Defending Cat, again

[corbon]

This thread in order not to derail another thread,

I don't see how her being discovered forced her to kidnap Tyrion.

Arrest, not kidnap. Although she was taking on authority she perhaps didn't quite own (but her absent husband did, and she pretty much had that at home, so its a case of geography more than anything else), she clearly tried to do everything legally and by due process.

Note that she actually released Tyrion because he won the trial - a trial that she knew was a biased joke and tried to stop, but could not. She wanted a fair trial in front of the King, so that she could get both justice for Bran and 'save' the realm from the grasping, treacherous, murderous Lannisters.

That may not be an accurate view on her part, but it is a reasonable view given the data she has.

When people go on about kidnapping, when it was clearly stated, and clearly carried through, as a legal arrest, they betray either bias, or incorrect facts.

Sure, I can understand why she made the decision as well. But that doesn't change my evaluation of her decision, and apparently it doesn't change yours. Is there actually any disagreement here?

Well, you appear to be expecting her to make her decision based on the data we have, not on the data she has.

The data we have is that Tyrion is mostly a moderately nice, or at least genial, guy, didn't have anything to do with plots against Robert or Bran and had no reason to have her killed.

The data she has is that the Lannisters are taking over the court and plotting against Robert, and the Lannisters have means motive and opportunity to assassinate Bran (presumably because he saw or heard some plot that he should not have) and the weapon was Tyrion's. Therefore, based on that data, Tyrion is probably an evil little imp who will instantly wonder (and figure out) why she is in the south travelling incognito and will have no compunctions in having her disappear because she is clearly 'on to him'.

Yes, it's too late to stop her presence becoming known now, but only Tyrion, or another of his fellow plotters, will know why she is there. And now that he knows, justice will be impossible, as he will just disappear into the westlands and never be bought to trial.

So arresting him is the only way there is any chance of bringing him to trial, to justice and exposing the plotting of the Lannisters in a way that will convince Robert to act.

And it makes any 'pursuit' or ambush/assassination attempts on her less likely for two reasons. First, because without Tyrion actually directing them much of the immediate 'push' and 'brains' will be gone from such attempts, and secondly because if he is free to direct them then Lannister promises of reward etc have much greater impact and immediacy, and therefore more likely to sway people to 'sign up'.

uhm...why would he do that? That doesn't exactly fit his character. I always found Tyrion very sympathetic towards the Starks.

and Cat never thought that, so I doubt that was her rational.

By the time he got back to KL she probably would have already been off the road.

I think Cat just had a moment of irrational thinking, and wanted some kind of justice/revenge whatever.

We know he wouldn't, because the situation doesn't really warrant it.

She 'knows' he would, because all her data says both the situation and the character (about which she knows little but that he is a lecherous drunk) do warrant it.

Sure she wanted justice, and probably to dome extent revenge. Bu it wasn't a moment of irrational thinking. She tried desperately to avoid it and then he backed her into a corner from which she could see no other way out except to passively accept that justice would never come, the Lannister plots would not be exposed and she probably wouldn't make it back to Winterfell alive.

He doesn't need to go back to KL to act. If her data was correct, a few quiet promises of rewards to a couple of characters like Bronn and she and her one-man escort would have disappeared within 48 hrs, never to be heard of again. Sad how dangerous the roads are these days.

And it is clear reading between the lines that that is exactly what she did think, it just isn't spelt out for us.

If you've got problems with the cat hate, re-read the first cat chapter after brans fall and the jon chapter where he leaves winterfell. She's sitting there thinking she could've handled it happening to any of them except bran, then it turns out the only time she calls jon by his name is to say it should've been him that fell. The language I'd use to descibe her would likely get me banned from this forum.

It never fails to astonish me how much people can empathise and forgive some characters yet seize on one tiny moment to justifying pooring scorn, hate and derision on another character.

There is no evidence anywhere in the books that Catelyn treated Jon less than his station. There is considerable evidence that she treated him better than his station, even if only at Ned's desire.

Jon is not her son, not part of her family in any way, not her responsibility even. Jon is an active threat to her children's futures - a small one for now, but a very real one indeed, if anyone cares to read some history.

He also represents a direct and pointed insult to her personally, and due to his unusual favoured treatment is one that is thrust into her face every day.

Yet for all that, she was nearly always civil to him. He ate with the family (except of course when the King came, and not even Ned expected anything other than that), played with them, trained with them. She was never his mother, never let the gap between them close, but she was never asked to be, not by her culture and not even by Ned.

Yet one time, at a moment of great stress after not sleeping for days at the still-uncertain-death-bed of her favourite child, she breaks, and lashes out verbally at him.

And people blame her as a terrible person for it?

Yes, it was wrong. Yes it was nasty and unfair. But she was so stressed and tired, it was a moment of weakness.

