Are people too harsh on the Tullys?

[WeddinGuest]

I think it's certainly a double standard to argue that Robert had no responsibility at all for his own bastards, as he seems to take no notice of them, and doesn't even seem to care when Cersei kills the ones at CR (though granted, he may not have known), and defend him based on an idea that what was normal, acceptable behavior for a medieval king, but then to slam Cat for not being kinder to Jon, who is NOT her flesh and blood, who would NOT have expected to treat him with kindness at all, and whose position at Winterfell, essentially treated the same as a trueborn Stark with access to the same material comforts, military training, and education, appears to have been FAR from what was accepted back then.

The only prominent characters to do this other than Ned seem to have been Aegon IV "the unworthy" Targaryen and Walder Frey; the first situation led to a number of bloody rebellions, and I think ol' Walder is setting up his House for a similar fate once he finally pops the clogs (that is, if they survive until then). And no, I don't count Roose Bolton, because he only accepted Ramsay as a son and took him into the Dreadfort after his trueborn son Domeric died and he really has no choice - until then, Ramsay lived the life of a smallfolk peasant, though likely a fairly well-off one, as his mother's family controlled the mill.

People who judge Cat seem to have this impression that ALL women should have "maternal instincts" and have compassion for any "motherless" children, otherwise they are "bad mothers". Okay, so let's say R+L= J, and that Rhaegar managed to kill Robert on the Trident, and the Targs held onto their kingdom, Elia and her kids lived, but that Lyanna still died from a complication of childbirth. Let's say it was Rhaegar who brought Jon home to the Red Keep. Would the same posters judging Cat, cast the same judgment on Elia, suppose they would also judge HER if she hadn't accepted Jon completely and been kind and motherly to him? What if some assassin tried to kill Aegon, and Elia told Jon at Aegon's sickbed, "It should have been you?"

[The Wolves]

People who judge Cat seem to have this impression that ALL women should have "maternal instincts" and have compassion for any "motherless" children, otherwise they are "bad mothers". Okay, so let's say R+L= J, and that Rhaegar managed to kill Robert on the Trident, and the Targs held onto their kingdom, Elia and her kids lived, but that Lyanna still died from a complication of childbirth. Let's say it was Rhaegar who brought Jon home to the Red Keep. Would the same posters judging Cat, cast the same judgment on Elia, suppose they would also judge HER if she hadn't accepted Jon completely and been kind and motherly to him? What if some assassin tried to kill Aegon, and Elia told Jon at Aegon's sickbed, "It should have been you?"

Who is saying that Catelyn is a bad person/woman for her lack of "maternal instinct" towards Jon? Nobody is saying that Cat is obligated to care/love Jon because she is a mother/woman, she has no obligation towards Jon period.

But her transference of her anger from Ned to Jon is what people are saying is not fair and it's wrong. I don't care how justified she is in her anger towards the situation there's no justification in taking it out on Jon, she's not fair she's wrong. I would understand if she didn't like Jon because of his character not his mere existence(that's a very ugly reason to dislike someone)she's wrong but that's a small reason why I don't like her.

And I would not like Elia either if she transferred her resentment of Rhaegar onto Jon and sat and told a child that "it should have been you". When Catelyn did it I felt no sympathy towards her and I would not feel any sympathy toward Elia for it either

[Longspear Ryk]

Edmure gets all the blame in the story, while the rest of them do stupid stuff

[StarkInWinterfell]

I find it really hard to warm to Catelyn. Nothing to do with Jon though, more how she wafts around Robb like a stale fart, sticking her oar in left, right and centre. Leaving Bran and Rickon was a bit strange for me as well.

I disagree but this argument does make more sense to me than anything to do with Jon.

She gave Robb lots of sensible counsel. She wasn't right about everything, she was certainly wrong about Roose but I can't criticise her for not being omniscient. She advised him as best she could. And (with one key exception) I thought she made a deliberate effort not to undermine him and respect his position as King.

[Lee-Sensei]

Cat is not justified in her hate for Jon. Jon did nothing, she does not have to love him, sure. But hate him? A child lost without a mother? She is cruel in this regard. I would hate Ned, and take care of Jon because he needs that. He is an innocent child. Growing up without either parental figure can cause troubles for the child. This is Cat's biggest mistake. Otherwise I like her.

