale princeling with dark purple eyes and pale silvery hair. She named him Aegon. Prince Daemon had at last a living son of his own blood ... [sic] and this new prince, unlike his three half-brothers, was plainly a Targaryen [sic]. In King’s Landing, however, Queen Alicent grew most wroth when she learned the babe had been named Aegon, taking that for a slight against her own son Aegon … [sic] which, according to The Testimony of Mushroom, it most certainly was.

I am certainly not aligned with Mushroom in all of his claims, but this particular one seems logical enough To say that the black and green factions had reached a new nadir of antagonism by the end of 120 AC is to state the obvious. This antagonism centered on the future of House Targaryen - and because the personal is political in Westeros' hereditary dynastic monarchies and aristocracies, both the black and the green dynasts acted and used the persons of their respective factions to express the sentiments of each faction. So when Queen Alicent gave birth to a son in 107 AC, Gyldayn reports that the queen "nam[ed] him Aegon, after the Conqueror" - an open declaration that her firstborn son was the heir to the patriarch of the dynasty, and by extension the leadership of the dynasty itself. Likewise, as Rhaenyra gave birth to the sons surnamed "Velaryon" but almost certainly fathered by Ser Harwin, the greens held it as what Gyldayn terms an "article of faith" that "the father of Rhaenyra's sons was not her husband, Laenor Velaryon, but her champion, Harwin Strong". Nor did the green faction restrict this sniping to Alicent's backhanded sympathy to Laenor at the birth of Prince Lucerys: when Aemond mocked the Velaryon boys as "Strongs", Aegon the Elder defended telling Aemond as much because "[e]veryone [sic] knows. Just look at them". The green faction had drawn a distinction through names between itself and the black faction: "Aegon" and the legacy of the Conqueror for the greens, "Strong" and the (in Westerosi view) taint of bastardy for the blacks.

Westeros doesn't seem to have a jointure or even dower lands, right? At least I don't think there is any reference. Cersei doesn't get any pension or lands as a widowed. Myranda Royce was married to an elderly lord and returned to her father's home afterwards, and doesn't seem to speak of it. But she does speak of how she would have liked to have had a son by him (and the lord already had sons) so I imagine she would probably get a pension from him (maybe even a country manse) if she had a son? Barbrey Dustin seems to have inherited her husbands lands. Dustin name seemed to have died with her husband, and it is very possible Barbrey's mother was a Dustin by birth. We don't know, of course, but it could be very possible.

But it says the widow's law that: "his heir could and would often expel the newly widowed wife, reducing her to penury; in the case of lords, the heirs might strip away the widow's prerogatives, incomes and servants, reducing her to no more than an impoverished boarder"... do this means there is a dower?

I ask this because of someone like Jocelyn Baratheon. She outlives her husband and by that time her daughter is already married. In George's fashion, she disapears from the narrative, but she is powerful dynastic person, as the widower of the crown prince (and she is supposedly a Joan of Kent).

Would she live out of the kindness of her family? Did she get some money of her own? Lands? Did she remarried in hopes of stability?

Again, Cersei didn't seem to get anything as a dowager queen. But there is dower lands like the widow's law seems to indicate, how aren't she and Margaery fighting over it?

For a long time I just imagined George just made Westeros into the still very famous misconception that women had no rights or have lands they inherited by marriage/parents/etc... But then he made a widow's law that speaks of prerogatives and incomes, and I can't wrapped my head around it.

I wish I had better answers for some of this, but I do get to talk about GRRM's sometimes problematic writing of female characters, so why not! (more under the cut)

Lady Stark Durrandon. She died.

I think it was as simple as Syrio worked for a Sealord who served prior to the tenure of the current Sealord. The fact that the current Sealord is old and sickly does not mean that he has necessarily been in power for decades. Indeed, assuming that the Sealord of Braavos is in no small part based on and/or inspired by the Doge of Venice, it's worth noting that the average age of a medieval or early modern Doge at the time of his election was around 72 years old (with some even in their 80s!). Therefore, it would not surprise me if the Sealords may semi-regularly or regularly be elected at an older age, die out in office, and be replaced by older men in their turn.