I don't see anything wrong with the fundamental thoughts, unpleasant to Jon as they are. She's a mother - she's supposed to favour her children, especially over the cuckoo in the nest.

Thinking that way is natural. It is just saying it, lashing out to hurt with it, that is not. But it was just that one time and look at the stress she was under.

[Dragonfish]

Arrest, not kidnap. Although she was taking on authority she perhaps didn't quite own (but her absent husband did, and she pretty much had that at home, so its a case of geography more than anything else), she clearly tried to do everything legally and by due process.

Note that she actually released Tyrion because he won the trial - a trial that she knew was a biased joke and tried to stop, but could not. She wanted a fair trial in front of the King, so that she could get both justice for Bran and 'save' the realm from the grasping, treacherous, murderous Lannisters.

That may not be an accurate view on her part, but it is a reasonable view given the data she has.

When people go on about kidnapping, when it was clearly stated, and clearly carried through, as a legal arrest, they betray either bias, or incorrect facts.

Fair enough.

The data she has is that the Lannisters are taking over the court and plotting against Robert, and the Lannisters have means motive and opportunity to assassinate Bran (presumably because he saw or heard some plot that he should not have) and the weapon was Tyrion's.

And based on this data, you think it was a good idea for her to arrest Tyrion, while the people who clearly have no compunctions about assassinating little boys and King's Hands are still in King's Landing with her husband and daughters? How did she think they would react? The answer is that she didn't. She saw Tyrion, thought about the harm he had supposedly brought to her and her family, and decided to act on that and bring herself some emotional satisfaction. There was no rational calculation of the costs and benefits here.

And it is clear reading between the lines that that is exactly what she did think, it just isn't spelt out for us.

Do you have quotes to justify this reading?

It never fails to astonish me how much people can empathise and forgive some characters yet seize on one tiny moment to justifying pooring scorn, hate and derision on another character.

There is no evidence anywhere in the books that Catelyn treated Jon less than his station. There is considerable evidence that she treated him better than his station, even if only at Ned's desire.

Jon is not her son, not part of her family in any way, not her responsibility even. Jon is an active threat to her children's futures - a small one for now, but a very real one indeed, if anyone cares to read some history.

He also represents a direct and pointed insult to her personally, and due to his unusual favoured treatment is one that is thrust into her face every day.

Yet for all that, she was nearly always civil to him. He ate with the family (except of course when the King came, and not even Ned expected anything other than that), played with them, trained with them. She was never his mother, never let the gap between them close, but she was never asked to be, not by her culture and not even by Ned.

Yet one time, at a moment of great stress after not sleeping for days at the still-uncertain-death-bed of her favourite child, she breaks, and lashes out verbally at him.

And people blame her as a terrible person for it?

Yes, it was wrong. Yes it was nasty and unfair. But she was so stressed and tired, it was a moment of weakness.

I don't see anything wrong with the fundamental thoughts, unpleasant to Jon as they are. She's a mother - she's supposed to favour her children, especially over the cuckoo in the nest.

Thinking that way is natural. It is just saying it, lashing out to hurt with it, that is not. But it was just that one time and look at the stress she was under.

Agree with this 100%.

[corbon]

And based on this data, you think it was a good idea for her to arrest Tyrion, while the people who clearly have no compunctions about assassinating little boys and King's Hands are still in King's Landing with her husband and daughters? How did she think they would react? The answer is that she didn't. She saw Tyrion, thought about the harm he had supposedly brought to her and her family, and decided to act on that and bring herself some emotional satisfaction. There was no rational calculation of the costs and benefits here.

Do you have quotes to justify this reading?

She tried her best to avoid Tyrion and was clearly dismayed when he recognised her.

There is only one reason for trying to hide from him, and doing so goes directly against the claim that seeing him made her act for emotional satisfaction.

[Dragonfish]

She tried her best to avoid Tyrion and was clearly dismayed when he recognised her.

There is only one reason for trying to hide from him, and doing so goes directly against the claim that seeing him made her act for emotional satisfaction.

Well, I perhaps phrased my sentence in artfully, so let me put it another way: Catelyn wanted to bring Tyrion to justice when he came in there, but held back because she didn't want the Lannisters to know she was there. But when Tyrion saw her, that plan was pretty much over, and this gave her an "out", so to speak, to act on her emotions.

Also, you still haven't answered my question: do you think it would have been a good idea to arrest Tyrion while his fellow Lannister conspirators and assassins are still in King's Landing with her family?

[corbon]

Well, I perhaps phrased my sentence in artfully, so let me put it another way: Catelyn wanted to bring Tyrion to justice when he came in there, but held back because she didn't want the Lannisters to know she was there. But when Tyrion saw her, that plan was pretty much over, and this gave her an "out", so to speak, to act on her emotions.

