Cat and Jon, part whatever

[Exitao]

Jon reveals flaws in Cat's character. She's prickly prideful and shirt-sighted; maybe because of it.

She mistrusts Jon fiercely, yet had she fostered him, she could have molded him and engebdered fealty. She could have had the bastard positioned in a place to help House Stark, like as a maester or something at least. Instead...

[birdsong66]

Interesting that you say that. I have wondered reading previous threads on Catelyn and Jon just how many posters take against Catelyn because they have been the stepchild in a family and associate with Jon or have had an unfortunate relationship with someone who wasn't their birth parent.

**Speaking for the step children:

Quite the opposite for me, as a step child. I side with Catelyn over Jon. To explain in the context of ASoIAF, my Step Mother was very "Catelyn" when my father was present, and very "Cercei" when he was not. Given a choice, we would have preferred the "Catelyn" persona because the subversive personality switches were at the core of damage. We never knew what was going to happen, and spent most of our childhood on guard for the worst, simply expecting the worst, knowing if not today, then tomorrow, and the next, and the next. It really comes down to being confused by the behavior of our birth parents as we had little choice in any alternative conclusion but that they didn't care. In effect, our step mother was irrelevant to the whole of destruction---our parents the meat, if you get my meaning.

This is all a way to say that I, due to personal experience, find it difficult to fault Catelyn's treatment of Jon as more damaging than Ned's, as his blood relative. And, like Jon, when I think about it myself, my thoughts center more on my parents, and not my step mother because, even as children, we understood that we should not expect more from her. Every child expects something from their birth parents, which is why Ned/Lyanna's handling of this situation is the height of clusterfuckery.

I rather respect Catelyn for behaving, with few exceptions, consistently distant, and suggest that it is this that makes her relationship with Jon the least damaging relationship he has. Or, perhaps I should say that I would have preferred that level of consistency myself.

I would only add that I have a dear friend who was adopted into a very loving, well-rounded family. Nevertheless, she cannot refrain from thinking about her birth parents, and it has informed a number of decisions she has made, good and bad. Ultimately, that she is not related by blood is the sticky wicket, that fact she meditates on. Her adoptive parents love her, her siblings love her, she is very active within the family dynamic, but it remains her action, not theirs collectively, to retain her "not of same origin" otherness from them. Moreover, I've actually seen evidence of the damage that inflicts on them.

I don't blame Catelyn, nor do I fault her. Neither do I blame, or fault Jon. He may not have had a loving mother, or "Mother figure," but he did have the benefit of a loving family otherwise, and that is what measured into who he grew into as a man, which didn't turn out too bad. Frankly, in this, he had the benefits that me and my siblings prayed for.

I'm pretty sure that mine is a less than popular understanding of both characters...YMMV.

[Evamitchelle]

I'd have to disagree. By Cersei's standards he's way out of line, but not even by Lannister standards. Gerion's bastard Joy is obviously being raised by Lannisters - she's a Lannister, so Lannisters will look after her. Jaime comments that he likes her, though she's a lonely child, and hates marrying her off to a Westerling since they were betrayers of their king, even if the king was Robb. And look at Targ bastards - the Blackfyre rebellion et al. And even if the Freys have been sneered at by many in this thread, Walder looks after his own. And, as Jaime has pointed out to Loras, many bastards rose to be commander of the Kingsguard. They didn't get into a position to do that because they were hidden away like dark secrets somewhere.

I think it's pretty obvious that bastards aren't supposed to be raised alongside their father's trueborn children in Westeros. Besides Jon I can recall only Walder Frey's bastards being raised alongside their trueborn half-brothers, probably because Lord Walder doesn't care at all about insulting his multiple wives. There was also Falia Flowers, Lord Hewett's bastard girl, raised in the same castle as her sisters, except that she was basically a kitchen wench. Considering the fact that she proposed that Euron strip them all naked so she could have their dresses I think it's fair to say that she didn't like them very much.

The Sand Snakes and Joy Hill were both raised very well by their father's families, but neither Oberyn nor Gerion were married at the time, so there was no wife to insult. Besides, none of them were Lords in their own right like Ned was. Robert's bastards were all kept out of sight as well, with only Edric Storm officially recognized but only because his mother was highborn and there wasn't any way of denying the deed (since they were caught in flagrante delicto). Edric Storm wasn't raised in KL with Joffrey & co though, but in Storm's End. Ramsay Snow grew up with his mother until Roose needed a male heir and Lord Hornwood's bastard was raised with House Glover.

