1northlad

Cat the Most selfish Women in all the seven Kingdoms

203 posts in this topic

17 minutes ago, Adam Yozza said:

Not really. Catelyn explaining that Jon is a bastard and not a full-blood sibling and that he can't inherit Winterfell isn't the same as trying to poison Robb against him. What Catelyn told Robb was the truth. Presumably, Robb asked his mother why Jon's name was Snow or why she treated him differently. If she just wanted to stop them spending time with each other she could have just kept Robb away.

You don't know exactly what was said, it was off page, but what you suggest is extremely unlikely. If they know about all these historical figures they are quoting, they are already both well and truly old enough to know about the rules of succession. And we have another example on page (when Robb has told Catelyn about his intent to name Jon his heir) where Catelyn starts freaking out and stating historical precedence how bastards are bad and Jon or his children might harm Robbs children and used Theon as an example.

If she tried to stop them playing, training etc together she would likely be openly undermining Ned. I have absolutely no doubt given her reaction when Ned was leaving, that she would have stopped them if she could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, the trees have eyes said:

I'm not sure I follow.  As Children Robb and Jon play together constantly - evidence that evul Cat isn't perhaps ruining Jon's life every waking moment - and as children do they play at being King of the Castle or whatever analogue.  Except in this case Robb really will be "King of the Castle" as in Lord Of Winterfell and Jon won't.

All you seem to be describing to me is both Robb and Jon becoming old enough to understand the difference in their status and a childhood incident in which Robb shared this newly understood knowledge with Jon.  This is fact not prejudice or mistreatment, Jon has to understand at some point that he is a bastard and different to the other Stark children and this isn't some heinous mistreatment on Cat's part.  I certainly see no attempt to make Robb think that Jon will attempt to steal his rightful inheritance if that is what you are implying.  That seems fanciful.

Let me ask you: if in Jon's memory Robb's words had been "my Lord father" rather than "my Lady mother" would you react in the same way and make the same accusations?

I don't know how much more clearly it can be explained. I am repeating myself a lot now. Prejudice is when a preconceived judgement is made about someone with no basis in evidence, often based on the actions of others from a similar group. Even if you ignore all the other circumstantial evidence, we have a later example of Catelyn specifically likening Jon to the Targaryen bastards and Theon (as a brotherly figure) and claiming he could harm Robbs children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, Makk said:

Why should everyone know an offhand comment he made in 1999? It would take a few seconds to post it here.

It doesn't even completely support what you have been saying.

 

The answer is non-committal and not really conducive to use as evidence to argue semantics. The only bit here that supports what you are saying is that GRRM says she didn't verbally abuse and attack him. But the fact he refuses to rule out the word "mistreatment" (because it's too broad) shows there were other lesser cases that could be considered mistreatment and the actual material supports that.

Was this a verbal reply? If so I am even more wary of it.

It won't surprise me if grrm himself came to tell you that cat didn't mistreat jon and you were still wary of it. lol

When I talked about mistreatment, i meant being abusive (verbally or physically) to someone. Catelyn didn't do either of those as confirmed by grrm. She didn't go out of her way to "harm" jon in any way. She didn't starve him or isolated him from her children. She didn't act nice to jon in front of ned and was cruel to jon behind his back. She basically avoided interacting with him altogether. She never hid her true feelings about the bastard from ned. She didn't give jon false hopes. If avoiding him is so forgivable to you then lets agree to disagree because I believe she has no obligation to love or care about a bastard. As long as she didn't actively tried to make his life miserable I'm totally understanding towards her.  

Edited by Moonmoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 8/21/2017 at 6:10 PM, 1northlad said:

So I am re-reading through the books. ( Or is truly honest im listening to them as I drive to work. But have read them before) and as much as I love the Catlyn Chapters I hate Cat herself. the chapters are good because you get to see the war through the Northern and Rivermen's eyes and it actually feels like a proper war story with troop movements discussed etc. but Cat ruins them. all she thinks about is herself!! 

Every time she has a go at Edmure for trying to re-capture Jamie, Every time she has calls the men around her stupid for not understanding her feeling on why she let Jamie free. then she has the audacity to berate Robb about his new wife. She refuses all his orders throughout the series bar going to see renly and Stannis inadvertently and fails, though not much she could do admittedly. I know she was grieving but come on. the shit she did was treason, letting the KINGSLAYER go was the most selfish thing anybody has done in this series.  

