208 replies to this topic

[fionwe1987]

Maester Cressan, on Nov 24 2007, 21.28, said:

I agree with what you said about the other Stark children.  But on this I disagree.

If anything Jon is the behaving like a true "beta".  Robb is the elder bother who sometimes has to  "put on his Lord Stark face" while Jon is his loyal second in command.  The one who listens and comforts all the others while Robb takes care of his duties, and is also always there supporting his elder brother.   On the surface they demonstrate the perfect relationship between a first and second brother.

Funny.... I just realized that Jon's relationship with his younger siblings is much the same as the Blackfish had with his nieces and nephew that Catylen remembers from her youth...

Of course, Jon seems not to have the same conflict with Robb as between Hoster and the Blackfish.

I meant exactly the same thing! Though I was looking at family relations from a modern point of view.
Robb is somewhat distant, the "Heir of Winterfell". On the other hand, Jon is accessible, and ready with his advice. That was what I meant when I said Jon was the true elder brother (defining elder brother as the person who takes care of your problems and helps you no matter what).
As for the Jon-Blackfish similarity, great catch!

[Happy Ent]

jennjenn, on Nov 25 2007, 03.06, said:

I don't see Jon being raised at Winterfell as some sort of outrageous option or as something that is out of the ordinary in this society.

Yet you fail to provide an example. On the other hand, we have several book quotes that tell us that what Ned did was extraordinary.

Quote

Walder Frey keeps his bastards around.

First, House Frey is not even close to be a model of typical Westerosi society. Second, we aren't really sure which of Lord Frey's bastards were raised at the Twins. Especially, we don't know if that was during the lifetime of the betrayed wife.

Quote

The best excuse that Petyr can think of for keeping Sansa around is to say that she is his bastard.

Petyr isn't married, so no wife (and by extension, no other house) is slighted. Same argument as for Joy Hill.

Quote

Robert even discusses bringing one of his bastards (presumably Mya) to court and probably would have if not for Cersei.

But he doesn't, so that's a counterexample. People don't bring their bastards to court. Also, Mya Stone predates the Cersei–Robert marriage (right?) so she is no proof of infidelity.

Quote

Sam assumes that his father will raise a bastard of his even though they do not get along.

"A bastard". Sure. Catelyn would have done that as well—it's standard to raise "a bastard", namely somebody else's. That's what you do: foster the child with somebody else, so as to avoid insulting your wife and her house.

Quote

The only character who seems to think it even remotely out of the ordinary that Eddard Stark would raise his bastard at Winterfell is Catelyn.  Everyone else seems to accept it as normal.

What? Where did you get that from?

Quote

The thing about bastards in this society is that there seems to be no set way to deal with them.

But there is. There's a whole set of rules, including naming conventions. Also, there are social conventions about what to do with them. Conventions that Ned Stark chooses to ignore. (For good reasons, we believe: he promised it to his dying sister.)

Quote

The way that Eddard deals with Jon is probably not the way that Catelyn had been raised to think that bastards should be dealt with, but that doesn't mean that it is completely unreasonable by the standards of Westeros.

You are making up your own rules again:

Quote

A Game of Thrones: The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him “son” for all the north to see.

It's clear that what Ned did is an exception. I have book quotes.

Quote

As for real life ... I'm not sure exactly what you mean.  If it's the "would you accept your husband's bastard" thing then I think that I would or I would get a divorce.

Aye, there's the rub. But Catelyn can't get a divorce. So she swallows the unspeakable insult and tries to live with it. She even tries to love Jon. Predictably, she fails. I can't hold that against her.

[jennjenn]

Happy Ent, on Nov 25 2007, 05.08, said:

Yet you fail to provide an example. On the other hand, we have several book quotes that tell us that what Ned did was extraordinary.
First, House Frey is not even close to be a model of typical Westerosi society. Second, we aren't really sure which of Lord Frey's bastards were raised at the Twins. Especially, we don't know if that was during the lifetime of the betrayed wife.

So you are looking for an example of a bastard born while his high born father was married who lives with his father?  That is a highly specific situation that there wouldn't likely be a lot of examples of.  Nevertheless, one that I forgot was Falla in AFFC.  She apparantly lived with her father who was married and apparantly had trueborn daughters of comparable age.  Of course, she doesn't appear to be that well treated, but she lived with him nevertheless.  The Freys appear to be another example.  That is not the only way you can interpret their situation, but it seems at least more likely than not that some of those bastards were raised at the Twins.  At any rate, I thought we were discussing whether it was acceptable for a lord to raise his bastard in his castle and the answer is obviously yes.  The presence of a wife can certainly complicate matters, but I don't think it changes the essential question.  A wife would have less say in her husband's making a decision like this than in our modern society, unless perhaps his wife's house was more powerful than his own.  Even so, it seems questionable how much insult the woman's family would take -- the Tullys don't seem to care too much about Jon.  I think that Blackfish mentions once that Catelyn never trusted Jon, but they seem to be satisfied with the Stark marriage in general.        