Basically the only other married Lords who treated their bastards quite well and raised them with their trueborn siblings are Walder Frey and Aegon the Unworthy, two of the most reviled men in their respective time period. I'd say that Ned was definitely out of line by Westeros standards.

[bloodymime]

**Speaking for the step children:

Quite the opposite for me, as a step child. I side with Catelyn over Jon. To explain in the context of ASoIAF, my Step Mother was very "Catelyn" when my father was present, and very "Cercei" when he was not. Given a choice, we would have preferred the "Catelyn" persona because the subversive personality switches were at the core of damage. We never knew what was going to happen, and spent most of our childhood on guard for the worst, simply expecting the worst, knowing if not today, then tomorrow, and the next, and the next. It really comes down to being confused by the behavior of our birth parents as we had little choice in any alternative conclusion but that they didn't care. In effect, our step mother was irrelevant to the whole of destruction---our parents the meat, if you get my meaning.

This is all a way to say that I, due to personal experience, find it difficult to fault Catelyn's treatment of Jon as more damaging than Ned's, as his blood relative. And, like Jon, when I think about it myself, my thoughts center more on my parents, and not my step mother because, even as children, we understood that we should not expect more from her. Every child expects something from their birth parents, which is why Ned/Lyanna's handling of this situation is the height of clusterfuckery.

I rather respect Catelyn for behaving, with few exceptions, consistently distant, and suggest that it is this that makes her relationship with Jon the least damaging relationship he has. Or, perhaps I should say that I would have preferred that level of consistency myself.

I would only add that I have a dear friend who was adopted into a very loving, well-rounded family. Nevertheless, she cannot refrain from thinking about her birth parents, and it has informed a number of decisions she has made, good and bad. Ultimately, that she is not related by blood is the sticky wicket, that fact she meditates on. Her adoptive parents love her, her siblings love her, she is very active within the family dynamic, but it remains her action, not theirs collectively, to retain her "not of same origin" otherness from them. Moreover, I've actually seen evidence of the damage that inflicts on them.

I don't blame Catelyn, nor do I fault her. Neither do I blame, or fault Jon. He may not have had a loving mother, or "Mother figure," but he did have the benefit of a loving family otherwise, and that is what measured into who he grew into as a man, which didn't turn out too bad. Frankly, in this, he had the benefits that me and my siblings prayed for.

I'm pretty sure that mine is a less than popular understanding of both characters...YMMV.

Different circumstances but amen.

People keep talking about the Frey and his willingness to keep his bastards so blatantly but does anyone wonder if does influence Cat beyond the traditional dislike of bastards. She would have some experience with the Freys as her familys bannermen and while the Twins aren't quite the sewer KL is it's still a snakepit with no one trusting anyone else and the constant jockeying for power.

[a free shadow]

ETA, really though is my gender relevent to how you read my posts or what you think of them?

It probably does not deserve so much space for saying, but I simply thought you are a girl :) Because "Lummel" sounds so lightly. And I have a good opinion about your posts.

[Sand Snake No. 9]

Erm, I have a degree in psychology and considerable personal experience of depression, as a sufferer and in my friends and family. I can say without doubt that Jon does not display any symptoms of chronic depression.

Well, I've got a medicine cabinet full of pills, a standing appointment with a shrink, and a family history that would curl your hair that says I know something about depression, too, and I think Jon's got himself a nice little black cloud that follows him around. But I'll yield to your expertise and withdraw my diagnosis. ;)

As I stated in my original post on the first Cat/Jon thread, which I had in turn brought over from a thread I started called "The Bastard Jon," the illegitimate children of noblemen are shown being treated differently through out the series. The Sand Snakes are one extreme, not only acknowledged by their father but brought into the family and turned into valuable Martell retainers. The other extreme are Robert's lowborn children, sired and abandoned, to wind up herding mules if they're lucky or turning tricks if they're not. Somewhere between are children like Aurane Waters, "The Bastard of Driftmark," and Daemon Sand, "The Bastard of Godsgrace," and Roland Storm, "The Bastard of Nightsong," who, I can only assume, aquired their nicknames because they were brought up at their father's seats. Other bastards who rose to high position must have received assistance from someone to learn the necessary skills. My point is, that the treatment of bastard very much depends on the personal choice of their father, and, it can be inferred, at least, the acquiescence of the father's wife or partner, so that absolute statements about Westerosi attitudes toward children born out of wedlock are not entirely justified.