All she does is moan and hinder Robb at every turn until Roose Bolton finally does his one good deed and ends her miserable existence.

So does anybody agree with me, that Cat is Boring to read and the most selfish Woman in the books? 

Yep, most selfish things in the book. Fucking a slave prostitute like Tyrion did, that was way less selfish then letting a prisoner go to try to save your daughters. Telling Cersei your father's plan to get in good with the royal family, also so much less selfish. How about Jaime himself? Flinging a child out a window to protect yourself, way less selfish right? How about trying to kill ur niece because you think she is flirting with your husband? Less selfish? Burning a man because he disagrees with your religion? Killing people because you can (Joffrey, Ramsay, others)? How about allowing tons of people to die because of your right to the throne? By the way, I am being sarcastic. Catelyn's actions were literally taken in an attempt to save her children. They were foolish and desperate, and yes, perhaps somewhat selfish, but so are literally every other character's actions...Tyrion, Tywin, Eddard, even freaking Jon. Everyobe does something selfish sometimes

Edited by Lord of Raventree Hall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 hours ago, Ran said:

 

She's not responsible for protecting Jon from reality. She's not responsible for him at all.

And this is what it all comes down to; Jon's reality is that he can never be part of Robb's world but for some reason people like to think he could if it wasn't for Cat. When Jon found the direwolves his instant reaction was to give them to his trueborn siblings, was Cat there to force him? No, he did that because at 14 he was able to acknowledge the difference between a Snow and Stark and the reality of his situation. 

9 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

Let me ask you: if in Jon's memory Robb's words had been "my Lord father" rather than "my Lady mother" would you react in the same way and make the same accusations?

That's another thing about this fandom's double standards, they seem to think Ned would have made Jon a Stark if it wasn't for his evil wife telling him no. Unless Ned wrapped him in swaddling cloths chances are Jon would have realised the differences between him and his siblings from a young age e.g. the different surname, and if a distressed Robb asked him if Jon will be Lord of Witerfell because he looks like a Stark Ned would have given the exact same response. 

Edited by Pikachu101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

7 hours ago, Makk said:

Why would Robb all of a sudden come out with this line if she hadn't?

OK, so you're now saying that you presume she said it, which is not at all what you said to begin with:

11 hours ago, Makk said:

The prejudice isn't the fact he is a bastard, the prejudice would be her telling Robb that because he is a bastard he might try to steal Robb's birthright.

The clear suggestion there was that you are referring to direct evidence of Cat saying this. That's a whole different ball game. When it comes to things that we think characters might have said at some indeterminate point, that's not evidence, no matter how sure you are. It means nothing and has no bearing on the discussion.

Quote

And then she definitively says it here, but Robb is now grown and he (and Greywind) will not have a bar of it.

She doesn't say it here, either, definitively or otherwise. She asks Robb if he's considered the possibility that Jon's sons might one day challenge his. And this, of course, is referring to a situation where Jon has been legitimised, and is no longer a bastard. So again, you're stretching somewhat.

Is it a fear of Cat's, that Jon might some day represent a threat to her children's inheritance? Yes, we can say that, I think. But what you're claiming in your original post, that Cat had told Robb prior to that king-in-the-castle incident that Jon would steal his birthright? That's not true, I'm afraid.

Edited by mormont

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really like Cat, but considering her the more selfish "women" (it's womAn) in Westeros (more selfish than Cersei? you know, the woman who wanted Jaime in the Kingsguard to keep him all for herself, yet has been fucking Lancel behind his back?) is insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Makk said:

I don't know how much more clearly it can be explained. I am repeating myself a lot now. Prejudice is when a preconceived judgement is made about someone with no basis in evidence, often based on the actions of others from a similar group. Even if you ignore all the other circumstantial evidence, we have a later example of Catelyn specifically likening Jon to the Targaryen bastards and Theon (as a brotherly figure) and claiming he could harm Robbs children.

This is a scene that occurs well into ASOS.  It has nothing to do with your complaint that Catelyn was prejudicing Robb against Jon from early infancy or to the point that telling her young child that he would be Lord Of Winterfell not his half-brother Jon (and why this was so) was malicious prejudice agasint Jon rather than simple fact.  Parents are after all supposed to explain things to their chidren.