Quote

But he doesn't, so that's a counterexample. People don't bring their bastards to court. Also, Mya Stone predates the Cersei–Robert marriage (right?) so she is no proof of infidelity.

The fact that he considered it shows that it isn't too outrageous to seriously consider.  

Quote

"A bastard". Sure. Catelyn would have done that as well—it's standard to raise "a bastard", namely somebody else's. That's what you do: foster the child with somebody else, so as to avoid insulting your wife and her house.

Well, it would have supposedly been a grandchild.  

Quote

What? Where did you get that from?

From the fact that no other characters express surprise over Jon being raised at Winterfell.  If it were as unusual as all that, I would have expected one of the Stark children to say "Wow, every other lord puts his bastard far away, but my father raised Jon.  How strange".  Or for Jon to realize this.  What about Tyrion, who pays a good deal of attention to Jon in the first book?  Theon Greyjoy?  Eddard Stark himself?  Maybe some of them do and I've just missed it.  

Quote

But there is. There's a whole set of rules, including naming conventions. Also, there are social conventions about what to do with them. Conventions that Ned Stark chooses to ignore. (For good reasons, we believe: he promised it to his dying sister.)

There are certainly naming conventions, which Eddard Stark does not ignore.  It seems to me that a lord can give a bastard as much or as little as he sees fit, though.  I get this from the varying situations of the bastards that we are shown in the book.  

Quote

A Game of Thrones: The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him “son” for all the north to see.

This is a Catelyn POV quote unless I'm badly mistaken.  We've already established that Catelyn thinks it unusual or wrong that Ned raised Jon at Winterfell.  

Quote

It's clear that what Ned did is an exception. I have book quotes.
Aye, there's the rub. But Catelyn can't get a divorce. So she swallows the unspeakable insult and tries to live with it. She even tries to love Jon. Predictably, she fails. I can't hold that against her.

Any that aren't Catelyn POV quotes?  I tend to defend Catelyn as a character, but I have a harder time defending her reactions to Jon Snow, though I can certainly understand them.

[Stratonice]

I have issues with some of the things Cat says, thinks and does but this is NOT one of them. For Ned to insist on raising Jon in her home among his trueborn children is insulting. The fact that a husband have the formal right to insist on something like this does not mean it's particularly common, it doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean the wife needs to be pleased about it. This is a setting where the husband also has the formal right to rape, hit and abuse in any way he sees fit his wife unless her family is powerfull enough to stop it. Not that this situation really is comparable to that kind of behaviour, my point is only that the fact that a man can do something and get away with it doesn't make it right to do it and it certainly doesn't make someone reacting to it a bad person.

It's a lot more surprising that a man like Ned who's supposed to be a good and decent guy would treat his wife like this, than it is that Catelyn don't like the situation. Any blame in this situation rests solely on Ned's shoulders. He's the one forcing the situation on Cat and Jon both.

[mormont]

Jenna, on Nov 25 2007, 01.14, said:

There's another noble-raised bastard mentioned a few times, though she is yet to appear.  Joy Hill, natural daughter of Gerion Lannister, is evidentally being raised in Casterly Rock.

This seems to me to be a presumption you're making? I don't recall any direct reference saying so or even implying it. The fact that Jaime and Tyrion know something of her, or that Tywin was arranging a marriage for her, doesn't preclude the idea that she is being raised at (say) Crakehall or Ashemark.

Quote

But Tywin went so far as to try to arrange a marriage for her.

Why would this be unusual? Presumably, had Jon been a girl, Ned would have done the same. It seems perfectly normal to me - even bastard children can be useful in creating alliances. Which is one reason why Cat would rightly be concerned about Jon: if he'd married one of the Mormont daughters, for example, he'd be that much more of a threat.

Obviously, bastard children are less important than legitimate ones in this regard as they can't inherit, but it's the same argument, really, as choosing Gatehouse Ami to be Lancel's wife - the presence of some of the right 'blood', however tainted, could be handy to bolster a claim. Bastard boys are probably considered too much of a double-edged sword to marry off, but bastard daughters married off to loyal vassals? Why not?

Quote

He mentioned wedding her to Walder Frey's youngest bastard son, but then Tywin implied and Jaime outright offered, that Joy be wed to Lord Westerling's son (and heir, I think).

Note that neither is exactly a high-profile match, though. One is to another bastard (with family connections), the other is to a minor vassal - and both are already inextricably bound to the Lannisters through the Red Wedding.