I'm not saying part of her didn't want revenge or to go after Tyrin.

But clearly, that part was under control and not making the decisions for her.

I don't think it is reasonable to blame her emotions rather than rationality for taking plan B when clearly she put aside her emotions enough to decide plan B was not the ideal plan in the first place.

Also, you still haven't answered my question: do you think it would have been a good idea to arrest Tyrion while his fellow Lannister conspirators and assassins are still in King's Landing with her family?

What difference does it make?

Tyrion knows she was in the south (or is on the way there with news/evidence), and thus her family is in danger there now anyway.

Arguably arresting Tyrion should make her family safer - the King has to take notice and the Lannisters can't move against her family without it being obvious what they are doing. If she doesn't arrest him, he goes back to KL now knowing Ned knows of the conspiracies (from her skewed-data-POV remember), and will conspire against him as well, and all the while the King still doesn't have any formal notice of the plots against him.

Only Jaime, in all his arrogance, goes after Ned and his boys anyway and Robert reaches a new low with being unwilling to act on Jaimes' attack on Ned.

Jaime got away with murder, literally, and I don't think it was fair to expect Catelyn to realise that he would, or could, do that. Rationally by arresting Tyrion she has put the Lannisters in the public eye so to speak and they should behave more circumspectly, not less, not to mention the semi-hostage situation.

Edit: I should add, that knowing what we know, clearly arresting Tyrion was a disastrously bad plan. But knowing what she thought she knew, I think it is the best plan she could have taken at the time - yes literally the best as in I can't see any other option that has a better predicted result given the data she is working with.

But mad Lyssa screwed it all up for one thing, and the Lannisters were not the big planning conspirators she thought they were (thats Littlefinger for the most part) and were also rather irrational in their responses.

[djhdjh]

Just because she calls it an arrest doesn't make it so. Has Ned given her the authority to go and arrest Tyrion if she sees him? Not as far as I remember - surely he'd send someone he wasn't so worried about taking on the Lannisters and who was less of a partisan figure. So on whose authority is she making the arrest? If it's not the king's then it's not legitimate - it is kidnap. Kidnap by one member of a great house of another member of a great house is an act of war. There's no way round that. I'd have to read the text again to remember if it was emotionally driven or not and I seem to remember that it was (it would fit Catelyn's character who only really makes bad decisions when worried for her family) but there's no way to consider it legitimate. A bad tactic or not, who can say and I don't think she could have done either given how fast things spiralled out of control.

I've never quite understood why Catelyn gets the negative reaction she does when she's in so many ways a female version of her husband but on this issue she was in the wrong.

[lyvyathan]

If I may cut into the discussion... Catelyn doesn't think - she acts impetuously - this rash behavior is also exhibited when she frees a major hostage without consulting her son, her liege king - which also damage to his alliance.

Arresting Tyrion was a catastrophe mistake. (Unless she could have silenced all the witnesses) she quickly antagonized the Lannisters, the most powerful house in the Kingdom, to feed her suspicions. She had no concrete proof that Tyrion was complicit in Bran's attempted murder.

She placed her Husband and her precious daughters (not to mention Stark's bannermen) in immediate grave peril through her rash actions. What is esp. galling is that she did not have the means to warn Ned of her actions. If a Lannister came at him with a sword swinging he wouldn't have a clue why.

And of course her act resulted in the inn-keeper's death and the slaughter of many other small folk.

I can only see one sensible outcome in that inn - and that would have been to quietly corner and interrogate Tyrion for an hour or so before letting him go.

In the book - his simple explanation of the knife gave Catelyn cause to doubt the case.

So in short, I think she's a fool - her brother Edmure is no better.

I really wanted to see one scene in the book where someone sits her down and gives her the scolding she deserves. Robb should have struck her head off not Karstark when he learnt that of her hand in the hostage escape.

[lyvyathan]

Only Jaime, in all his arrogance, goes after Ned and his boys anyway and Robert reaches a new low with being unwilling to act on Jaimes' attack on Ned.

Jaime got away with murder, literally, and I don't think it was fair to expect Catelyn to realise that he would, or could, do that. Rationally by arresting Tyrion she has put the Lannisters in the public eye so to speak and they should behave more circumspectly, not less, not to mention the semi-hostage situation.

By seizing Tyrion she was openly declaring war on House Lannister. And if it wasn't Jamie - it would have been another Red Cloak. You forgot Lord Tywin- he had a pretty mighty wrath of his own. Catelyn should have remembered the Sacking of King's Landing and of how Princess Elia and her children were butchered by House Lannister bannermen. What about Sansa and Arya who were in King's Landing surrounded by Lannister men?

ie. You don't bugger with House Lannister.