Whether or not GRRM had dreamed up Barbrey Dustin as of ACOK - he had certainly thought of the Dustins, but did not name Barbrey herself until the Appendix of AFFC - I think the Barbrey he did put on page in ADWD would not have been remotely interested in attending a harvest feast hosted by the Starks. Babrey's bitterness toward the Starks, specifically Ned and Catelyn, forms a major part of her character. So much had Barbrey resented Catelyn (in Barbrey's mind) taking both Brandon and Ned away from her and Ned for (in Barbrey's mind) leading her husband to death in the south and not even bothering to bring back his bones that she deliberately withheld as much aid from Winterfell as she thought she could at the outbreak of the War of the Five Kings. The same woman who had bragged to Theon that she would feed Ned's bones to her dogs was hardly likely to make the not-inconsiderable journey (more on that in a minute) from Barrowton to Winterfell to bend the knee to Ned Stark's son.

Oh no, what if hereditary dynastic aristocracy/monarchy which operates through political marriages is not the most effective form of government? 

In all seriousness, I think a core issue of dynastic marriages in Westeros (and in various examples from real-world history) is that individual marriage alliances cannot dictate lasting policies because of the changes in personal leadership and/or political circumstances. This is not to say dynastic marriages cannot bring important symbolic and/or material advantages, especially more immediately - more on that in a moment - only that characters are not necessarily going to act in XYZ way because that character is from or married into or related to XYZ House, or feel bound to support or defend ABC House because that character’s spouse or nuptial relative is from ABC House. Harmund II Hoare may have been an ironborn xenophile who embraced a marriage to a Lannister princess to promote the outward thinking begun with his own fostering at Casterly Rock, but that attitude did not transfer to their younger son, Hagon Hoare, who had his mother mutilated and exiled and the Faith expelled from the Iron Islands. King Arlan III Durrandon had invaded the Riverlands intending to put his father-in-law, Roderick Blackwood, on the throne instead of the Teagues - but when Lord Roderick was killed, King Arlan did not simply crown his daughter-in-law Shiera Blackwood as queen, swallowing the Riverlands as an imperial conquest instead. Lord Walder may have genuinely wanted an alliance with Raventree Hall at the time he married Lady Alyssa, but as Lord Tytos ruefully observed after the Red Wedding, old nuptial ties counted for little against the treacherous agreement the Freys had made with Tywin. The Cersei-Robert marriage may have been perfectly sensible on paper - uniting the king newly triumphant in Robert’s Rebellion with the daughter of the richest and most powerful (albeit latecoming) rebel ally, especially when none of the other major rebel allies had eligible daughters - but as a personal matter, the union was, to put it mildly, a complete disaster.  There is almost certainly no dynastic marriage which can or would cement peace or alliance or mutual advantage for all time; if the Bracken-Blackwood conflict is any indication, the personal ambitions and motivations and desires and concerns of individual characters will ultimately outweigh any given marriage contract.

I don't know if you've already answered a question about this, but what importance do you think the Clans of the Vale will have in the future of the saga? Both those in the Vale and those in the Kingswood.

I imagine Shagga will be important to Tyrion in some way; but I wonder if, just as we have Jon uniting the clans with the rest of the "south" (north) and perhaps Arya with the Brotherhood Without Banners and Rickon with Skagosis, we will have Sansa managing to make contact with these Vale clans (like ending up being attacked, etc.) and perhaps uniting them to her side. But I don't know how astutely political she will be at that point in the story. Do you think it's possible? I believe that, since George still gives them some prominence (regarding attacks, being armed with steel, etc.) and they've seen Sansa before, this could become important in the future for the Vale of Arryn arc.