Quote

I think Cat's fears of Jon rose more from that than concern over some affair Ned might have had when they barely knew one another.

Yet that affair seems to hurt her more than she admits to herself. If you look at her POV chapters, there are clear signs, principally that she fears Ned loves the memory of Jon's mother more than he loves her. Ironically, this may be true. ;)

jennjenn, on Nov 25 2007, 02.06, said:

I don't see Jon being raised at Winterfell as some sort of outrageous option or as something that is out of the ordinary in this society.  

Walder Frey keeps his bastards around.  

The best excuse that Petyr can think of for keeping Sansa around is to say that she is his bastard.  

Robert even discusses bringing one of his bastards (presumably Mya) to court and probably would have if not for Cersei.  

Sam assumes that his father will raise a bastard of his even though they do not get along.

First, there's a common mistake people seem to be making here, in confusing raising a bastard in your castle and raising them in your household. Even the latter doesn't capture the exceptional nature of what Ned did with Jon: he raised him in his family, alongside his legitimate children. They played together, ate together, had the same lessons and most of the same privileges.

As I said earlier, Walder draws sharp distinctions between his bastard children and the rest (and you may be sure if he did, so did everyone else at the Twins). Ned did not.

As for Petyr and 'Alayne', note that the cover story includes her being raised apart from him until the age of 13 - he doesn't raise her himself, as Ned did Jon. So not analogous at all, I'm afraid.

Mya: well, consider that even Ned balks at taking Jon to court because of how a bastard would be regarded and treated. Then consider how Robert would have whims and then drop them at the first sign of resistance. I am 99% sure if Cersei had said nothing, he'd still have dropped the idea and 100% sure that if he'd gone ahead it wouldn't have lasted a year and would have been a disaster for all concerned. Anyway, he is not discussing raising a bastard child alongside his 'legitimate' children, but bringing a near-adult one to court. Apples and oranges again.

That leaves Sam's supposed bastard, which brings us back to the 'household/family' distinction. I'm sure Randyll would have seen the child was OK. I'm not sure he would have given him lessons alongside Dickon's kids or sat him at the high table.

Quote

The only character who seems to think it even remotely out of the ordinary that Eddard Stark would raise his bastard at Winterfell is Catelyn.  Everyone else seems to accept it as normal.

Mostly, Jon has spent his time in the books in a situation where these things are not supposed to matter. However, remember how Noye speaks to him about how privileged and exceptional his upbringing has been.

Few people not part of the WF household speak of Jon at all, and most seem to be ignorant the details of how he was raised, so the absence of remark is not an 'acceptance'.

Quote

Some lords keep their bastards near and treat them with varying degrees of kindness, some send them away to be fostered elsewhere, some provide for them financially, and some ignore them.  The way that Eddard deals with Jon is probably not the way that Catelyn had been raised to think that bastards should be dealt with, but that doesn't mean that it is completely unreasonable by the standards of Westeros.

But no-one has ever been able to supply an example of it happening elsewhere.

Maester Cressan, on Nov 25 2007, 02.28, said:

Funny.... I just realized that Jon's relationship with his younger siblings is much the same as the Blackfish had with his nieces and nephew that Catylen remembers from her youth...

Of course, Jon seems not to have the same conflict with Robb as between Hoster and the Blackfish.

Yet. And this is an excellent point: Cat has come from a background where she's seen a loyal, loving, legitimate brother fall out spectacularly with his liege lord over a relatively minor matter. Yet people want her to accept Jon's everlasting loyalty to Robb as a given.

Edited by mormont, 26 November 2007 - 09:20 AM.

[jennjenn]

mormont, on Nov 26 2007, 09.17, said:

First, there's a common mistake people seem to be making here, in confusing raising a bastard in your castle and raising them in your household. Even the latter doesn't capture the exceptional nature of what Ned did with Jon: he raised him in his family, alongside his legitimate children. They played together, ate together, had the same lessons and most of the same privileges.

As I said earlier, Walder draws sharp distinctions between his bastard children and the rest (and you may be sure if he did, so did everyone else at the Twins). Ned did not.

Well, the Frey bastards eat separately when the king that they are sworn to is visiting.  Of course, the Starks end up doing this also, so there's no real distinction here.  Walder Frey seems to attempt to embarrass his bastards and is rude to them, but he does the same to everyone.  On the other hand, his bastard children and his trueborn children seem to interact more or less as equals (the trueborn children don't treat the bastards like servants that I can see and they are given similar tasks).  