So there you have it - Catelyn seizes Lord Tywin's son- the black sheep of the family because of some suspicion that he is complicit in her son's attempted murder. She somehow forgets that House Lannister is the other fairer half of the Iron Throne.

And she also has no way to warn the key members of House Stark and House Tully of her impetuous decision - before word got to House Lannister.

Moreover she should have realized that taking the route to see her sister was itself fraught with danger.

As it is, the more I think of Catelyn - the more I realize what an utter bimbo she was.

[Ghost Rider]

Arrest, not kidnap. Although she was taking on authority she perhaps didn't quite own (but her absent husband did, and she pretty much had that at home, so its a case of geography more than anything else), she clearly tried to do everything legally and by due process. (...) She wanted a fair trial in front of the King, so that she could get both justice for Bran and 'save' the realm from the grasping, treacherous, murderous Lannisters.

The problem is that she didn't have any proof to her accusations. It was all based on the say-so of one not particularly trustworthy indivdual - Littlefinger. So she wouldn't have anything to show for in a trial in KL. Tyrion even managed to arouse doubts in her mind when he told her that he never did bet against his brother - a story corroborated by other characters.

So she arrested him on some flimsy evidence and made the situation worse by bringing Tyrion to the Eyrie where she was f****ed by her dear sister. Granted she couldn't know that Lysa had gone off her rockers, but she hadn't seen her in 14 years and she knew people change.

She did all that when the Lannisters were still at large and could retaliate against her family in KL. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out her actions could possibly endanger them.

The data she has is that the Lannisters are taking over the court and plotting against Robert, and the Lannisters have means motive and opportunity to assassinate Bran (presumably because he saw or heard some plot that he should not have) and the weapon was Tyrion's.

While she may think that the Lannisters are plotting against Robert, she still doesn't have any proof of it. Only the assassination attempt itself showed that there were some deeper motives (which ones exactly is not clear). Before that everyone thought it was an accident. So she only suspects that they have a motive, but she couldn't say which. And the weapon was not Tyrion's - that's only what she thought because she was too trusting of the wrong people. Would other people believe it as well, just because Littlefinger told them so - I seriously doubt it. So I'd argue that her chances in a trial were slim. (not to say that he could still ask for trial by combat and would have Jaime as his champion).

And it makes any 'pursuit' or ambush/assassination attempts on her less likely for two reasons.

Maybe on her, but Ned surely wasn't saved from an ambush by the Lannisters.

Sure she wanted justice, and probably to dome extent revenge. Bu it wasn't a moment of irrational thinking. She tried desperately to avoid it and then he backed her into a corner from which she could see no other way out except to passively accept that justice would never come, the Lannister plots would not be exposed and she probably wouldn't make it back to Winterfell alive.

That's more like it, but because she felt trapped and endangered, it was irrational thinking, imho. She just didn't know what to do, so she decided to act - unfortunately for her family it didn't work out. The problem with the Lannister plots I have already discussed.

It never fails to astonish me how much people can empathise and forgive some characters yet seize on one tiny moment to justifying pooring scorn, hate and derision on another character.

There is no evidence anywhere in the books that Catelyn treated Jon less than his station.

True about the first part, I actually like Catelyn with all of her mistakes. To the second part, no there is no evidence, but a treatment according to his station doesn't amount to much, because he has a rather low station as a bastard and she makes him feel it.

There is considerable evidence that she treated him better than his station, even if only at Ned's desire.

Really? Where did you find that evidence?

Yet for all that, she was nearly always civil to him. He ate with the family (except of course when the King came, and not even Ned expected anything other than that), played with them, trained with them. She was never his mother, never let the gap between them close, but she was never asked to be, not by her culture and not even by Ned.

I agree that she wasn't expected to treat him in any other way and I have some sympathy for her reasons. I'm not sure she couldn't prevent his interactions with her children as Ned clearly wished for Jon and Robb to grow up like brothers and she couldn't possibly override his decisions. I guess it was also Ned who decided that Jon would eat with them, he couldn't do any less for a (I am 99,9% sure) child of his sister. And I believe that he didn't give in to Cat when the king came, but had his own reasons for not wanting to put Jon in the spotlight.

Yet one time, at a moment of great stress after not sleeping for days at the still-uncertain-death-bed of her favourite child, she breaks, and lashes out verbally at him.

And people blame her as a terrible person for it?

Yes, it was wrong. Yes it was nasty and unfair. But she was so stressed and tired, it was a moment of weakness.

Yes, true. That incident was a one-time thing and not be held against her. I don't think she wanted him dead or anything. It still highlighted her deep-seated feelings of resentment. You could argue that because of the stress, she cannot hold back her feelings any longer.