I also don't think there's that much Catelyn "hate" based solely on her treatment of Jon, just disagreement about her attitude toward Jon. Some time ago I also came to the conclusion that a lot of readers don't enjoy Catelyn's POVs, and claim to dislike her character, because after Ned's death we see the destruction of House Stark through her eyes and for readers with some investment in the Stark family, it's downright painful. Just my opinion. Whatever; this discussion has stalled with everyone entrenched in and repeated their positions. So goodbye and good luck, I'll see y'all on another thread.

[Fragile Bird]

I think it's pretty obvious that bastards aren't supposed to be raised alongside their father's trueborn children in Westeros. Besides Jon I can recall only Walder Frey's bastards being raised alongside their trueborn half-brothers, probably because Lord Walder doesn't care at all about insulting his multiple wives. There was also Falia Flowers, Lord Hewett's bastard girl, raised in the same castle as her sisters, except that she was basically a kitchen wench. Considering the fact that she proposed that Euron strip them all naked so she could have their dresses I think it's fair to say that she didn't like them very much.

The Sand Snakes and Joy Hill were both raised very well by their father's families, but neither Oberyn nor Gerion were married at the time, so there was no wife to insult. Besides, none of them were Lords in their own right like Ned was. Robert's bastards were all kept out of sight as well, with only Edric Storm officially recognized but only because his mother was highborn and there wasn't any way of denying the deed (since they were caught in flagrante delicto). Edric Storm wasn't raised in KL with Joffrey & co though, but in Storm's End. Ramsay Snow grew up with his mother until Roose needed a male heir and Lord Hornwood's bastard was raised with House Glover.

Basically the only other married Lords who treated their bastards quite well and raised them with their trueborn siblings are Walder Frey and Aegon the Unworthy, two of the most reviled men in their respective time period. I'd say that Ned was definitely out of line by Westeros standards.

First of all, you can't look at any of Robert's bastards because as I said, Cersei's standard said no bastards at court (they all had black hair, after all). The Lannister attitude was raising Joy as a Lannister, and that doesn't necessarily mean Casterly Rock, we don't know how long Gerion lived there once Tywin succeeded his father. Robert tells Ned he would have had some of the children at court but Cersei wouldn't allow it.

Second, Roose's bastard was by the miller's wife, not high born.

Third, we don't know who Joy's mother is.

Fourth, as for Falia Flowers, GRRM is obviously enjoying a joke with regard to Cinderella - the stepmother and the evil stepsisters put her in the kitchen as a scullery maid. How would Cinderella act if instead of Prince Charming showing up, Euron Greyjoy showed up? Perhaps you missed the analogy?

And of course, one can also assume that most lords were normal men with normal sexual appetites, didn't visit whorehouses or have mistresses, and never had bastards. I would also assume that most bastards were in fact raised elsewhere - the issue here, with Cat, is that Jon was not raised elsewhere but in Winterfell. And if he was raised in Winterfell, why couldn't Cat show common decency to a child who did not choose who his parents were. I go back to the central point, not ever calling by name a child being raised alongside your own children for 14 years is indecent. I am not saying that Cat was supposed to be the perfect 20th century housewife or love Jon or mother Jon. What did Lyanna Stark say Lummel called what people expect of her (I missed it myself) the Virgin Mary of Westeros? Gimme a break.

You are free to define decency your way, and I am free to define decency my way, and they are not the same, obviously. And like Jayce and Sand Snake No. 9. I am outta here. Enough is enough.

[A wilding]

First: just because Cersei didnt want bastards at court does mean everyone else would have been happy with them being raised as part of the royal family! Gerion as far as we know was not married, so had no wife to insult.

Second and third, as far as anyone knows Jon's mother was not high born either. Certainly he has no acknowledged high born mother. Though I fail to see why this would matter anyway, except to make the bastard more of a threat to the succession.

Fourth: the Hewett bastard Cinderella parallel doesn't alter the case that this is yet another case of how bastards are generally treated.

In general we see a consistent pattern of how bastards are brought up, and arguing about the details of some of the cases really doesn't alter this.

However, I do agree that the normal thing would have been for Ned to arrange for Jon to be fostered elewhere. And we have Cat's word for it that this is what she would have expected and that she would have had no problem with it.

[Red Raven]

I also don't think there's that much Catelyn "hate" based solely on her treatment of Jon, just disagreement about her attitude toward Jon.

Agreed also. Despite a few moments of likeability and competence, for the most part she was a pain in the arse making one disastrous decision after the other. My dislike of Cat is based on all of her actions, not just her hatred toward Jon.