I tend to doubt the clans of the Vale will be involved in Sansa’s story. Remember that winter has officially arrived, and while the Vale proper may still be enjoying autumnal good weather, Brienne had already heard in AFFC that the road into the Vale from the west was blocked by snow. Even if the mountain clans had the minds to travel in the worst season to do so, they would still need to pass through the Bloody Gate - a feat whose impossibility is suggested by the name itself. Nor would Sansa, or any of the rest of the Vale aristocracy for that matter, seem likely to pass westward toward the lands of the Vale clans: with Littlefinger aiming to have Sansa acclaimed as the rightful Lady of Winterfell, with an army and a Hardyng-turned-Arryn husband behind her, it would make no sense for him to push overland through impassable roads (not to mention war zones in the Riverlands and Neck) instead of sailing up the Narrow Sea toward White Harbor. (There will be drama around Sansa’s Vale story, but I think that’s more to do with Ser Shadrich and his attempt to kidnap Sansa.)

I think there are a few points to make here.

Number one, when talking about the War of the Five Kings, it is important to distinguish Robb politically from Joffrey, Stannis, and Renly. Robb’s stated goal was not the Iron Throne but the establishment (or, rather, quasi-reestablishment) of the Kingdom of the North (with fealty over the Riverlands). As a consequence, it would be inappropriate to graft the structure of the Targaryen, and subsequently Baratheon, royal government in King’s Landing onto the new political entity being created by Robb. There was no ancestral place in a Stark government for a Hand or a formal small council or a Kingsguard, while Robb certainly had advisors and a personal guard, his kingdom’s ceremonial and bureaucratic structure differed fundamentally from that of the Iron Throne’s kingdom.

As for Renly, he did also have a Hand; Mace Tyrell is listed as such in the ACOK Appendix. We don’t get a sense of whether Renly tried to create his own small council - more on that in a moment - though even without any mention of such being made in that Appendix, our real-time interaction as readers with Renly’s would-be court is somewhat limited - just a small handful of chapters through Catelyn’s eyes. However, Renly’s creation of the Rainbow Guard represented a deliberate break from the Kingsguard: as Cressen noted, this new guard was “just the sort of notion that would appeal to Renly”, to create “a splendid new order of knighthood, with gorgeous new raiment to proclaim it”. Just as Renly failed to appreciate the politico-dynastic turbulence his bid for the throne represented - nothing less than a military coup opening the Iron Throne to whatever strongman had the big enough army to seize it - so Renly also blithely cast aside the symbolic royal aura afforded by the Kingsguard for the sake of his newly invented order of knighthood.

I tend to doubt it. While Jeor Mormont did, obviously incorrectly, state that the future King Aerys I wed his own sister, I do not see any evidence that Daeron II would have been so supportive of incestuous marriages for his own sons. After all, the example of Daeron’s own parents would have hardly served to encourage belief in the merit of brother-sister marriages, given Aegon IV’s long history of abuse toward Naerys (to whom Daeron always seems to have been close). Naerys herself, moreover, appears to have considered marriage and brother-sister relationships mutually exclusive, given her plea to then-Prince Aegon to live with him “as brother and sister” once their son was born. This belief reflects my own theory that during the first fully post-Dance generation of Targaryens, Baelor, Naerys, and likely to some extent Aemon and Rhaena, saw the Doctrine of Exceptionalism, and by extension the Targaryen incestuous tradition it promoted, as a heresy which had incurred the wrath of the Seven and thus needed to be reversed rather than continued. With Daeron literally and figuratively the product of this most pious segment of any Targaryen generation - the son of Naerys, the nephew of Aemon, and the spiritual successor (and maybe actual heir-designate) of Baelor - I think it’s possible Daeron himself expressed an aversion to Targaryen incestuous marriages.