I asked you how you would treat the King of the Castle scene if Robb had had the truth explained to him by his father rather than his mother but you were notably silent on that point.  It's remembered bitterly by Jon because it was the or one of the crystalising moments when his young self realised that he was different to the other children and did not truly belong at Winterfell as they did.  It's symptomatic of his growing awareness of self and forming his identity not of evul cat ruining his idyllic life at Winterfell and poisoning playtime with Robb.

Cat doesn't want Jon named as Robb's heir because legitimising him makes any succession by Robb's children or even by Sansa more complicated.  For whether she was right to worry or not see Jon's temptation when Stannis offers to make him a legitimate Stark and Lord of Winterfell.  It's not a risk she is prepared to make versus her own child or grandchild.  She is not choosing who she wants to succeed Robb, that is clearly Robb's future sons (duh) but arguing with him over the consequences of naming Jon as his hypothetical stopgap heir.  This isn't prejudicial against Jon or due to some belief in the inherently evil nature of bastards but a prgamatic attempt to keep the line of succession simple and clear for her grandchildren via Robb.  Distant cousins like the Royces can easily be discounted in future as no one would support their claim if they pushed it, but a son of Ned Stark raised at Winterfell and know to the whole North is an entirely different proposition.  ADWD does after all show us how the North look to him to lead them.  Also consider that the Wars of the Roses heavily influenced GRRM: Richard III was by all accounts an entirely loyal subject to his brother Edward IV but you know what happened to Edward IV's children right?  The Princes in the Tower is one of the most infamous stories in English History.

And Grey Wind's reaction is not about Jon at all, it is all about the blame Catelyn lays at Robb's door for Bran and Rickon's deaths due to his insistence on sending Theon back to Pyke against her wishes.  That comment stings, not least because there is an element of truth to it, though Theon's actions could not have been forseen, and Robb is hurt and angry, cue protective reaction and warning display by Grey Wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mormont said:

OK, so you're now saying that you presume she said it, which is not at all what you said to begin with:

The clear suggestion there was that you are referring to direct evidence of Cat saying this. That's a whole different ball game. When it comes to things that we think characters might have said at some indeterminate point, that's not evidence, no matter how sure you are. It means nothing and has no bearing on the discussion.

She doesn't say it here, either, definitively or otherwise. She asks Robb if he's considered the possibility that Jon's sons might one day challenge his. And this, of course, is referring to a situation where Jon has been legitimised, and is no longer a bastard. So again, you're stretching somewhat.

Is it a fear of Cat's, that Jon might some day represent a threat to her children's inheritance? Yes, we can say that, I think. But what you're claiming in your original post, that Cat had told Robb prior to that king-in-the-castle incident that Jon would steal his birthright? That's not true, I'm afraid.

It's a deduction, not a presumption.

1 Catelyn disliked Jon. She was afraid of the threat he offered and she was still hurt that Ned brought him back and was so secretive about him.

2 Every single time Jon and Catelyn are mentioned together, GRRM stresses the relationship is strained. 

3 They have played that game a lot. Both Robb and Jon know Robb will inherit, and then Bran etc. Jon has said the same line hundreds of times before. On this particular occasion Robb takes extreme offense. His outburst says Jon is a bastard and he can inherit Winterfell. He specifically says Catelyn told him so. Again what do you think she said that could have led to that outburst.

4 Later on we see from a point of view Catelyn arguing against Robb warning him against Jon, against bastards, against legitimising him, against the threat he poses to Robbs possible children, and comparing him to Theon. I think everyone who reads the books knows that this would completely go against Jon's character. We also get to see Robb's reaction as soon as Catelyn starts. "Mother." There was a sharpness in Robb's tone. "You forget. My father had four sons." At the start he is instantly annoyed, he has heard this all before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

I asked you how you would treat the King of the Castle scene if Robb had had the truth explained to him by his father rather than his mother but you were notably silent on that point.

I have been answering multiple questions to multiple people, often repetitively, in this thread. Forgive me if I ignore a hypothetical situation that didn't happen and frankly doesn't make any sense. But since you have repeated it I will answer.

If Robb had said..."You can't be Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born. My lord father says you can't ever be the Lord of Winterfell."... I would have said wtf???? Ned said that? That is completely out of character.