I do agree that the normal thing would have been for Ned to arrange for Jon to be fostered elewhere. And we have Cat's word for it that this is what she would have expected and that she would have had no problem with it.

Agreed. Jon should have been fostered or adopted elsewhere, that would have been best for everyone. If Lyanna demanded Ned raise him himself, he should have ignored her. She shouldn't be allowed to rule from the grave.

That said, he was raised with the rest of the family. Catelyn's anger was at Ned and should have been directed at Ned. That's natural. But to take that anger and take it out on an innocent child makes her a bully.

Too bad Catelyn wasn't big enough, adult enough or farsighted enough to do her part to train Jon to be a squire or a maester as Exitao said.

She had a seething loathing for him he certainly felt that lasted 14 years and she finally revealed her real character and said what she always wanted to say to him: she wished he were the one on the verge of death. A kid who never did anything wrong. She never felt ashamed or guilty about that. She felt a fleeting moment of revulsion toward Mya because she associated her with Jon. She felt bad about feeling that way toward Mya but didn't feel any shame about feeling ill toward Jon.

She didn't even call him by name; how mean and dehumanizing.

The angry, crazy, eager-to-hang-innocence-be-damned Lady Stoneheart is just Catelyn stripped bare to the essence of what she was.

[Evamitchelle]

First of all, you can't look at any of Robert's bastards because as I said, Cersei's standard said no bastards at court (they all had black hair, after all). The Lannister attitude was raising Joy as a Lannister, and that doesn't necessarily mean Casterly Rock, we don't know how long Gerion lived there once Tywin succeeded his father. Robert tells Ned he would have had some of the children at court but Cersei wouldn't allow it.

Second, Roose's bastard was by the miller's wife, not high born.

Third, we don't know who Joy's mother is.

Fourth, as for Falia Flowers, GRRM is obviously enjoying a joke with regard to Cinderella - the stepmother and the evil stepsisters put her in the kitchen as a scullery maid. How would Cinderella act if instead of Prince Charming showing up, Euron Greyjoy showed up? Perhaps you missed the analogy?

And of course, one can also assume that most lords were normal men with normal sexual appetites, didn't visit whorehouses or have mistresses, and never had bastards. I would also assume that most bastards were in fact raised elsewhere - the issue here, with Cat, is that Jon was not raised elsewhere but in Winterfell. And if he was raised in Winterfell, why couldn't Cat show common decency to a child who did not choose who his parents were. I go back to the central point, not ever calling by name a child being raised alongside your own children for 14 years is indecent. I am not saying that Cat was supposed to be the perfect 20th century housewife or love Jon or mother Jon. What did Lyanna Stark say Lummel called what people expect of her (I missed it myself) the Virgin Mary of Westeros? Gimme a break.

You are free to define decency your way, and I am free to define decency my way, and they are not the same, obviously. And like Jayce and Sand Snake No. 9. I am outta here. Enough is enough.

If you re-read my post you'll see that the only point I was making was that married Lords don't bring up their bastards at home. The only ones who do that are men like Walder Frey and Aegon IV who have no respect for their respective wives considering the numerous mistresses they take publicly. Robert wanting to bring his bastards in KL fits this pattern as well, since he also very publicly sleeps around (with Delena Florent for example). For someone like Ned, who is honour personified, it's wildly out of character for him to have Jon raised in Winterfell (especially when you have House Cerwyn half a day's ride away, with another boy just around Jon's age).

Things might be different in Dorne however, since we don't know whether Ellaria and Daemon Sand were raised in their noble father's castle, or even if Lord Uller is married to begin with, but Dornish customs and Westerosi ones usually differ a lot from each other, considering that Dorne has only been part of the 7 Kingdoms for about a century.

[mormont]

As I stated in my original post on the first Cat/Jon thread, which I had in turn brought over from a thread I started called "The Bastard Jon," the illegitimate children of noblemen are shown being treated differently through out the series. The Sand Snakes are one extreme, not only acknowledged by their father but brought into the family and turned into valuable Martell retainers. The other extreme are Robert's lowborn children, sired and abandoned, to wind up herding mules if they're lucky or turning tricks if they're not. Somewhere between are children like Aurane Waters, "The Bastard of Driftmark," and Daemon Sand, "The Bastard of Godsgrace," and Roland Storm, "The Bastard of Nightsong," who, I can only assume, aquired their nicknames because they were brought up at their father's seats.

That's kind of a big assumption, though. It could equally be simply because they're acknowledged by the holder of those seats. We just don't know how this particular naming custom works.