Indeed, AFFC and ADWD include points of both politico-economic tension and collaboration between Braavos and Westeros, as well as suggestions of internal Braavosi conflict. When Cersei meets with Noho Dimittis, she blithely ignored Pycelle’s earlier warning - “The Iron Bank will have its due” - and instead confirms that the Iron Throne will not repay the Iron Bank until “this rebellion has been put down”. With expected mercenary swiftness, Noho Dimittis then (per the WOIAF app) “convinces the Iron Bank to demand loan repayment from many merchants in the Seven Kingdoms and to refuse to extend any more credit to those same merchants” (a situation Cersei learns of once those merchants petition her, in vain). Meanwhile, another Iron Bank representative, Tycho Nestoris, meets with Stannis in the hope of treating with a rival royal claimant who could honor the debts very obviously being ignored by the Baratheon-Lannister regime. At the same time, across the Narrow Sea, Arya’s directive to gather information for the kindly man has highlighted internal Braavosi politics: while Arya acknowledges the rumors that the Sealord is sick or dying and that there is active speculation on his potential successor, she also reports that the Sealord was active enough to seize the Lyseni slaver ships Elephant and Goodheart. 

Moreover, GRRM has continued to develop these storylines in the Arya and Theon TWOW preview chapters. In “Theon I” TWOW, Tycho and Stannis sign an agreement by which Stannis pledges to repay the Iron Throne’s debts to the Iron Bank in exchange for the support of the Iron Bank in claiming the Iron Throne. Upon signing the agreement, Stannis dispatches Justin Massey (and Jeyne-as-Arya, of course) to Braavos to draw funds from the Iron Bank and hire sellswords (little guessing that his preferred choice of the Golden Company is otherwise occupied). Arya, for her part, uses the coming of Ser Harys Swyft - the envoy of the Iron Throne sent by (the now late) Kevan Lannister to negotiate with the Iron Bank in person - to remove Raff the Sweetling, recently made one of Ser Harys’ guards, from her list by killing him - a move she understands, using the parlance of her Mercy character, “would make trouble for the Sealord and the envoy with the chicken on his chest”. We have yet to see it of course, but I’ve already speculated that Justin Massey and Jeyne-as-Arya, detouring away from the chaos at Castle Black, will literally and figuratively run into Arya herself on the streets of Braavos.

All of this is to say that as TWOW opens, whoever the new Sealord is - and I do believe there will be a new one, given the mentions of the old one being in failing health- will have to make some pretty immediate decisions with direct impact on Westerosi and our Westerosi characters. Bumbling, nervous Harys Swyft will, I think, undoubtedly complain to the Sealord’s court that his guard was murdered - but with the Iron Bank openly turning its back on the Baratheon-Lannister regime, I doubt the new Sealord would favor Cersei’s government and its envoy over the interests of his own Iron Bank. The arrival of Justin Massey may instead prove quite the political opportunity for the new Sealord: with Justin already in the city to draw on the credit extended by the Iron Bank to Stannis (and thereby hire sellswords for his king), the Sealord may decide that the time has come to commit Braavos militarily as well as economically to Stannis’ cause, against the Baratheon-Lannister government. At the same time, with a legitimate claimant to Winterfell in Braavos (at least believed by Justin Massety to be the only remaining living, extant, legitimate child of Ned and Catelyn), the new Sealord also has the chance to rid himself of the freefolk unexpectedly arrived on the impounded Goodheart, placing them under the charge of the “rightful” Lady of Winterfell. (We'll have to leave it to Dany to free those on the Elephant.)

In my opinion, there are three quotes that most reflect how GRRM feels about prophecy - two in-world, one by the author himself.

First, from Archmaester Marwyn in AFFC:

["]Gorghan of Old Ghis once wrote that a prophecy is like a treacherous woman. She takes your member in her mouth, and you moan with the pleasure of it and think, how sweet, how fine, how good this is … [sic] and then her teeth snap shut and your moans turn to screams. That is the nature of prophecy, said Gorghan. Prophecy will bite your prick off every time.”