I also kind of question the idea that the Starks didn't draw distinctions between Jon and the other kids.  There is a clear mental separation -- the Starks almost always refer to Jon as a "bastard brother" and Jon thinks of himself that way.  Even Bran at the tender age of seven clearly knows this distinction.  You'd think such a clear mental distinction would need to be backed up by physical events and if you look at the earlier chapters in AGOT, there are a surprising number of differences made between the bastard and the trueborn children.  Jon isn't allowed to eat with the Starks when the king visits.  When Robb and Bran are practicing swords against the Lannister kids, he comments that he wasn't "allowed" to join in.  Ned can't take Jon with him to court, but he gives in to Catelyn and doesn't leave him at Winterfell either -- he had to be treated differently because he was a bastard.  When there seem to be five wolf pups to be had, Jon claims no pup for himself because he's a bastard.  Of course that last one is a distinction that Jon himself makes, but it seems to indicate a learned attitude -- that when there is not enough to go around, the bastard must go without.    

Quote

As for Petyr and 'Alayne', note that the cover story includes her being raised apart from him until the age of 13 - he doesn't raise her himself, as Ned did Jon. So not analogous at all, I'm afraid.

13 or 3, she's still a bastard that is being kept in Petyr's home and who everyone can see seems to have a lot of interaction with Petyr.  Actually, I think it is quite analogous.    

Quote

Mya: well, consider that even Ned balks at taking Jon to court because of how a bastard would be regarded and treated. Then consider how Robert would have whims and then drop them at the first sign of resistance. I am 99% sure if Cersei had said nothing, he'd still have dropped the idea and 100% sure that if he'd gone ahead it wouldn't have lasted a year and would have been a disaster for all concerned. Anyway, he is not discussing raising a bastard child alongside his 'legitimate' children, but bringing a near-adult one to court. Apples and oranges again.

99%?  I'm not nearly that sure, but as it didn't happen, I don't think it can be proven either way.

Quote

That leaves Sam's supposed bastard, which brings us back to the 'household/family' distinction. I'm sure Randyll would have seen the child was OK. I'm not sure he would have given him lessons alongside Dickon's kids or sat him at the high table.

I'll concede that Ned might have been more inclusive to Jon than most lords -- but not enough so to be shocking.  I certainly would never claim that Ned wasn't kinder to Jon.  But Ned seems kinder to all his children than most of the fathers that we have been shown.  Doesn't alter a discussion on position.

Quote

Mostly, Jon has spent his time in the books in a situation where these things are not supposed to matter. However, remember how Noye speaks to him about how privileged and exceptional his upbringing has been.

Yes, in comparison to the bastards of common people.  Noye says "You think you had it hard, being a high lord's bastard?" which would seem to suggest that he thinks Jon had it easier because he was the bastard of a high lord, not because Ned Stark was so exceptional.  It actually suggests that Jon's situation is normal for a lord's bastard, not abnormal.  

Quote

Few people not part of the WF household speak of Jon at all, and most seem to be ignorant the details of how he was raised, so the absence of remark is not an 'acceptance'.

Yes, but the Winterfell household gets half the POVs.  Bran and Arya think of Jon rather often, though Sansa rarely does so.  Eddard Stark thinks of him a moderate amount.  And then we have Jon's own POV.  Theon Greyjoy, who would certainly know the details of how he was raised, thinks about him a few times.  And then there is Tyrion, who has so many interactions with Jon and who is usually so quick to spot others' foibles.  And if anything, Tyroin thinks Jon should be angry at the way he has been treated.  I just think that if Eddard Stark was the only one in Westeros doing this, then it would have been presented as more odd.
    

Quote

But no-one has ever been able to supply an example of it happening elsewhere.

A half dozen examples have been provided of lords raising their bastards in their homes (or seeming to).  When you add eight or nine conditions to any situation, it's going to be hard to find parallels.  Especially when we don't see as much of the other bastards.  

However, it seems we have established that:

It is acceptable for a lord to keep a bastard in his castle.  

Westeros is a highly patriarchal society.

Jon's position at Winterfell is not unusual enough to warrant comment from anyone but Catelyn for whom it is a sore spot.  

So it seems the most obvious conclusion is that the presence of a wife is not enough to stop some lords from raising their bastards.  Of course the level of inclusion and affection towards the bastard on the father's part would vary and I'll admit that it may be high on Ned's part.

[Happy Ent]

jennjenn, on Nov 27 2007, 05.27, said:

It is acceptable for a lord to keep a bastard in his castle.

Absolutely. Nobody ever questioned this. It's the common way to handle bastards, they are noble after all, so they live with nobles. Just not their own father. Note that even trueborn kids are fostered left and right in Westeros from very young age.

Quote

Jon's position at Winterfell is not unusual enough to warrant comment from anyone but Catelyn for whom it is a sore spot.