And he was clearly very hurt by it even though he obviously knew she wasn't his mother and didn't have any obligations toward him. And we have some indications about their normal relationship.

First Jon's fear before entering Bran's room.

Then his memory:

"With her deep blue eyes and ard cold mouth she looked a bit like Stannis. Iron he thought but brittle. She was looking at him at Winterfell whenever he had bested Robb at swords or sums or most anything. Who are you? that look had always seemed to say. This is not your place. Why are you here?"

There's also another quote about him feeling like the lady Catelyn grudged him every bite.

These quotes capture their relationship quite well, imho. The lady Catelyn didn't have to do anything particularly bad, her looks were quite enough to hurt Jon a lot. Arguably it might have been even easier if she had indeed mistreated him in a bad way, because he could have hated her then. As it is he understands quite well why she acts this way and still hurts for it. He doesn't blame her for it and I don't either. It's a bad situation for the both of them for which only Eddard is to blame. It would have been easier for Jon to grow up with another family/ his mother if she was still alive (which I doubt).

[Geddus]

When people go on about kidnapping, when it was clearly stated, and clearly carried through, as a legal arrest, they betray either bias, or incorrect facts.

So what if it was carried through as a legal arrest? Catelyn hadn't the authority to do it, that's why it was a kidnapping.

Well, you appear to be expecting her to make her decision based on the data we have, not on the data she has.

The data we have is that Tyrion is mostly a moderately nice, or at least genial, guy, didn't have anything to do with plots against Robert or Bran and had no reason to have her killed.

The data she has is that the Lannisters are taking over the court and plotting against Robert, and the Lannisters have means motive and opportunity to assassinate Bran (presumably because he saw or heard some plot that he should not have) and the weapon was Tyrion's. Therefore, based on that data, Tyrion is probably an evil little imp who will instantly wonder (and figure out) why she is in the south travelling incognito and will have no compunctions in having her disappear because she is clearly 'on to him'.

She must also have data that says Tyrion is a complete and utter moron because who hires an assassin and gives them a very recognizable (and valuable) dagger to carry out the kill? It was either that, or a setup, and since she knows that Tyrion isn't an idiot...

Moreover, she takes Littlefinger's word at it: really? The same Littlefinger that she has last seen while he was being carried away after having been injured and humiliated by her betrothed? He surely would have no resentment towards her or her family.

[The hairy bear]

The problem is that she didn't have any proof to her accusations. It was all based on the say-so of one not particularly trustworthy indivdual - Littlefinger.

Petyr Baelish is the Master of Coin, a member of the Small Council, appointed at the suggestion of late Jon Arryn and trusted by the king. Plus, he grew up with Cat's family and was a childhood friend. You are only saying that he is not "trustworthy" because of you having read the books. As fas as Cat was concerned, Littlefinger was a very reliable source.

Besides, Cat had also received a message from her own sister accusing the Lannisters. It was not a big leap to assume she also had some incriminating evidence.

Trials in the middle ages were like this. For comparison, think of Tyrion's trial for Joffrey's murder. He is condemned on weakest evidence than the one that Cat had been able to produce.

She did all that when the Lannisters were still at large and could retaliate against her family in KL. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out her actions could possibly endanger them.

Again, think of it from Cat's perspective. Tyrion had seen her. If he had been behind Bran's fall, he'd knew the Starks knew it. With this knowledge, the Lannisters would want to strike first (as Cersei did later when Ned discovered about the incest). So not arresting Tyrion would have led to the same result, but she would have an hostage less.

Would other people believe it as well, just because Littlefinger told them so - I seriously doubt it.

Well, Eddard believed him, so that's one. Littlefinger has also fooled Lysa, Jon Arryn, king Robert, Tyrion, the Tullys, Tywin Lannister, the main lords of the Vale,...

there is no evidence, but a treatment according to his station doesn't amount to much, because he has a rather low station as a bastard and she makes him feel it.

The fact that Jon used to eat with his siblings at the Lord's table everyday is the best example of him being treated far beyond his station. Also, Jon's remembrances on his childhood games with Robb imply that they were being treated as equals, and only when they were older he understood what being a bastard is. As you say, they grew up like brotehrs, and social conventions in Westeros dictate otherwise.

These quotes capture their relationship quite well, imho. The lady Catelyn didn't have to do anything particularly bad, her looks were quite enough to hurt Jon a lot. Arguably it might have been even easier if she had indeed mistreated him in a bad way, because he could have hated her then. As it is he understands quite well why she acts this way and still hurts for it. He doesn't blame her for it and I don't either. It's a bad situation for the both of them for which only Eddard is to blame. It would have been easier for Jon to grow up with another family/ his mother if she was still alive (which I doubt).

I agree completely. Both Cat and Jon suffered from being together. It's a sad story.