In any case, it seems to me the main thing that dictates where bastards fall on the range you describe above is whether they are acknowledged by a noble parent (and linked to that, whether anyone even knows they have noble blood). Robert's bastards are unacknowledged, apart from Edric: and with some of the others, it's likely that not even Robert knew he'd fathered them. Mya and Barra are the only two he clearly knew about (though obviously Cersei and others knew of the twins at Casterly Rock and of Gendry). Clearly, the Sand Snakes were all acknowledged, as were the Bastards of Nightsong and Driftmark, for example: but we see a number of others claiming to be noble bastards, or possibly noble bastards, who aren't acknowledged and have to fend for themselves.

Acknowledged bastards seem to get some sort of privileged upbringing in most cases; almost all of those we meet are knights, maesters, septons or men-at-arms. I'm therefore not sure there's all that much variation, once the question of acknowledgment is addressed. There's a 'done thing', and it is to get your acknowledged bastards some reasonably comfortable station in life. There's probably some variation in how willing fathers are to acknowledge their bastards, but that's going to be affected by a number of factors, as much political as personal. But the 'done thing' doesn't seem to include bringing up your bastard along with your legitimate children, making no or little distinction between them. Even Walder Frey sharply reminds his bastards of their place.

I agree that absolute statements are hard to make, but I think that doesn't preclude us from saying that Jon's domestic circumstances (and so Cat's) were exceptional for Westeros.

Robert tells Ned he would have had some of the children at court but Cersei wouldn't allow it.

I'm not at all sure I believe he meant it, though. Robert was inclined to say a lot of things he didn't mean.

Second, Roose's bastard was by the miller's wife, not high born.

This makes no sense: Roose's bastard was highborn because he was Roose's. But it's true that it's not until the miller's wife demanded he acknowledge Ramsay that Ramsay got a castle upbringing. I'd imagine this scenario isn't uncommon (bastards going unacknowledged until they need a place in life), but that's speculation.

Agreed also. Despite a few moments of likeability and competence, for the most part she was a pain in the arse making one disastrous decision after the other. My dislike of Cat is based on all of her actions, not just her hatred toward Jon.

You'll find many a thread on that. ;) I'll only observe that after my first read, I was more inclined to blame Cat for things that I realised on a reread weren't actually her fault.

She had a seething loathing for him he certainly felt that lasted 14 years and she finally revealed her real character

See, this is just mind-reading. It's your opinion of what Cat 'really' felt and what she's 'really' like. Which is fair enough, but it doesn't really tell us anything except what you think of the character.

Also, as previously noted, there's no evidence that Cat felt any 'revulsion' towards Mya.

[birdsong66]

It occurs to me that when we ask, "Did Cat treat Jon like a dog" what we are really asking is more akin tois there an inherent duty for her to make him feel better?

If we step back, remove the characters altogether, and objectively examine the question, is there a difference? Is Wife A required to care for Bastard B by virtue of mandated societal customs in any period of time, modern or past? And if the answer is No, then can Wife A really be faulted for failing to fulfill what is not an accepted, required custom within the society she resides?

Specific to ASoIF, that Catelyn did not treat Jon as her own does not in any way alter the fact that he remains a bastard. Those that damn her for not being kind, or failing to not be unkind, to Jon are damning her for failing to place the needs and feelings of her husband's get before her own, and those of her trueborn children. She, and by association, House Tully have been cuckhold, they are, in fact, the wronged party, which is why standard custom suggests that raising the fruit of infidelity be conducted elsewhere, with very few instances of exception. That the bastard in question is underfoot is problematic because he is a child and not full grown. In this, would the expectations of duty placed on Catelyn change should the bastard in question be a full grown adult when revealed, rather than a baby/child?

Furthermore, the origins of Jon's true parentage remain largely a mystery to everyone, with the exceptions of Ned and, possibly, Howland Reed. Most information regarding the subject is derived from myth, gossip, hearsay, etc., but overall far from fact. Conflicting facts, suppositions, and stories handed down through generations have that effect.

Regardless, most would have Catelyn take the gossip that Ashara Dayne is Jon's mother as fact, having resulted from a union with Ned. And yet, when she takes the word of Littlefinger that the knife used to try and kill Bran is Tyrion's, she is vilified for being stupid. On the one hand, people want her to believe gossip as fact and act, and the other to recognize gossip for lies, and not act. Really? She loved(s) Littlefinger as family, and Ned as her spouse, but she was supposed to divine which piece of gossip was truth and which was not? How is that possible? That she should have known Littlefinger for what he became and not acting is the same as suggesting she should have known Ned for who he is and thus dismissed any possibility that he would have a bastard in the first place, no?