Then Tyrion in ADWD:

“Prophecy is like a half-trained mule," he complained to Jorah Mormont. "It looks as though it might be useful, but the moment you trust in it, it kicks you in the head.["]

Finally GRRM himself from this (archived) interview:

Prophecies are, you know, a double edge sword. You have to handle them very carefully; I mean, they can add depth and interest to a book, but you don’t want to be too literal or too easy ... [sic] In the Wars of the Roses, that you mentioned, there was one Lord who had been prophesied he would die beneath the walls of a certain castle and he was superstitious at that sort of walls, so he never came anyway near that castle. He stayed thousands of leagues away from that particular castle because of the prophecy. However, he was killed in the first battle of St. Paul de Vence and when they found him dead he was outside of an inn whose sign was the picture of that castle! [Laughs] So you know? That’s the way prophecies come true in unexpected ways. The more you try to avoid them, the more you are making them true, and I make a little fun with that.

In sum, I would characterize GRRM’s attitude toward prophecy in ASOIAF as at best suspicious, if not overtly distrustful. Throughout the series, including in the quotes above (and his interview quote as well), GRRM emphasizes the universal inability for anyone, no matter their mystical appearance or ability, to truly understand or accurately interpret any given prophecy. In part, this inability derives from the vague nature of many of GRRM’s prophecies: when the subject is, say, daggers in the dark, or three treasons, or a dragon, the opportunity for interpretation is almost limitless (as indeed the very length and breadth of meta fan analysis demonstrate). At the same time, and not mutually exclusively, the biases of those interpreting these prophecies have throughout the novels led characters astray from other possible conclusions, to their detriment. Daemon “the Younger” Blackfyre was so intent to use a hatchling dragon as the rallying point of a Second Blackfyre Rebellion that he never considered the possibility that the dragon of Whitewalls might be symbolic rather than literal; “dumb as a stump” Victarion is so gratified to hear that Moqorro has seen “the glory that awaits you” in his fires that he does not realize the likelihood of his own fiery end in Moqorro's words; even Maester Aemon, another wise commentator, laments the gendered blinkers at play that "no one ever looked for a girl” when foretelling the coming of the prince that was promised. With such open-ended possibilities, and human bias suffusing all characters’ thoughts and actions (as well as that apocryphal medieval knight the author described), GRRM seems to suggest, through his smart, cynical favorites Tyrion and Marwyn, that there is little to gain from prophecy on the whole. 

In turn, I think the novels generally portray unfavorably those characters who set themselves upon a specific interpretation of a given prophecy, even to the point of incurring real-world consequences based on those interpretations. Rhaegar seems to have assumed not only that “the dragon must have three heads” equated to the children of his body, but also that Lyanna was a vessel for at least one of those children - decisions which not only helped ignite a civil war (in which hehimselr was killed), but also put his wife and elder children in ultimately fatal danger. Cersei’s narrow focus on Margaery and Tyrion as her prophetic antagonists has led to gross political missteps, torture, and murder, just to name a few - all while the (IMO) far more likely queen and valonqar never even enter her thoughts. Melisandre has admitted her own limitations in correctly decoding her own prophetic visions, even to the point of acknowledging the influence of her audience in her declarations (as when she named Eastwatch while privately doubting that idea). 

It’s not a silly question, but I think it requires placing Kevan in his politico-dynastic context. Remember, after all, that Casterly Rock is almost a city unto itself, not just in terms of size - over 2,000 feet tall and two leagues, or about seven miles, long - but almost certainly in terms of administration and industry as well - not just all the usual features of a Westerosi castle to manage, magnified to colossal scale, but active mining and shipping operations happening within Casterly Rock itself. In keeping with its size, Casterly Rock has played host not only to the immediate families of ruling Lannister lords but also extended Lannister relations and associates. Genna Lannister, her husband Emmon Frey, and their children lived in Casterly Rock (until Emmon’s recent promotion as Lord of Riverrun); Ellyn Reyne infamously “fill[ed] the Rock with artists, mummers, musicians [sic] … and Reynes” during Gerold Lannister’s rule as lord; and of course, Tywin oversaw the move of the entire royal court to Casterly Rock early in Aerys II’s reign. The Rock is, in other words, perfectly capable of hosting not just many different aristocrats, but the households of these aristocrats as well - including, presumably, Kevan’s.