[Cotter_Pyke]

By seizing Tyrion she was openly declaring war on House Lannister. And if it wasn't Jamie - it would have been another Red Cloak. You forgot Lord Tywin- he had a pretty mighty wrath of his own. Catelyn should have remembered the Sacking of King's Landing and of how Princess Elia and her children were butchered by House Lannister bannermen. What about Sansa and Arya who were in King's Landing surrounded by Lannister men?

ie. You don't bugger with House Lannister.

and the Tarbecks and the Reynes...

But hey, let's kidnap the son of above mentioned gentleman, bring him to the Eyrie where a complete hysterical woman awaits and hope for the best...

Brilliant!

[Errant Bard]

Just because she calls it an arrest doesn't make it so. Has Ned given her the authority to go and arrest Tyrion if she sees him?

Oh, yes, he gave her full powers, she spoke with his voice, and her first task was to actually mobilize troops and prepare the North for war.

If I may cut into the discussion... Catelyn doesn't think - she acts impetuously - this rash behavior is also exhibited when she frees a major hostage without consulting her son, her liege king - which also damage to his alliance.

Nonsense, she is the character who thinks the most about what she does. That her gambles all turn out badly doesn't mean she didn't know what she went into.

Freeing Jaime without consulting her son was THE POINT of her action: that way all the blame shifted on her, Robb could accept the exchange as a fait accompli without ever damaging his credibility with his alliance. He just had to blame her, throw her in prison, whatever, then hope that Tyrion told the truth in court.

That he chose to forgive her publicly because he wanted his mother to not be angry with him for fucking the first girl he met was his own undoing, but it hardly mattered at this point, he had screwed himself on his own with the Jeyne thing. (and the Theon thing, despite warnings from Cat)

Arresting Tyrion was a catastrophe mistake. (Unless she could have silenced all the witnesses) she quickly antagonized the Lannisters, the most powerful house in the Kingdom, to feed her suspicions. She had no concrete proof that Tyrion was complicit in Bran's attempted murder.

That is why she didn't want, you know, to seize him, she tried to hide. But when she was discovered... You bet her death on the road by some "outlaws" would have precipitated war too.

So she chose to seize him and present him in front of the king. The one in King's Landing. The one who liked to smash rebellious bannermen. Only then, she didn't expect Lysa was a crazy harpy and would try to kill Tyrion outright, deny her time for interrogation, deny her any contact with KL, and in fact sabotage her past the point of no return.

I can only see one sensible outcome in that inn - and that would have been to quietly corner and interrogate Tyrion for an hour or so before letting him go.

If I may: LOL

"Did you try to murder my son?"

"Nope"

"Is this knife yours?"

"Nope"

"Ok, bye"

(imagining Tyrion was the murderer, instead of Jaime, or Jaime was here, this is what happens next:)

Hey, Bronn, want to earn some money?

*time passes*

"Yes, Lord Eddard, she was set upon by bandits, it was too late when we got there. traveling alone can be so dangerous."

So in short, I think she's a fool - her brother Edmure is no better.

You idea of someone not being a fool is someone who gets convinced by another she suspects of being a murderer when he doesn't confess his crime readily? yeah, sure.

This is pretty much a summation of what is being reproached to Cat, heh? She's not chums with the good guys Jon and Tyrion.

Moreover she should have realized that taking the route to see her sister was itself fraught with danger.

...

She realized it, only the road anywhere else was more fraught with danger, and the road to the Eyrie has deteriorated lately.

She should have used her psychic powers again to know that, is that it?

It was either that, or a setup, and since she knows that Tyrion isn't an idiot...

Does she now? As I recall the books, she saw Tyrion among other guests at Winterfell, and that's it. She needed to read the books and/or read Tyrion's mind?

Moreover, she takes Littlefinger's word at it: really? The same Littlefinger that she has last seen while he was being carried away after having been injured and humiliated by her betrothed? He surely would have no resentment towards her or her family.

So you propose she trusts a Lannister more than a childhood friend and her own sister?

A case of not reading minds again, I see.

[Cotter_Pyke]

So she chose to seize him and present him in front of the king. The one in King's Landing. The one who liked to smash rebellious bannermen. Only then, she didn't expect Lysa was a crazy harpy and would try to

And ending up in the Eyrie?? Took a wrong turn there, didn't she??

She "knows" her sister exited KL in a rather panicky way so bringing the kidnapped son of Westeros mightiest lord isn't a good idea in any case, apart from the fact that her sister is

a complete nutter.

[Geddus]

Does she now? As I recall the books, she saw Tyrion among other guests at Winterfell, and that's it. She needed to read the books and/or read Tyrion's mind?

She talked to him, that was enough to understand he wasn't that stupid. On the other hand, apparently she was.