Disagree. Catelyn makes a general comment "not like other men". She may be lying to herself and others (in the sense that, unlike us, she knows a lot of examples of men who bring their bastards "home") but that's unlike her. She's normally honest and self-critical, to the point of annoying many readers. Cersei thinks Catelyn is a "mouse". Jon's position at Winterfell is also so outrageous that he cannot use it when the king visits. (Of course, we assume that there is anothor good reason behind that.)

So, no. I disagree. Jon's position at Winterfell is unique.

Quote

So it seems the most obvious conclusion is that the presence of a wife is not enough to stop some lords from raising their bastards.

Yet we know only this one example: Jon snow being raised in front of Lady Stark. I maintain that this is highly unusual for Westerosi standards, and would be an unspeakable insult by modern standards.

Ned put his wife and his bastard in an impossible situation. They both tried to make the best of it, but it's entirely Ned's fault. Of course, we readers suspect there was a pretty good reason, like Lyanna making him promise to do exactly that.

Edited by Happy Ent, 27 November 2007 - 04:34 AM.

[mormont]

jennjenn, on Nov 27 2007, 04.27, said:

Walder Frey seems to attempt to embarrass his bastards and is rude to them, but he does the same to everyone.

It's more than that, though. He makes references that clearly show they are less important than his trueborn children.

Quote

On the other hand, his bastard children and his trueborn children seem to interact more or less as equals (the trueborn children don't treat the bastards like servants that I can see and they are given similar tasks).

I disagree. The status of most of Walder's bastards is clearly lower than that of his trueborn children. (As, to be fair, Jon's is lower than Robb's - but this is less clear, and that is my point.) There are duties and positions that Walder's bastards would clearly never, ever be given. Some of his bastards have earned a place, as have other noted noble bastards such as the Bastard of Godsgrace in other households - but don't mistake that for being given one. And there are sharp, hard limits on what they can achieve.

Quote

I also kind of question the idea that the Starks didn't draw distinctions between Jon and the other kids.

Well, of course they do. But these are not as clear as they would be anywhere else. Jon is the bastard, no question - but he eats with his brothers, spars with them, takes lessons with them. We don't know of any other household where this is true. We might suppose it to be true of the Freys, but as I say, there is as much reason to suppose it's not true of them because of the attitude Walder takes to his bastards.

Quote

if you look at the earlier chapters in AGOT, there are a surprising number of differences made between the bastard and the trueborn children.  Jon isn't allowed to eat with the Starks when the king visits.  When Robb and Bran are practicing swords against the Lannister kids, he comments that he wasn't "allowed" to join in.

And in both cases, we are told that this is unusual and is down to the protocol of the King's visit. Normally, Jon is allowed to do these things. It's only because of Robert being present that the usual social norms about bastard treatment are being enforced.

Quote

Ned can't take Jon with him to court, but he gives in to Catelyn and doesn't leave him at Winterfell either -- he had to be treated differently because he was a bastard.

Again, Ned can't take Jon with him to court because he would be treated harshly there by others for the crime of being a bastard. This doesn't happen in Winterfell. So you are actually making the point that Jon's treatment in WF is unusual.

Quote

When there seem to be five wolf pups to be had, Jon claims no pup for himself because he's a bastard.  Of course that last one is a distinction that Jon himself makes, but it seems to indicate a learned attitude -- that when there is not enough to go around, the bastard must go without.

And yet again, making this distinction is explicitly noted as being an exception and not the rule. If it were usual and accepted, there would be no need for Jon to say anything.

Quote

13 or 3, she's still a bastard that is being kept in Petyr's home and who everyone can see seems to have a lot of interaction with Petyr.  Actually, I think it is quite analogous.

But it's not. He is not raising her. He supposedly had her raised elsewhere, just as HE and I have pointed out is the norm. Having adult bastard children (and in this case, 13 is considered adult) serving in your household is one thing: raising them alongside your legitimate children is quite another. (In fact, this situation can never be analoguous because Petyr doesn't have any legitimate kids.)

Quote

I'll concede that Ned might have been more inclusive to Jon than most lords -- but not enough so to be shocking.

  

Well, as HE points out, people were shocked by it.

Quote

And if anything, Tyroin thinks Jon should be angry at the way he has been treated.

  

I'm afraid I don't recall this? I think Tyrion understands that Jon is angry, but that's not the same as thinking he has a right to be.

Quote

I just think that if Eddard Stark was the only one in Westeros doing this, then it would have been presented as more odd.

But it is explicitly described as odd.

Quote

A half dozen examples have been provided of lords raising their bastards in their homes (or seeming to).  When you add eight or nine conditions to any situation, it's going to be hard to find parallels.  Especially when we don't see as much of the other bastards.