For GRRM to write such a line he would have completely needed to rewrite Ned. Just as every example George gives with Catelyn and Jon being strained, every example he gives with Jon, Robb and Ned shows that Ned wants Jon and Robb to be close friends and brothers. 

Also be aware that Ned would have explained the laws of succession to Robb. But Robb specifically named Catelyn. This is even more evidence that she did much more than simply explain the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Makk said:

If Robb had said..."You can't be Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born. My lord father says you can't ever be the Lord of Winterfell."... I would have said wtf???? Ned said that? That is completely out of character.

Simply imagine the scenario where ignorant, innocent Robb asks, "Will Jon become Lord of Winterfell when he's all growed-up?" What's Ned supposed to answer? "Well, maybe, if you end up dying before him..."

No, he'd just say the truth, "No, Jon won't be. You'll become Lord of Winterfell when it's time, and Jon may well be your strong right-hand, commanding a holdfast in your name or, etc." 

Which then becomes, to ignorant, innocent Robb, "Daddy told me I'M gonna be Lord of Winterfell and that you can't be!"

You're really stretching one line of dialogue from a little boy very far to fit your impression. It's a very thin reed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Makk said:

It's a deduction, not a presumption.

It really isn't.

55 minutes ago, Makk said:

1 Catelyn disliked Jon. She was afraid of the threat he offered and she was still hurt that Ned brought him back and was so secretive about him.

Agreed, but this would remain true if she never said anything, so we cannot use it to deduce that she did say something.

55 minutes ago, Makk said:

2 Every single time Jon and Catelyn are mentioned together, GRRM stresses the relationship is strained. 

Same again.

55 minutes ago, Makk said:

3 They have played that game a lot. Both Robb and Jon know Robb will inherit, and then Bran etc. Jon has said the same line hundreds of times before. On this particular occasion Robb takes extreme offense.

'Extreme offence' is not really a fair characterisation of a snotty remark said by a kid playing a game. Even if it were, kids don't need a particular reason to make snotty remarks while playing games.

55 minutes ago, Makk said:

His outburst says Jon is a bastard and he can inherit Winterfell. He specifically says Catelyn told him so. Again what do you think she said that could have led to that outburst.

Er, that Jon cannot inherit Winterfell? Which is a fact.

55 minutes ago, Makk said:

4 Later on we see from a point of view Catelyn arguing against Robb warning him against Jon, against bastards, against legitimising him, against the threat he poses to Robbs possible children, and comparing him to Theon. I think everyone who reads the books knows that this would completely go against Jon's character. We also get to see Robb's reaction as soon as Catelyn starts. "Mother." There was a sharpness in Robb's tone. "You forget. My father had four sons." At the start he is instantly annoyed, he has heard this all before. 

The first two words make the rest irrelevant as evidence, and as noted previously you are wrongly characterising what Cat actually says in that conversation anyway. Cat is discussing what threat Jon's children may pose to Robb's: she accepts as the basis for the entire argument that Jon himself is trustworthy.

So, you are 'deducing' from no relevant evidence: which we call 'presuming', when we're being polite anyway. 'Making shit up' would also be accurate.

We may equally validly infer that Cat never said what you are suggesting, citing as proof the fact that there is no mention of it in any of the relevant POV chapters, even when it would be relevant for the author to mention it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Ran said:

Simply imagine the scenario where ignorant, innocent Robb asks, "Will Jon become Lord of Winterfell when he's all growed-up?" What's Ned supposed to answer? "Well, maybe, if you end up dying before him..."

No, he'd just say the truth, "No, Jon won't be. You'll become Lord of Winterfell when it's time, and Jon may well be your strong right-hand, commanding a holdfast in your name or, etc." 

Which then becomes, to ignorant, innocent Robb, "Daddy told me I'M gonna be Lord of Winterfell and that you can't be!"

You're really stretching one line of dialogue from a little boy very far to fit your impression. It's a very thin reed.

I don't find this at all convincing as I simply don't believe Robb would have reacted this way if that was all that was said. As part of his education, as befits a lord, he would have had the laws of succession explained well before he learned history of the seven kingdoms. Ned and Luwin would most likely be responsible for this. Yet he names Catelyn in his outburst.