So you propose she trusts a Lannister more than a childhood friend and her own sister?

A case of not reading minds again, I see.

What childhood friend? Littlefinger was a spurned lover and she very well knew it.

Lysa has nothing to do with it, and it's clearly not about trusting a Lannister, it's about not blindly trusting someone she hasn't seen in decades (and we all know what happened the last time they met).

Curiosity: are you related to Catelyn? Why so defensive?

[Ser Tom]

Really? Where did you find that evidence?

I agree that she wasn't expected to treat him in any other way and I have some sympathy for her reasons. I'm not sure she couldn't prevent his interactions with her children as Ned clearly wished for Jon and Robb to grow up like brothers and she couldn't possibly override his decisions. I guess it was also Ned who decided that Jon would eat with them, he couldn't do any less for a (I am 99,9% sure) child of his sister. And I believe that he didn't give in to Cat when the king came, but had his own reasons for not wanting to put Jon in the spotlight.

Yes, true. That incident was a one-time thing and not be held against her. I don't think she wanted him dead or anything. It still highlighted her deep-seated feelings of resentment. You could argue that because of the stress, she cannot hold back her feelings any longer.

And he was clearly very hurt by it even though he obviously knew she wasn't his mother and didn't have any obligations toward him. And we have some indications about their normal relationship.

First Jon's fear before entering Bran's room.

Then his memory:

"With her deep blue eyes and ard cold mouth she looked a bit like Stannis. Iron he thought but brittle. She was looking at him at Winterfell whenever he had bested Robb at swords or sums or most anything. Who are you? that look had always seemed to say. This is not your place. Why are you here?"

There's also another quote about him feeling like the lady Catelyn grudged him every bite.

These quotes capture their relationship quite well, imho. The lady Catelyn didn't have to do anything particularly bad, her looks were quite enough to hurt Jon a lot. Arguably it might have been even easier if she had indeed mistreated him in a bad way, because he could have hated her then. As it is he understands quite well why she acts this way and still hurts for it. He doesn't blame her for it and I don't either. It's a bad situation for the both of them for which only Eddard is to blame. It would have been easier for Jon to grow up with another family/ his mother if she was still alive (which I doubt).

Well put Ghost Rider :thumbsup:

It was the favourite kid thing that first bothered me, if it was Arya would she have sat there reading? Not calling Jon by his name, people seem to think that's not that bad but I think that would take a hell of a lot of effort to do that and keep it up for 14 years. The business with Robb's heir makes me really wonder about her, I don't doubt that she loved Ned but the way she reacts to Jon being named heir's wild. You'd think she'd be happy that Ned's son was heir but no bring out the crazy.

As I said in another thread I don't think this entirely Cat's fault, Ned could've handled the situation better when he first turned up with Jon. The idea of a bastard being a threat to siblings has validity (you need to go some before you get a Ramsey) but as I've said before if your raising a kid they usually take their morals etc, from you so it was a bit of a missed opertunity on Cats part. He obviously paid attention to Ned.

Anyway I'm in the wrong thread I think ta-ra

[Errant Bard]

Curiosity: are you related to Catelyn? Why so defensive?

You know, I was going to respond seriously, but on second thought I think this last bit of your post speaks for itself. Against you.

[Greywolf2375]

She talked to him, that was enough to understand he wasn't that stupid. On the other hand, apparently she was.

What childhood friend? Littlefinger was a spurned lover and she very well knew it.

Lysa has nothing to do with it, and it's clearly not about trusting a Lannister, it's about not blindly trusting someone she hasn't seen in decades (and we all know what happened the last time they met).

Curiosity: are you related to Catelyn? Why so defensive?

Before being the spurned lover, Petyr was her childhood friend. She did care for him, just not the way he wanted. So again, someone that she knew and trusted for years over someone whose family she knows is at least antagonistic if not out right against.

And no, EB isn't related to the Tullys - I think there might be a family branch to the KotLT though.

[corbon]

Anyway I'm in the wrong thread I think ta-ra

No, you are in exactly the right thread.

People keep dumping a whole bunch on Catelyn, often to the point of derailing other threads. Yet their reasoning, and often facts, for doing so are woefully inadequate. The point of this thread is to bring them out and shoot them down.

For example, bemoaning her trusting Littlefinger's word.

However not only was Littlefinger's word merely corroboration of Lyssa's suspicion and the evidence of means, motive and opportunity, but as noted, Petyr Baelish is the Master of Coin, a member of the Small Council, appointed at the suggestion of late Jon Arryn and trusted by the king. He is a very senior official indeed, for all his relative low birth, and his word is something that is supposed to be fairly serious.