Ultimately I think these Catelyn/Jon threads become so combative because Catelyn supporters object to the idea that it was her duty to behave differently than presented towards Jon based almost entirely on the premise that he is a child, and not simply a bastard. Take the age issue out of it, what remains is a grown bastard, becoming largely a non issue, and, thus, not much of a character flaw in Catelyn for treatment, as for Ned in Honor.

[Queen Cersei I]


Ignoring Jon would have been swell. Catelyn didn't actually do that. How do we know this? From Jon's POV, where he thinks about the looks Catelyn used to give him, how she stared daggers at him, looked like she begrudged him every bite of food, and despised it when he bested Robb at anything. That a child felt her dislike-to-loathing-to-whatever-you-want-to-call-it, is emotionally damaging. Children pick up on the feeling of adults, and feeling unwanted and unliked-to-loathed-to-etc, is something Jon picked up on, and was affected by. He was made to feel unwelcome in his home.


Yes, and I agree with you that it is the right of every child to feel wanted. However, the things you claim here don’t quite go along with what is in the text.

For instance:

From Jon's POV, where he thinks about the looks Catelyn used to give him, how she stared daggers at him, looked like she begrudged him every bite of food, and despised it when he bested Robb at anything.

I was surprised by this, not really remembering multiple instances of Jon recollecting Cat giving him hateful looks and acting the way you insinuate here in his POV’s.

After rereading Jon’s POV chapters, this was what I came up with:

It was not Lord Eddard's face he saw floating before him, though; it was Lady Catelyn's. With her deep blue eyes and hard cold mouth, she looked a bit like Stannis. Iron, he thought, but brittle. She was looking at him the way she used to look 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?

This clearly implies that Cat felt great discomfort at having Jon present, and would have gladly had him elsewhere. However, the comments in your post about “the looks Catelyn used to give him, how she stared daggers at him, looked like she begrudged him every bite of food” and your implications that Cat’s treatment of Jon was a result of conscious passive aggression on her part are purely speculation on your part.

You claim that Catelyn was “making Jon feel unwelcome” with “dirty looks, etc.” There is no evidence for that in the text—only that by Cat’s face, Jon correctly judged she would have preferred to have him elsewhere.

I’m not sure how this adds up to a crime or cruelty on Cat’s part.

Personally, I don’t see much evidence that she mistreated him with dirty looks and passive aggressiveness to “make him feel unwelcome.” GRRM himself notes that Cat “made no secret that she didn’t want him there” and many readers seem to accept that this was maliciousness on Cat’s part; she hated Jon for ruining her “Perfect life” and wounding her pride. However, personally, I think the fact that Cat did not want Jon there is sort of par for the course.

I think every child has the right to be wanted; I also think every man and woman has a right to get equal say in what goes on in their household. Cat was denied that right, when her husband brought home a totally strange boy to be raised alongside Cat’s own children. (Hence the “Starks as a blended family/ Cat the stepmother” comparisons are deeply flawed. Generally speaking, step families are the result of compromise Cat never had this opportunity; since a child was brought into her home and forced to be a huge part of her life by Ned Stark, who refused her any input or say whatsoever.)

Cat has been frequently held as an abusive figure to Jon for statements such as the following, “would that I could forget.” (About Jon, a.k.a. her husband’s bastard.) As GRRM says, “Cat made no secret that she would have rather had him elsewhere.” And yet—is Cat truly a malicious bitch for wanting to have her husband’s bastard elsewhere? Especially considering she had no say whatsoever in the choice of him coming to live with her?

Certainly, as many often note on this issue, Jon is Ned’s bastard, but Cat “should not hold that against him.” However, regardless, he is a strange boy who was forced upon her to live in constant familiarity with her children and husband, and she got no say whatsoever. She (with the exception of one out of character line) never mistreated him; he played with her children; was beloved by her husband; and Cat never appeared to interfere in either of these relationships. He was given everything he needed and a great deal that he wanted, given the same clothes, food, schooling, etc. as his “legitimate” half siblings and was, apparently, more or less a stark for all intents and purposes until it came time for huge events like feasts where the king was a visitor.

So honestly, the following comments by GRRM:

"Mistreatment" is a loaded word. Did Catelyn beat Jon bloody? No. Did she distance herself from him? Yes. Did she verbally abuse and attack him? No. (The instance in Bran's bedroom was obviously a very special case). But I am sure she was very protective of the rights of her own children, and in that sense always drew the line sharply between bastard and trueborn where issues like seating on the high table for the king's visit were at issue.