I've only added one - that it should be in the lord's family, not just the castle. And most of the other bastards we know of weren't even raised in the castle.

Quote

However, it seems we have established that:

It is acceptable for a lord to keep a bastard in his castle.

  

Yes, but far from usual.

Quote

Westeros is a highly patriarchal society.

Yes.

Quote

Jon's position at Winterfell is not unusual enough to warrant comment from anyone but Catelyn for whom it is a sore spot.

We most certainly have not established this, I'm afraid. Cersei comments on it, for a start. And in order to establish this as true, you need to show that Cat was wrong when she explicitly says it is unusual.

Quote

So it seems the most obvious conclusion is that the presence of a wife is not enough to stop some lords from raising their bastards. Of course the level of inclusion and affection towards the bastard on the father's part would vary and I'll admit that it may be high on Ned's part.

But it depends on what you mean by 'raising', and in that regard the last sentence is absolutely crucial.

[Maia]

mormont, on Nov 27 2007, 05.23, said:

Again, Ned can't take Jon with him to court because he would be treated harshly there by others for the crime of being a bastard.

To be honest, this always struck me as a rather lightweight excuse and I think that in reality Ned was just afraid to take Jon to KL because there were people there who could put 2 and 2 together. We see quite a few bastards at court in the later books. And really, since a bastard must make his own way, what better opportunity for that than to take him to court and procure him some minor position?

Re: the Freys, not only does Lord Frey make rather sharp distinctions and puts them down in public, but there are just so many legitimate descendants of all possible ages, abilities and experience that bastards can never be a threat. Still, even that treatment is unusual.

We saw no other examples, though, of bastards being accorded such treatment when their father had legitimate children or a living wife.

Re: Falla from AFFC, wasn't she a _servant_ and a rather badly treated one? So, yes, I guess that's one way of a bastard growing up in a noble father's castle.

For the record, I don't think that Catelyn would have been nearly so unhappy if Jon did grow up in WF as a ward of Roderick Cassel, lived in his rooms, squired for him, ate with squires and guardsmen, etc. He would have still sparred with Robb and maybe got some of the same lessons (like Beth Cassel did), but there would have been much less risk of dangerous confusion re: where Jon stood- both in his own mind and in those of others. I am not sure why Ned brought Jon up as he did - he did nobody any favors that way.
And then when Jon's position finally became a serious impediment - as it was bound to, he just callously sent him to NW, instead of fostering him out until he came of age. I suspect that Ned was always torn about Jon - he did want to treat him as well as possible, but also wanted to prevent him becoming a problem for Robert at all costs. And Ned was for some reason afraid to leave Jon as a free agent - maybe because he knew that there were others aware of Jon's true identity and that they may have used Ned's lengthy absence to  approach and subvert the boy.

Edited by Maia, 27 November 2007 - 07:52 AM.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

HE,

Happy Ent, on Nov 22 2007, 15.26, said:

I agree with Catelyn: Jon shouldn't be there. I find nothing strange about that sentiment. You who disagree: why do you think Jon should be there? Should, in general, women accept their husband's infidelity by embracing the living proof of their betrayal? Or do you think the argument "It's not Jon's fault" is strong enough? If so, who should not live with the Starks? It's "not Moon Boy's fault" either that he wasn't born a true-born child of Lady Stark, so should Moon Boy live there?

Good lord that's a strawman.  Jon is, as far as we know, Ned's son, therefore he has every reason to be in Winterfell based upon his relationship with his presumed father.  Moon boy, to use your example, has no such relationship.  

I think it is entirely understandable that Catelyn doesn't accept Jon.  It is a very human characteristic to be angry at a source of tension between you and your spouse.  However, I don't think it is fair for her to be angry at Jon.  He can't control how he came into the world.  

The proper focus for Catelyn's anger would be Eddard.  It's not Jon's fault his dad couldn't, presumably, keep his penis in his pants.

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison, 27 November 2007 - 09:11 AM.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mormont,

mormont, on Nov 23 2007, 09.13, said:

Thart doesn't follow, I'm afraid. I mean, it certainly follows that he sees Jon as someone with a connection to him, maybe even part of his family, but it certainly doesn't show that he considers him a brother rather than a half-brother or that he is closer to Jon than Sansa is.

As someone who grew up with a "half-brother" let me assure you that while we were growing up he was simply my brother.  The "half" wasn't an issue.

[mormont]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on Nov 27 2007, 13.59, said:

Jon is, as far as we know, Ned's son

Yes.

Quote

, therefore he has every reason to be in Winterfell

And no. This is pretty much what we've been discussing, but in Westeros, this doesn't necessarily follow. Ned could choose to have Jon stay in WF, and did, but Jon does not have 'every reason' to be there.