And his 'evidence' is easily checked once back in KL at trial so it was actually crazy for him to lie. He had no apparent reason to lie, could easily be found out as a liar and stood to lose a great deal if that happened.

Or the whole 'she endangered her family in KL' thing.

As I pointed out before most of the responses, her family are endangered the moment Tyrion sees her as she understands it. Arresting him does nothing to increase that, and if anything decreases it.

But as usual, people don't even address the arguments pointed out to them, they just come up with the same old half thought through arguments because they want to hate Cat, as she is 'against' both the usual favourites, Jon and Tyrion.

Or the whole "it kidnapping and antagonises the Lannisters' or 'declares war on the Lannisters' thing.

It wasn't a kidnapping! Read post 1 again, and post 13. She did everything legal and by the book as much as she was able and as much as anyone else except Ned could know. The worst she did was stretch geographically a bit. But she explicitly made the arrest in the name of the King, explicitly brought Tyrion to (the wrong, due to her sister) trial, and actually released him when the trial verdict didn't go her way. None of those fit kidnapping, especially not the last.

And antagonising the Lannisters, or declares war on them? Hey, her understanding is she is already at war with them. They have tried to murder her family, they have sent assassins into her house, they have murdered the Hand of the King and are plotting against the king. It's well past them being 'antagonised' by any actions she makes and they have already declared war on her.

Not to mention that as already noted, by making things public it should have curbed their worst excesses at least initially and if anything made her family in KL safer.

And ending up in the Eyrie?? Took a wrong turn there, didn't she??

She "knows" her sister exited KL in a rather panicky way so bringing the kidnapped son of Westeros mightiest lord isn't a good idea in any case, apart from the fact that her sister is a complete nutter.

Yes, a deliberate wrong turn, which Tyrion congratulated her on.

She can go south, north or east (west is not possible due to the river I think).

North gets her toward her powerbase, though its a long journey with little protection and as Tyrion implied, she wouldn't have made it. It also takes her away from KL, where she needs Tyrion to stand trial in front of the King.

South just leads her through Lannister controlled territory, just begging to disappear on the road.

East is dangerous, but 'natural' danger, not Lannister funded danger. It is toward a friendly powerbase and from there can take ship direct to KL, which means much less chance of disappearing on the road.

So she declared north, to fool the inevitable pursuit, and rode East. And clever Tyrion congratulated her on her wisdom for doing so, once he realised what she'd done.

It is reasonable to expect her sister to be helpful in getting Tyrion to trial in KL. The best result her sister could ask for, a trial in front of the King and the Lannisters exposed. But not having sen her sister for years, probably over a decade, she didn't know about her sister' paranoid madness.

[brashcandy]

Well put Ghost Rider :thumbsup:

It was the favourite kid thing that first bothered me, if it was Arya would she have sat there reading? Not calling Jon by his name, people seem to think that's not that bad but I think that would take a hell of a lot of effort to do that and keep it up for 14 years. The business with Robb's heir makes me really wonder about her, I don't doubt that she loved Ned but the way she reacts to Jon being named heir's wild. You'd think she'd be happy that Ned's son was heir but no bring out the crazy.

Agreed. Cat mistreated Jon, plain and simple. She did it spitefully and in the most psychologically damaging way someone can to a child: refuse to acknowledge their existence. I'm not mad at her for lashing out at Jon when he came into Bran's room, I'm mad at her for the 14 yrs she acted like a world class bitch because her husband brought home a bastard.

We can all sympathise with Cat's feelings here, no one wants to know that their husband has been out there cheating, but are you telling me that Cat could not have gotten over this in one year, two years, even three? To keep it up for the entirety of Jon's life at Winterfell really makes me wonder about her character as a person.

Add to this the fact that Ned was not even her original betrothed, surely one might expect her to realise that he may have formed attachments with some other woman before he knew he was to marry her.

based on what we find out about Brandon in ADWD, she doesn't know how lucky she got with Ned! She might have had 10 bastards on her doorsteps.

Also, we know that Jon is no Ramsay. Cat's children love and respect him for the most part, and Cat would have seen the decent character of the boy he was. He even heads off to the Wall, the ultimate dead end in Westeros, and she still can't bring herself to think favourably of him. When she thinks that her children are all dead and missing, she is still resistant to Robb naming him as heir.

I can forgive Cat for her follies with Tyrion and releasing Jaime, because hey, we all make mistakes under pressure, but her sustained disregard and latent hatred of Jon means that I cannot admire her as a character very much. The resentment she felt over that situation should have been directed at Ned, instead we see her bed with him, thinking of his seed inside her and how she could still give him another son. Again, this was probably another desperate attempt to make sure that Jon never ever ever had the chance of getting anything related to Winterfell.

So people may think that Cat's treatment of Jon is a minor thing, but I see it as a major blight on her character.