And who hates Edmure? He's likeable and stupid. A great combo.

Cat's under no obligation to mother Jon and Jon didn't grow up with out either parental figure. He grew up without a mother. For the most part, the rest of the family loved and cared about him. Also, I never got the feeling that Cat was very abusive to him. Just distant.

[sifth]

The issue would have been easily avoided if Robb had shared his plans with Edmure though, as a sensible commander would. You can hardly say its an unlikely scenario that anyone (not just Edmure) would attack an enemy force marching through their territory

not when they have you out numbered 10 to 1 and you're currently not their target, but hey I'm just a guy with common sense. His job was to defend River Run, not attack Tywin. Well Edmure got his chance to be a hero though, lol

[WeddinGuest]

Who is saying that Catelyn is a bad person/woman for her lack of "maternal instinct" towards Jon? Nobody is saying that Cat is obligated to care/love Jon because she is a mother/woman, she has no obligation towards Jon period.

But her transference of her anger from Ned to Jon is what people are saying is not fair and it's wrong. I don't care how justified she is in her anger towards the situation there's no justification in taking it out on Jon, she's not fair she's wrong. I would understand if she didn't like Jon because of his character not his mere existence(that's a very ugly reason to dislike someone)she's wrong but that's a small reason why I don't like her.

And I would not like Elia either if she transferred her resentment of Rhaegar onto Jon and sat and told a child that "it should have been you". When Catelyn did it I felt no sympathy towards her and I would not feel any sympathy toward Elia for it either

Cat's Queen Consort asked: "How could a mother emotionally abuse an orphan motherless child and still claim that she was a good person?"

CQC, for one, seems to strongly emphasize Cat being a "mother" guilty of "abuse" of a "motherless child". I've seen similar arguments in other topics. As if being a mother should automatically make a woman love and care for all children, in a way being a father doesn't. Essentially, that being a Mother defines a woman's role, in a way that being a Father doesn't define a man's role.

It's also been accepted as fact by many fans that Cat "hated" Jon, and they judge her based on this assumption. However, I don't see any sign of her actually hating Jon in the text. Resenting and distrusting him, yes. But that doesn't add up to hatred, IMHO. Some fans also accuse Cat of being hateful to all bastards, which is also not true; for example, she feels sorry for Mya Stone and her naive belief that she could marry Mychel Redfort, yet I've seen fans claiming she was "hateful" or "snobbish" to Mya as well.

As for her transference of anger toward Ned to Jon; well, the whole point of transference is that people don't do it on purpose! How can I blame Cat for a psychological defense mechanism? Sure, it would've been nice if she didn't do that, perhaps if Ned was an abusive jerk to her, she would've kept blaming Ned and not Jon, but Ned wasn't a jerk, in fact, she came to love Ned. As for her argument with Robb over naming Jon as his heir, I cut her a lot of slack, for this really was her worst nightmare coming true, of Jon usurping her kids and claming Winterfell. Even there, she admits that Jon himself might not do it, but that Jon's heirs might.

Now, I do think Cat is fair game for critiques of her political skills and decisions re Tyrion, Jaime, etc. But it seems the main reason fans who don't like Cat is her treatment of Jon, and this biases them against her, and results in a lot of angry Cat-bashing that is out of proportion to her deeds.

As for the other Tullys: It seems for the most part, people see Hoster as an average Great Lord whose excesses (forcing Lysa to abort LF's baby, forcing Lysa to marry Jon Arryn, and ordering smallfolk of lords supporting Targs killed) are well within the norms of behavior for men in his position.

Edmure seems to be defended by most, he's generally praised for caring about the smallfolk, and it seems most fans think Robb was in the wrong to blame him for going after Tywin's forces.

Lysa, I think gets the worst rap around here, it seems most fans defend what Hoster did, and, therefore, think Lysa was wrong to have any anger or resentment over it, or think she literally "made her own bed" by having sex with LF in the first place, and having denied Lysa any legitimate victim status, then feel free to bash her and ridicule her for her actions.

Hmm, perhaps the topic is better named "are people too harsh on the Tully WOMEN"?

[Chatty Duelist]

Cat's Queen Consort asked: "How could a mother emotionally abuse an orphan motherless child and still claim that she was a good person?"