And it's not a single line of dialogue. There are dozens of lines that point to it including her specifically warning Robb later on about legitimising Jon with historical precedent of other bastards. Why do you think she would not have said something similar while Robb was growing up and more impressionable? Give me some text from the material that indicates she did not try to influence Robb with her own fears about Jon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mormont said:

It really isn't.

It really is.

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

Agreed, but this would remain true if she never said anything, so we cannot use it to deduce that she did say something.

I'm not even sure what you are saying here. It's showing she has a motive. Also we know she said something, Robb said so.

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

Same again.

Ditto

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

Er, that Jon cannot inherit Winterfell? Which is a fact.

Yes, a typo. Yes it is a fact Robb knew before the outburst.

14 minutes ago, mormont said:

The first two words make the rest irrelevant as evidence, and as noted previously you are wrongly characterising what Cat actually says in that conversation anyway. Cat is discussing what threat Jon's children may pose to Robb's: she accepts as the basis for the entire argument that Jon himself is trustworthy.

What two words? Later on? Catelyn hasn't changed into a different a person. Her views on Jon have almost certainly remained constant throughout her life from the point she arrived back at Winterfell to find Ned had brought a bastard home up until the point she says that. And to deduce what she may have said off page in the past, it is perfectly valid to look at what she has said on page later on when there is nothing to have changed her views.

The threat is primarily from Jon. Any children he has come from Jon. And the children isn't the main thrust of her argument. It was simply her redirection to try and convince Robb. She likened Jon to Theon who they believed had murdered Bran and Rickon and burnt Winterfell to the ground.

25 minutes ago, mormont said:

So, you are 'deducing' from no relevant evidence: which we call 'presuming', when we're being polite anyway. 'Making shit up' would also be accurate.

We may equally validly infer that Cat never said what you are suggesting, citing as proof the fact that there is no mention of it in any of the relevant POV chapters, even when it would be relevant for the author to mention it.

I don't really think you are trying to be polite. Anyway, I believe I have presented a lot of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Makk said:

I'm not even sure what you are saying here.

I'm saying that this is not evidence: that it cannot be used to infer what you are using it to infer. Someone having a motive to do something is not the same as evidence that the thing happened. (In any case, it's extremely questionable to describe this as a 'motive': an emotion and/or a belief is not a motive.)

35 minutes ago, Makk said:

 Also we know she said something, Robb said so.

We know that, and we know what was said, too: but you're claiming that something else was also said, and that's the bit we have zero evidence for.

35 minutes ago, Makk said:

What two words? Later on?

Yes. A conversation after the fact, that doesn't refer in any way to a previous conversation, is not evidence of anything. If I called my boss a wanker tomorrow* it wouldn't prove that I'd said it before. Even if you believe that I probably thought it before, and even if he might have suspected that I was not his biggest fan. Post hoc fallacy and all that.

(*example given for illustrative purposes only, no criticism of mormont's real boss should be implied. :p)

35 minutes ago, Makk said:

The threat is primarily from Jon.

That may be your view, but it is contradicting the actual conversation on the page, I'm afraid.

35 minutes ago, Makk said:

Anyway, I believe I have presented a lot of evidence.

Believe away. I can believe my wallet's full, but that isn't going to buy me a round at the bar.

There's an easy way to resolve this: you've cited 'dozens' of lines that support your case in your reply to Ran. Yet you've only given the example of the conversation after the fact, which isn't really doing much to persuade us. So give us some other examples - should be easy, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Makk said:

I have been answering multiple questions to multiple people, often repetitively, in this thread. Forgive me if I ignore a hypothetical situation that didn't happen and frankly doesn't make any sense. But since you have repeated it I will answer.

If Robb had said..."You can't be Lord of Winterfell, you're bastard-born. My lord father says you can't ever be the Lord of Winterfell."... I would have said wtf???? Ned said that? That is completely out of character.

For GRRM to write such a line he would have completely needed to rewrite Ned. Just as every example George gives with Catelyn and Jon being strained, every example he gives with Jon, Robb and Ned shows that Ned wants Jon and Robb to be close friends and brothers. 

Also be aware that Ned would have explained the laws of succession to Robb. But Robb specifically named Catelyn. This is even more evidence that she did much more than simply explain the law.