And Jon surely knew that she would have preferred to have him elsewhere.

Do not necessarily indicate abuse, cruelty, spite, even misplaced rage or resentment on Cat’s part. Her feelings for Jon suggest less rage than a mix of discomfort, confusion, and repressed guilt. However, the fact that Cat continued to not really want Jon there (rather than take him into her heart and love him like her own as a Good Woman would have done) and was “very aware of the rights of her own children” do not really indicate cruelty or bad behavior to me.

It seems as though GRRM himself strongly disapproves of Cat’s actions, however, I’d wonder—how culpable can he hold the woman for wishing her husband’s bastard elsewhere, especially after he was totally forced upon her in the most awkward possible way? (And that second issue—the forcing of Jon upon Cat, without explanation, apology, or even a show of compromise is one of the hugest issues here, and the defining issue in Cat’s later feelings for Jon, far more than his bastardy or her pride. And how wicked is it really that Cat is “very aware of the rights of her own children?”

In the end it seems that:

Children pick up on the feeling of adults, and feeling unwanted and unliked-to-loathed-to-etc, is something Jon picked up on, and was affected by. He was made to feel unwelcome in his home

The main issue is that Cat did not want Jon living with them, and he “picked up on this.” A very sad situation, but one wonders—how is Cat’s dislike of having a strange boy her husband took home (surprise—my bastard!) morally wrong? She by no means made a show of it, as you imply here.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

@QCI

I'm not really sure why you feel the need to rehash all of this after there has already been a full 23+ pages on it now. I can't go look up the quotes, but there is absolutely no speculation in saying that Jon felt Cat's anger when he bested Robb and also felt that she looked at him as if she begrudged him every bite of food. You've supplied the quote for the first, the food comment comes from Dance, when he is thinking about getting food from the Vale to help the Watch through the winter, as I recall. I've lent out my copy, so that's the best I can do at the moment.

I don't make any comment on whether Cat's choice was conscious passive aggression, I don't care. Conscious or unconscious, I will stand by my statement that it's not right to make a child feel that way. You're unwilling to hold Catelyn accountable for any of this. Fine, but there is no speculation involved in saying Jon felt Catelyn's anger towards and grudge against him. It's clearly stated.

The rest of the stuff you say really isn't dealing with my words and is just a rehash of the main points of contention that this thread and the last went over. I'll leave it to others to respond to you if they are so inspired. As for me, I was done with this conversation a couple of weeks ago.

[bloodymime]

I knew that grudging of the food sounded familiar.

"Jon wondered how Lady Catelyn’s sister would feel about feeding Ned Stark’s bastard. As a boy, he often felt as if the lady grudged him every bite."

[Queen Cersei I]

@QCI
I'm not really sure why you feel the need to rehash all of this after there has already been a full 23+ pages on it now.

For the same reason you rehashed all of your arguments after there had been 23+ pages of discussion on the original Jon/ Cat thread.

Actually, I'm not really "rehashing" anything, I was just pointing out a significant hole in your reasoning, and the fact that your argument was entirely based on speculation and a slanted interpretation of events.

The reason for my hesitation was that in your original post on this thread, you asserted that, "
Ignoring Jon would have been swell. Catelyn didn't actually do that. How do we know this? From Jon's POV, where he thinks about the looks Catelyn used to give him, how she stared daggers at him, looked like she begrudged him every bite of food. "

When I first read this accusation a few weeks ago, I felt this was incorrect and didn't really go along with what I'd read in Jon's POV in the past. However, I was also aware that I may have missed something major during my read throughs of Jon's POV's in AGOT-ASOS. So I went back and read Jon's sections in all of these books, only to find my original thoughts were correct-- that your supposition that "ignoring Jon would have been swell" but that Cat had not done that, but set out to deliberately abuse him with dirty looks etc. was your own very biased spin on events.

@QCI I'm not really sure why you feel the need to rehash all of this after there has already been a full 23+ pages on it now. I can't go look up the quotes, but there is absolutely no speculation in saying that Jon felt Cat's anger when he bested Robb and also felt that she looked at him as if she begrudged him every bite of food.