Kevan, of course, would need some means to maintain his own household, but he clearly has income streams, as he explains to Cersei. We unfortunately do not get a specific sense of the source of Kevan’s money - just that he has “certain incomes, and chests of coin set aside” (though the late great Steven Attewell speculated that Kevan might have received anything from direct allowances from his father and/or brother to the right to the profits of various Lannister industries); the point, I think, is that Kevan is (or was) more than comfortable as the head of an aristocratic household, including his knightly retainers.

Tywin? Not care about the geopolitical future of a huge swath of Westeros being in the control of the Lannisters? Seven forfend!

This is, after all, the same Tywin who vigorously pursued advantageous marital arrangements for various Lannister relations (while, of course, deliberately and hypocritically remaining a widower himself). The marriages of Tyrek to the toddler Lady Hayford and Lancel to Amerei Frey represented direct attempts by Tywin to control open lordships via Lannister nephews. The unrealized betrothals of Cersei to first Willas Tyrell and then Oberyn Martell, and Jaime to Margaery Tyrell, reflected Tywin’s desires both to court and to check the power of the Tyrell faction (as did the short-lived marriage of Joffrey and Margaery herself). The engagement of Daven Lannister to a daughter of House Frey (along with Joy Hill to a Frey bastard) helped to seal the arrangement between the Baratheon-Lannister regime and the Freys against the latter’s late overlord, Robb Stark. So Tywin was not one to throw away his Lannister relatives, nuptially speaking, without some sort of advantage to House Lannister.

With respect to the Tyrion-Sansa marriage specifically, Tywin emphasized its importance on multiple occasions. When first revealing the news of the proposed Willas-Sansa match to his children (and Kevan), Tywin bluntly stated that he would “not have the rose and the direwolf in bed together” - an acknowledgment of Sansa’s value as a marital pawn, to allow the Tyrells geopolitical options beyond strict Lannister allegiance. Likewise, when Tywin discusses the matter with Tyrion (and, again, Kevan), Tywin is emphatic that “[o]ur alliances in the south may be as solid as Casterly Rock, but there remains the north to win, and the key to the north is Sansa Stark” and that Sansa “must marry a Lannister, and soon”. Even Kevan advocates for the marriage, informing Tyrion that “[t]he man who weds Sansa Stark can claim Winterfell in her name”. Tywin in fact then doubles down on the dynastic importance of Sansa, explaining that “[w]hen you bring Eddard Stark’s grandson home to claim his birthright, lords and little folk alike will rise as one to place him on the high seat of his ancestors” - a point Tywin believes he can confidently make, given the recent news Tywn shares of the Robb-Jeyne Westerling marriage.

Even after Tyrion marries Sansa, Tywin reminds his son of the politico-dynastic importance of the marriage. In discussing the fallout of the Red Wedding with Tyrion, Tywin informs him that after the Lannisters “allow the Dreadfort to fight the ironborn for a few years” to “bring Stark’s other bannermen to heel”, the Lannisters will sweep in with spring, when “all of them should be at the end of their strength and ready to bend the knee”. Lest Tyrion miss the point, Tywin is explicit: “The north will go to your son by Sansa Stark … [sic] if you ever find enough manhood in you to breed one”. Tywin, well aware that the girl offered to Roose was not the real Arya (hence his coy allusion to Renly’s “ghost” at the Blackwater), has already set that portion of his plan in motion; by encouraging Tyrion to father a son on Sansa, Tywin is certainly hoping to set up this grandson well enough to be puppeteered as a good little Lannister Lord of Winterfell come the following spring.

To be clear, I only write about the books (and other written semi-canon information) and not about any shows; please do not bring the shows into this Tumblr.