Nope.  My hypothetical question was to try and make you reconsider your set-in-stone interpretation of that one memory from Jon and to consider just how easily the information coming from Ned as from Catelyn has exactly the same impact on Jon.  That you consider GRRM would have to rewrite Ned completely for this bit of information to have come from him suggests to me that you are overblowing this scene dramatically and reading things into it that just aren't there.  It's informative as to  a learning experience for Jon and indicative of him becoming aware of his status and how his destiny will differ from Robb's despite their childish games and apparent equivalence.  I wonder if you think Robb is quoting verbatim rather than summarising the gist of an explanation.  You certainly see the statement as spiteful rather than explanatory but as there is zip in story to tell us how old Jon and Robb were when this occurred or that either boy is old enough to have had things explained to them in a way that they fully understand before it seems a much better explanation to me.

You are also claiming as evidence things that you simply don't know as they aren't written by the author.  The one thing we do know is that Cat told Robb why he and not Jon would inherit WF, we do not know what age they were or if their formal education had covered it at that point.  Yet you claim as "evidence", sorry "even more evidence" the fact that Ned had already explained this to Jon for your claim that Catelyn was acting maliciously.  That's not true and someone less undestanding might refer to it as an ass-pull.  If Ned had already explained it there would be no need for Robb to suddenly blurt it out in a game they had played a hundred times before would there?  Because Jon would already know and understand and this wouldn't be a painful memory for him to dredge up either, just confirmation of something he had known for years.  Hardly a memory to suddenly make him lose control and beat the crap out of Iron Emmett if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Makk said:

You don't know exactly what was said, it was off page, but what you suggest is extremely unlikely. If they know about all these historical figures they are quoting, they are already both well and truly old enough to know about the rules of succession. And we have another example on page (when Robb has told Catelyn about his intent to name Jon his heir) where Catelyn starts freaking out and stating historical precedence how bastards are bad and Jon or his children might harm Robbs children and used Theon as an example.

If she tried to stop them playing, training etc together she would likely be openly undermining Ned. I have absolutely no doubt given her reaction when Ned was leaving, that she would have stopped them if she could.

Speaking...er...typing, as a former precocious child, that depends entirely on the kid. I could name historical and legendary figures when I was five years old, but if someone had asked me who became president if both the POTUS and Vice POTUS were killed, I probably couldn't have answered that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

It's informative as to  a learning experience for Jon and indicative of him becoming aware of his status and how his destiny will differ from Robb's despite their childish games and apparent equivalence. 

Jon's bastardy would have affected him regardless of whether or not Cat was around, she could have died in childbirth and the memory would have stayed same; Robb would pull rank. So it wasn't the "my lady mother" that bothered Jon it was the reminder that no matter how hard he tried he could never be part of his brother's world and that's a reality he'd have to live with in any scenario. 

To sum up, Cat isn't selfish if anything she's the most selfless character in the series; whether you can justify her actions or not everything she did was for her family. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pikachu101 said:

Jon's bastardy would have affected him regardless of whether or not Cat was around, she could have died in childbirth and the memory would have stayed same; Robb would pull rank. So it wasn't the "my lady mother" that bothered Jon it was the reminder that no matter how hard he tried he could never be part of his brother's world and that's a reality he'd have to live with in any scenario. 

To sum up, Cat isn't selfish if anything she's the most selfless character in the series; whether you can justify her actions or not everything she did was for her family. 

I fully agree.  Blaming Catelyn in this specific case of explaining things to Robb really is a case of shooting the messanger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 9:15 PM, Frey family reunion said:

Umm, no this is clearly something Ned worries about, otherwise why does he pray that it never comes to Cat having to make that decision.  Clearly, Ned knows that there is a possibility that one day Jon's life could be a threat to Cat's children.  Now you could make the argument that if Jon is Rhaegar's child, that knowledge could put all of Winterfell in jeopardy with the King.  But once again, nowhere do we ever have Ned worrying specifically about Jon's safety with Robert, and his actions seem to indicate that he does not fear Jon's safety with Robert.  

Perhaps, just perhaps there is something about Jon's birth that would put him in conflict with Cat and her children, that does not involve Robert or the Targaryens.

It's interesting that this seems to line up with Jon's own dark subconscious.  Jon dreams of slaying Ned and Robb and taking Winterfell for himself.

If Catelyn had to choose between the lives of her own children, and the life of Jon, she'd choose the former.  So would most mothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now