Okay, but this was not what you said in your initial post. It was ""
Ignoring Jon would have been swell. Catelyn didn't actually do that. How do we know this? From Jon's POV". You imply here that Cat abused Jon, however, basically all she was guilty of was not wanting to have him around. If you would have specified that "Cat didn't want Jon around because he was an unrelated child who was dumped on her. Since Jon noticed her wish to have him elsewhere, I'm going to say this was inexcusable behavior on Cat's part because it damaged Jon's self esteem" that would have been fine, I guess. But you expressly state that Cat's mistreatment of Jon went beyond ignoring him, which it didn't. You blame her for not wanting him there.

I can't go look up the quotes, but there is absolutely no speculation in saying that Jon felt Cat's anger when he bested Robb and also felt that she looked at him as if she begrudged him every bite of food.

Aside from the fact that this info comes from Jon S.'s highly biased POV, and his ruminations on the subject are bound to be a bit slanted.

And it's not the fact that you blame Cat for not wanting Jon there that I was objecting to. It was that you make this out to be a form of abuse on Cat's part. You've said repeatedly that you don't care if Cat "hated" Jon (as you say) or was merely extremely uncomfortable and unnerved and annoyed by his presence (as I contend.) You note that Cat is still morally to blame for "making Jon feel unwanted." You then inevitably go on to raise the straw man that "it is always wrong to make a child feel unwanted."

Well and good. But in your original post and ones before it, you implied strongly that Cat was mistreating Jon in a way that went beyond simply ignoring him. Earlier you noted that

I don't make any comment on whether Cat's choice was conscious passive aggression, I don't care. Conscious or unconscious, I will stand by my statement that it's not right to make a child feel that way.

This is a bit of a straw man on your part. Of course "It's not right to make a child" feel unwanted. It's also not right to bring home a strange child to one's spouse, demand that the child stays with you without letting the spouse have any input, and refuse to tell the spouse anything about the identity or parentage of the child who will be living with you and your biological children for the next few decades. The fact that the person who’d had the strange kid dumped on them would feel uncomfortable, annoyed, and ambivalent WRG to the bastard child’s presence also seems like something most can agree upon. And yet, Cat’s appearing to want Jon elsewhere is likened to cruelty on your part.

I don't make any comment on whether Cat's choice was conscious passive aggression, I don't care. Conscious or unconscious, I will stand by my statement that it's not right to make a child feel that way.



And I stand by my statement that morally, there’s an enormous difference between consciously setting out to sabotage, hurt, and degrade a child in such a situation and merely wishing them elsewhere and resenting their presence after they’ve been forced upon you.

I knew that grudging of the food sounded familiar. "Jon wondered how Lady Catelyn’s sister would feel about feeding Ned Stark’s bastard. As a boy, he often felt as if the lady grudged him every bite."

"He had often felt" is a significant part of this sentence. It clarifies the subjectivity involved in the situation that is obvious, and that even Jon himself is able to see.

[Longspear Ryk]

Cat shouldnt blame Jon for something he couldn't help. HE didn't asked to be born. Catelyn is just a bitch. Thats probably where Sansa gets it from....

[bloodymime]

"He had often felt" is a significant part of this sentence. It clarifies the subjectivity involved in the situation that is obvious, and that even Jon himself is able to see.

He clearly differentiates his thinking with 'as a boy' as well. What child doesn't feel persecuted at times over how horribly unfair life is when they're young and don't get everything they want.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

This is a bit of a straw man on your part.

:lmao:

You do not understand what a straw man argument is.

I will give you an example:

However, the fact that Cat continued to not really want Jon there (rather than take him into her heart and love him like her own as a Good Woman would have done) and was “very aware of the rights of her own children” do not really indicate cruelty or bad behavior to me.

See, it's easy to argue against the claim that Catelyn should have loved Jon as her own, because that's far too much to ask of anyone in Cat's situation. That's why you set it up as a 'straw man,' so you could knock it down. No, not loving Jon does not indicate cruelty or bad behavior. But neither did I say it did. See how the straw man fallacy works?

What I did was to say, essentially, Thing 'X' is bad a thing to do. Person 'Y' did Thing 'X.' Person 'Y' did a bad thing. Which, you will notice, does not involve setting up an easily countered opposing argument and then knocking it down. See?

[Ran]

Catelyn didn't "make" Jon feel any particular way. Catelyn had no control over where Jon was, or how Jon felt about it. Eddard Stark did.

Therefore, Eddard did a bad thing. Catelyn and Jon were merely his victims.

Honestly, I think the anti-Cat position (re: Jon) has been so thoroughly demolished that if you guys just want to say you hate Cat because, then go to it rather than trying to rationalize it. The author and the text speak far too plainly.