CQC, for one, seems to strongly emphasize Cat being a "mother" guilty of "abuse" of a "motherless child". I've seen similar arguments in other topics. As if being a mother should automatically make a woman love and care for all children, in a way being a father doesn't. Essentially, that being a Mother defines a woman's role, in a way that being a Father doesn't define a man's role.

It's also been accepted as fact by many fans that Cat "hated" Jon, and they judge her based on this assumption. However, I don't see any sign of her actually hating Jon in the text. Resenting and distrusting him, yes. But that doesn't add up to hatred, IMHO. Some fans also accuse Cat of being hateful to all bastards, which is also not true; for example, she feels sorry for Mya Stone and her naive belief that she could marry Mychel Redfort, yet I've seen fans claiming she was "hateful" or "snobbish" to Mya as well.

As for her transference of anger toward Ned to Jon; well, the whole point of transference is that people don't do it on purpose! How can I blame Cat for a psychological defense mechanism? Sure, it would've been nice if she didn't do that, perhaps if Ned was an abusive jerk to her, she would've kept blaming Ned and not Jon, but Ned wasn't a jerk, in fact, she came to love Ned. As for her argument with Robb over naming Jon as his heir, I cut her a lot of slack, for this really was her worst nightmare coming true, of Jon usurping her kids and claming Winterfell. Even there, she admits that Jon himself might not do it, but that Jon's heirs might.

Now, I do think Cat is fair game for critiques of her political skills and decisions re Tyrion, Jaime, etc. But it seems the main reason fans who don't like Cat is her treatment of Jon, and this biases them against her, and results in a lot of angry Cat-bashing that is out of proportion to her deeds.

As for the other Tullys: It seems for the most part, people see Hoster as an average Great Lord whose excesses (forcing Lysa to abort LF's baby, forcing Lysa to marry Jon Arryn, and ordering smallfolk of lords supporting Targs killed) are well within the norms of behavior for men in his position.

Edmure seems to be defended by most, he's generally praised for caring about the smallfolk, and it seems most fans think Robb was in the wrong to blame him for going after Tywin's forces.

Lysa, I think gets the worst rap around here, it seems most fans defend what Hoster did, and, therefore, think Lysa was wrong to have any anger or resentment over it, or think she literally "made her own bed" by having sex with LF in the first place, and having denied Lysa any legitimate victim status, then feel free to bash her and ridicule her for her actions.

Hmm, perhaps the topic is better named "are people too harsh on the Tully WOMEN"?

I agree wholeheartedly with you. Except on the last part.

Hmm, perhaps the topic is better named "are people too harsh on the Tully WOMEN"?

It should "people are too harsh on Catelyn."

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Cat's Queen Consort asked:

CQC,

Very mature. Also you should mind to avoid talking about other posters when you are not referring to them It's tacky, cheap and lame.

[Chatty Duelist]

Very mature. Also you should mind to avoid talking about other posters when you are not referring to them It's tacky, cheap and lame.

Uh wat?

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Uh wat?

Which part you didn't understand?

[Chatty Duelist]

Which part you didn't understand?

Your entire post.

[WeddinGuest]

CQC, I guess you meant I shouldn't have referred to your post if I wasn't addressing you directly? Okay, sorry about that, but I didn't mean any offense. The Wolves asked, "Who is saying that Catelyn is a bad person/woman for her lack of "maternal instinct" towards Jon?" and I was trying to answer that question,

BTW, I'm officially saying "hi" to The Wolves to avoid any accusation of referring to that poster without addressing the poster directly.

[StarkInWinterfell]

Which part you didn't understand?

Are you objecting because WeddinGuest accidentally referred to you as 'Cat's Queen Consort'? Because that seems like an accident and a strange thing to object to. Or did you want to be properly quoted instead of (very accurately) paraphrased. I'm also confused by your post. Agree completely with WeddinGuest's excellent one though.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Your entire post.

A. Try to make fun of a name. Like someone for example call you Super Moron, I don't mean it but that is what happens.

B. Start talking about others not directly to them but chit chatting cowardly debaseed someone's view it's tacky, cheap and lame. And that is me being polite.