As for the 'straw man', I think HE is trying to illustrate (by exaggeration) that the boundary between bastard child and trueborn is many, many times stronger in Westeros than in our world. Being Ned's bastard son confers no rights on Jon other than the name 'Snow'. In that sense, then, he has no more rights than Moon Boy to live in Ned's home, or call upon Ned's loyalty (let alone Cat's). Anything Ned chooses to give him is a bonus, not an entitlement.

Ser Scot A Ellison, on Nov 27 2007, 14.06, said:

As someone who grew up with a "half-brother" let me assure you that while we were growing up he was simply my brother.  The "half" wasn't an issue.

And as someone who's brought up children in that situation, it's not an issue for us either. But it is an issue in the situation Cat and Jon are in.

[Errant Bard]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on Nov 27 2007, 15.06, said:

As someone who grew up with a "half-brother" let me assure you that while we were growing up he was simply my brother.  The "half" wasn't an issue.

The "half" is an issue only as far as it also means "bastard". Anyway the point was that if Sansa can recall/include Jon in her family memories, then Rickon complaining about Jon leaving him isn't proof of him considering Jon better than Sansa is.

Of course, I argue Sansa does loves Jon as her brother, but is also conscious of the rank difference. How many girls teach a boy they hate to talk to girls?

[/ot]

Edited by Errant Bard, 27 November 2007 - 09:37 AM.

[Ruby]

My theory on the whole thing, is that Cat knows that R+L=J, if not knows for sure she suspects it I think.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mormont,

mormont, on Nov 27 2007, 09.34, said:

And no. This is pretty much what we've been discussing, but in Westeros, this doesn't necessarily follow. Ned could choose to have Jon stay in WF, and did, but Jon does not have 'every reason' to be there.

Ned is Lord of Winterfell.  Therefore, Ned is the law in Winterfell.  Unless keeping Jon there is a breach of the King's peace Jon has "every reason" to be in Winterfell because Ned wants him there.  

Quote

As for the 'straw man', I think HE is trying to illustrate (by exaggeration) that the boundary between bastard child and trueborn is many, many times stronger in Westeros than in our world. Being Ned's bastard son confers no rights on Jon other than the name 'Snow'. In that sense, then, he has no more rights than Moon Boy to live in Ned's home, or call upon Ned's loyalty (let alone Cat's). Anything Ned chooses to give him is a bonus, not an entitlement.

I understand what he's trying to illustrate.  I'm pointing out the fallicy in his argument.  Moon boy has no relation to Ned.  Jon does.  That it is unusual for Ned to treat Jon as he does is beside the point.  He is Lord of Winterfell, and again, presumably, Jon's father.  He can and does treat him as he wishes him to be treated.

Quote

And as someone who's brought up children in that situation, it's not an issue for us either. But it is an issue in the situation Cat and Jon are in.

It's only an issue to kids when the children are made to understand the difference between siblings and half-siblings.  Even then it's not really an issue unless it is made an issue.  Like my Dad and my youngest brother who isn't his son.

[Errant Bard]

Ruby, on Nov 27 2007, 15.41, said:

My theory on the whole thing, is that Cat knows that R+L=J, if not knows for sure she suspects it I think.

You're proved wrong by that passage of AGOT, I'm afraid:

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on campaign. He had a man's needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father's castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than of the husband she scarcely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child's needs.
He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse
had already taken up residence.
That cut deep. Ned would not speak of the mother, not so much as a word, but a castle has no secrets, and Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they heard from the lips of her husband's soldiers. They whispered of Ser Arthur Dayne, the Sword of the Morning, deadliest of the seven knights of Aerys's Kingsguard, and of how their young lord had slain him in single combat. And they told how afterward Ned had carried Ser Arthur's sword back to the beautiful young sister who awaited him in a castle called Starfall on the shores of the Summer Sea. The Lady Ashara Dayne, tall and fair, with haunting violet eyes. It had taken her a fortnight to marshal her courage, but finally, in bed one night, Catelyn had asked her husband the truth of it, asked him to his face.
That was the only time in all their years that Ned had ever frightened her. "Never ask me about Jon," he said, cold as ice. "He is my blood, and that is all you need to know. And now I will learn where you heard that name, my lady." She had pledged to obey; she told him; and from that day on, the whispering had stopped, and Ashara Dayne's name was never heard in Winterfell again.

Ser Scot A Ellison, on Nov 27 2007, 15.54, said:

Ned is Lord of Winterfell.  Therefore, Ned is the law in Winterfell.  Unless keeping Jon there is a breach of the King's peace Jon has "every reason" to be in Winterfell because Ned wants him there.