Anyway, I think Baelor's own explanation, immediately before the trial, is a good place to start:

"Brother, have you taken leave of your senses?" He pointed a mailed finger at Dunk. "This man attacked my son." "This man protected the weak, as every true knight must," replied Prince Baelor. "Let the gods determine if he was right or wrong." He gave a tug on his reins, turned Valarr's huge black destrier, and trotted to the south end of the field.

I do think that Baelor really believed these words. After all, Yandel would go on to describe Baelor as "the heart of chivalry" and "all that could be wished in a knight, lord, or heir". We also see in "The Hedge Knight" that Baelor took his own performance of knighthood very seriously: Dunk repeats Yandel's later assessment (as passed on by Ser Arlan) and recalls that Baelor took no ransom from his defeated master. Baelor had also gained a reputation for justice and bravery: Yandel would also call Baelor "as open-handed and just as his father", and Dunk refers to Ser Arlan's oft-repeated phrase "[a]s brave as Baelor Breakspear". For a man who believed in the true performance of knighthood, and who saw both that Dunk had lived the vows of knighthood and would lose by default without a final champion, it may have seemed only right to join Dunk's cause.

Reading between the lines, I think Baelor was frustrated by his nephew Aerion's cruelties but had been unable, and to some extent unwilling, to punish him too severely or publicly. It was Baelor who counseled Lord Ashford to give Aerion's horse to Ser Humfrey and the declare the latter the winner - a punishment strictly within the bounds of chivalric performance, and one which did not remove either Aerion himself or his capacity for sadism. Even if Baelor expressed sympathy for Dunk's actions against Aerion to save Tanselle, Baelor wearily admitted that "I am a prince of the realm, not a hedge knight" - an impassable difference in rank leading to an inherently unfair result weighted in Aerion's favor. Baelor admitted to Dunk that while his, Baelor's, word, as heir to the Iron Throne and Hand of the King, would carry weight among Dunk's judges, Baelor could only say so much against the paternal fury of his own brother. As the chief Targaryen representative at Ashford, and a considerate brother to Maekar, Baelor had to walk a fine line - mindful of the reputation of his dynasty, especially after a devastating civil war, but aware that one of that dynasty's (grand)sons had severely violated the code of knighthood Baelor himself had taken to heart.

So when Aerion demanded a trial of seven, Baelor had, I think, received the justification he needed to put Aerion in his place, literally and judicially. As Baelor himself explained to Dunk, the trial of seven was originally designed so that "the gods, being thus honored [i.e. by the inclusion of seven champions], would be more like to take a hand and see that a just result was achieved". Aerion had turned the judgment of the accusation over to the Seven themselves; if Baelor entered on Dunk's side, he could be said to be acting as he believed the gods intended him to act, an agent of heaven rather than a mere human magistrate. Here was the opportunity Baelor had not had when Dunk beat and kicked Aerion during the puppet show disaster - to bring lance and steel against his nephew in a legally justified manner, teaching Aerion how to respect the expression of knighthood if he was going to exploit its privileges.

No. I've spoken about this topic in the context of Sansa and Arya specifically, but even outside of the immediate Stark family, I don't think Ned and Catelyn would have considered it appropriate, must less advantageous, to marry off Theon. While Ned raised Theon with basic Westeros aristocratic courtesy, Theon was a hostage rather than a simple ward. Whatever Ned thought he might be able to do for or on behalf of Theon in a crisis, Ned was officially responsible for executing Theon if Balon rebelled again. It would in turn be quite an awkward situation if Ned and Catelyn encouraged a union between Theon and, say, the daughter of a Winterfell vassal, then learned of a new rebellion undertaken by Balon and had to face beheading the bridegroom (and their vassal's new son-in-law). Indeed, given Catelyn's commentary on Balon's later invasion of the North - that "Lord Balon might still have chanced war", since "[t]he last time he reached for a crown, it cost him two sons" and Balon "might have thought it a bargain to lose only one" in his next rebellion - Ned and Catelyn may even have suspected that marrying Theon to a vassal's daughter would have emboldened Balon to rebel again, or at least not worked to stay Balon's hand.