[Leonardo]

I like Cat and Edmure both; even if Edmure did make a mistake it was never going to guarantee Tywin wasn't going to head to King's Landing anyways, or that the trap would have succeeded perfectly(knowing Robb it probably would)

HOWEVER

Catelyn had the TWO MOST IMPORTANT LANNISTER HOSTAGES AND LET THEM GO FOR VIRTUALLY NO REASON. There is no justification for it because she put her trust in an enemy's hands. She KNEW Jaime tried to kill Bran, then expects him and Tyrion to honor this agreement that was only made through second hand letters, who she wrongfully imprisoned for the crime, not once admitting to it to Tyrion. I don't care how mad with grief you are, there is no way to justify letting Jaime go back to the Lannisters. If they held Jaime, it's much less likely that RW would ever have been able to happen, or if it did, would still leave an insanely sticky situation to deal with because the Riverlords still hold Jaime.

I still like Catelyn and don't really blame her for what she did, but it was such a pitiful and hopeless move with absolutely no chance of success. Robb's beheading of Karstark could have been handled better, and then there is the infamous Frey betrothal, but all of these mistakes really weakened the North's position; letting Jaime go was the deathblow. Even if Robb retook the North, the Riverlands would surely have suffered immensely in that time and most would have bent the knee or Tywin would have given their lands to someone else who served him.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Are you objecting because WeddinGuest accidentally referred to you as 'Cat's Queen Consort'? Because that seems like an accident and a strange thing to object to. Or did you want to be properly quoted instead of (very accurately) paraphrased. I'm also confused by your post. Agree completely with WeddinGuest's excellent one though.

Would you like to be called @obscenity@Winterfell for example and someone say that it's a accident? Because it is at least lame. But I should know better and use the prefs I can. I did it now.

[UVA]

As if being a mother should automatically make a woman love and care for all children, in a way being a father doesn't. Essentially, that being a Mother defines a woman's role, in a way that being a Father doesn't define a man's role.

I think this fallacy that because Cat is a mother she should mother and love all children lies at the heart of much of the criticism of her treatment, or non-treatment of Jon. Sure it would be nice if she'd embraced him, given him a mother's love. But there were too many factors that acted against this, not the least of which was Ned's creating and enforcing this wedge,

[Chatty Duelist]

I like Cat and Edmure both; even if Edmure did make a mistake it was never going to guarantee Tywin wasn't going to head to King's Landing anyways, or that the trap would have succeeded perfectly(knowing Robb it probably would)

HOWEVER

Catelyn had the TWO MOST IMPORTANT LANNISTER HOSTAGES AND LET THEM GO FOR VIRTUALLY NO REASON. There is no justification for it because she put her trust in an enemy's hands. She KNEW Jaime tried to kill Bran, then expects him and Tyrion to honor this agreement that was only made through second hand letters, who she wrongfully imprisoned for the crime, not once admitting to it to Tyrion. I don't care how mad with grief you are, there is no way to justify letting Jaime go back to the Lannisters. If they held Jaime, it's much less likely that RW would ever have been able to happen, or if it did, would still leave an insanely sticky situation to deal with because the Riverlords still hold Jaime.

I still like Catelyn and don't really blame her for what she did, but it was such a pitiful and hopeless move with absolutely no chance of success. Robb's beheading of Karstark could have been handled better, and then there is the infamous Frey betrothal, but all of these mistakes really weakened the North's position; letting Jaime go was the deathblow. Even if Robb retook the North, the Riverlands would surely have suffered immensely in that time and most would have bent the knee or Tywin would have given their lands to someone else who served him.

Let Catelyn have her flaws.

[StarkInWinterfell]

Would you like to be called @obscenity@Winterfell for example and someone say that it's a accident? Because it is at least lame. But I should know better and use the prefs I can. I did it now.

I find it genuinely amusing that you equate being referred to as 'Cat-something' with me being referred to as 'obscenity-something'. Is she really that bad? Haha.

Anyway, back on topic.. I was disappointed when Cat let Jaime go. I understand her motivations but really wish she hadn't. Has to be said though, Jaime has tried to hold up his side of the bargain. With Brienne's help, Jaime getting hold of Sansa is still technically possible. Since what she cared about was the lives of her daughters, it could be argued Cat wasn't wrong to trust Jaime and let him go at all.