Ned cannot dictate tradition, though. He breaks tradition with Jon, I don't think he can make it illegal for Catelyn to resent it, as the quote above illustrates, he's not really subtle, sympathetic or diplomatic about it.

Quote

It's only an issue to kids when the children are made to understand the difference between siblings and half-siblings.  Even then it's not really an issue unless it is made an issue.

Cannot be avoided in westeros, though, unless you fire all servants and plan for your bastard not only to inherit but never go out in the world. As Tyrion said, Jon cannot reject the bastard status, it's what he is, it is as important as a physical defect like dwarfism in Westeros.

Edited by Errant Bard, 27 November 2007 - 10:07 AM.

[mormont]

Ser Scot A Ellison, on Nov 27 2007, 14.54, said:

Ned is Lord of Winterfell.  Therefore, Ned is the law in Winterfell.  Unless keeping Jon there is a breach of the King's peace Jon has "every reason" to be in Winterfell because Ned wants him there.

Well, let's be clear, because I don't think we disagree that much. Ned can confer privileges upon Jon, and chooses to do so (at least ostensibly) because he is his child. But he cannot confer rights upon Jon. He can't give Jon the right to live in WF, as we see when Cat refuses to keep him there. He can only let Jon live in WF on his (Ned's) sufferance.

This, to me, doesn't fit with Jon having 'every reason' to be there. He has no reason to be there other than Ned's preference, and no reason at all in his own right.

Quote

I understand what he's trying to illustrate.  I'm pointing out the fallicy in his argument.  Moon boy has no relation to Ned.  Jon does.  That it is unusual for Ned to treat Jon as he does is beside the point.  He is Lord of Winterfell, and again, presumably, Jon's father.  He can and does treat him as he wishes him to be treated.

There's no fallacy in HE's argument at all. The whole argument is that being related to Ned confers no rights upon Jon that Moon Boy does not also possess, other than the right to a bastard name. That Ned chooses to treat Jon in an unusual way is not beside the point: it is the point. It's Ned's choice. It's Ned's right to treat Jon as he wishes. It's not Jon's right. Jon has no rights in the matter.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mormont, EB,

I do see y'all's point.  However, I have to wonder what would have happened if Ned had left Winterfell and ordered Catelyn to accept Jon (i.e. not send him away)?  I don't think Ned would have done that because he cared about Catelyn's feelings, but, as I understand the customs of Westeros, he could have.

Either way, I still don't think Catelyn's anger at Jon is justified.  Jon can't control his origins.  Her anger at Ned would have been entirely justified.  However, she chose to focus that anger on an innocent party rather than the person she had every right and excuse to be angry with.

[Errant Bard]

What would have happened? Cat had already given her ultimatum yet Ned's word is absolute. I think Cat would have yielded, but the atmosphere would have quickly deteriorated and both would have avoided each other as much as possible, and Jon would have ended being isolated. Not uncommon in a group dynamic to have such changes when a leading figure disappears. Also, other childrens would have been forced to choose a side, more or less and at least resent someone for the breach of family peace. Probably Sansa, Bran and Rickon siding with Cat, Robb with Ned and Jon, and Arya not choosing any side and staying alone in the middle.

On a more global scope, vassals would have been shocked that Ned prefered his bastard to his wife (not fair, but heh), there would have been talks, Hoster and Lysa would have wanted to have words with Ned, effectively lessening support From Riverlands and Vale. On top of that, talks about Jon's parentage would have started anew, stronger than ever, not really a wanted outcome.


About Cat's anger, yes it is unfair to Jon. I don't deny it. It's not his fault. Actually Cat herself thinks that at one point iirc. However, I have been angry, envious, jealous at times, and I understand that you cannot really control it in an entirely rational manner. I would admire someone who bottled it all inside during 15 years without snapping, actually. I disagree that she could choose the target too. She tried to talk it out with Ned before and he scared her silly. What was she to do? Divorce? If you notice, that is the way she was taking, after having endured it 15 years, if it had continued much longer.

Edited by Errant Bard, 27 November 2007 - 12:16 PM.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

EB,

To be clear, I think her anger at Jon is certianly understandable, even if it is unfair to Jon.  One of the things I love about Martin's characters is seeing character's I like doing things I find incredibly distasteful.  

Another good example is Robb's treatment of Tyrion when he's traveling back from the Wall.  I'm reading thinking of Robb, you idiot, why are you treating someone who's trying to help your brother in this fashion.  Looking back on it I love that chapter because of the wonderfully human way the characters intereact with each other.  It starts with Robb's overreaction and mistreatment of Tyrion  and it ends with the most human portrayal of Robb we get in the entire series.  When he tells Bran that when Catelyn gets back they (he and Bran) will travel to the Wall to see Jon, just to suprise him.  All the while with tears in his eyes.