Why not Ned tell Cat Jon was lyanna's son with somebody else

[corbon]

I read just fine thank you. Can you, because that quote doesn't in any way contradict what my post says. :)

I guess I just can't understand the presumption involved in claiming to know what Catelyn would do in various circumstances when Ned himself doesn't know and tells us so explicitly.

Or I guess the point in arguing over speculations of such.
 

I don't know what kjg means.....

 
In my posts, it invariably means I hit post by mistake instead of the little square staple symbol at top left corner to change modes.  :blushing:

When breaking up another post to reply piece by piece I find the easiest method is to use the BBCode mode, copy and paste the start quote details and the end quote details. I typically add a few nonsense letters in between to keep the quotes separate or when you go back to a normal view to do the typing the quotes sometimes squish together and won't let you type between them, only inside them. kjg/khg/kjh seems to be the place my finders drop most naturally for the temporary nonsense bit...
 

Where do you see anywhere in my post a reference to Mia Stone? I was talking about Cat's general disposition toward bastards...which isn't very positive is it?

What other bastards do Cat interact with? Where else are you getting her 'general disposition toward bastards' from other than her interactions with Mya Stone?

And so my point in going through her interaction with Mya even though you didn't bring it up by name. AFAICS you did bring it up, because your point is founded on it, you just didn't do so explicitly.

So, where isn't her attitude to bastards very positive then?

Note that her attitude to Jon is a separate case, because there are several very personal results there, so with Jon its not just a general case of bastardy-hate. What you need to show her 'general disposition toward bastards' is cases that are not Jon.

Mya is one, are there more?

The only other bastard she interacts with that I can think of is Mya, and Catelyn treats her really rather well all things considered. People often don't seem to pay attention and think its Mya's bastardy that sours Catelyn for a moment, but its not, its the way Mya's bastardy make her think of the situation with Jon that sours her. Catelyns actual words and actions and thoughts about Mya show no poor disposition at all. She likes the girl, she trust the gilrl, she put her life in the girls hands, she respects her competence and she's sad at the way she knows others will treat Mya (wrt Mychel Redfort scenario).

[Lady Blizzardborn]

I think Catelyn would know the children that she bore from her body.

Someday I want to read a scene in a book where a couple are arguing over their child and the man turns to the woman and says "You know he may not even be yours!"

[Darkstream]

Someday I want to read a scene in a book where a couple are arguing over their child and the man turns to the woman and says "You know he may not even be yours!"

:lol:

Oh the acclaim to the lawer that wins that custody battle.

[Lady Sharya]

What other bastards do Cat interact with? Where else are you getting her 'general disposition toward bastards' from other than her interactions with Mya Stone?
And so my point in going through her interaction with Mya even though you didn't bring it up by name. AFAICS you did bring it up, because your point is founded on it, you just didn't do so explicitly.
So, where isn't her attitude to bastards very positive then?
Note that her attitude to Jon is a separate case, because there are several very personal results there, so with Jon its not just a general case of bastardy-hate. What you need to show her 'general disposition toward bastards' is cases that are not Jon.
Mya is one, are there more?
The only other bastard she interacts with that I can think of is Mya, and Catelyn treats her really rather well all things considered. People often don't seem to pay attention and think its Mya's bastardy that sours Catelyn for a moment, but its not, its the way Mya's bastardy make her think of the situation with Jon that sours her. Catelyns actual words and actions and thoughts about Mya show no poor disposition at all. She likes the girl, she trust the gilrl, she put her life in the girls hands, she respects her competence and she's sad at the way she knows others will treat Mya (wrt Mychel Redfort scenario).

My perceptions on Cat's disposition wrt bastards isn't only her interaction with them, it how she thinks of them.
She makes the distinction of viewing bastards as separate kind of people. I know many other characters do this but she is otherwise a fair and reasonable thinker so it stands out to me.
-She regards Aegon IV legitimizing his bastards as folly.
-She immediately notes Mia's bastard name.
-She thinks the larger parties of soldiers at the RW will find their way across the river to where the bastards are seated to see how much more fun they are having.

And this statement showing that she doesn't think of bastards as valuable children to their fathers:

Still, she was struck again by how strangely men behaved when it came to their bastards. Ned had always been fiercely protective of Jon, and Ser Cortnay Penrose had given up his life for this Edric Storm

[UnViserion]

A lot of characters throw bastard around as an insult and look down on them. It wouldn't be out of the ordinary for Catelyn, the firstborn daughter of a Lord Paramount, to look down on them too. It'd almost be out of the ordinary for her to think otherwise. Highborn girls were literally told from the time they could comprehend marriage that they'd be married to a fancy lord.

 

*edit: and I'd imagine that sentiment would be especially driven home to a firstborn gal. If you're a lord, the last thing you want is one of your most vital marriage prospects entertaining thoughts of settling down with some triflin' ass bastard. 

[corbon]

My perceptions on Cat's disposition wrt bastards isn't only her interaction with them, it how she thinks of them.
She makes the distinction of viewing bastards as separate kind of people. I know many other characters do this but she is otherwise a fair and reasonable thinker so it stands out to me.
-She regards Aegon IV legitimizing his bastards as folly.
-She immediately notes Mia's bastard name.
-She thinks the larger parties of soldiers at the RW will find their way across the river to where the bastards are seated to see how much more fun they are having.

And this statement showing that she doesn't think of bastards as valuable children to their fathers:

 

Ok, fair enough.

 

I happen to think that all of these are a product of her culture rather than herself though. Bastards ARE a separate and lesser social grade in her culture. Acknowledging that is realism, not prejudice. I don't think its fair to blame anyone for acknowledging this is the way of the world, I think what is important is how they personally treat bastards. Prejudice is shown by actions, not by acknowledging reality.

So I guess this is where we disagree. It sounds to me like you are laying blame for acknowledging cultural realities, which are the judgment by the culture as a whole, not any individual within that culture, and ignoring actual personal conduct.

 

To look at your examples individually...

Aegon IVs legitimising his bastards WAS folly. It caused chaos, spawning multiple (5 at least) wars and rebellions that almost certainly wouldn't have happened if Daemon Blackfyre remained un-legitimised.

As I already noted, Mya's bastardy caused Cat no issues other than reminding her of the situation with Jon. Noting the name Stone is no different from noting the name Harding, or Darry, or any House. Its how the person is treated afterward that matters. Its to Cat's credit that despite an unpleasant association, she treated Mya Stone very well.

Advantage to the Bastards. They get to have more fun because they are free-er, less constrained by social proprieties. No shame in acknowledging that.

And the last - thats your own confirmation bias showing. That statement says nothing of the sort. She understands the value legitimate children bring and bastards do not bring, but thats nothing to do with her attitude and everything to do with what her culture places value in. She doesn't understand, absent the cultural value of legitimacy, why men act strangely around their bastards. No surprising, since she doesn't seem to know, unlike those two men, that the bastards in their bare are the sons of Kings (or princes), not their own.

Her thoughts do not say that bastards have no value, just that they lack the values she understands, values which are fact within the culture, not her personal prejudice.

[TRLR]

Well this is speculation we just disagree on. :cheers:

To be fair to Catelyn, I would've done the same thing. It what makes her character fascinating and a lot of fun to read.  :thumbsup:

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

This is absolutely not the same thing. Whether the reason that Jaimie would be free or not is due to Catelyn, she cannot be held accountable for the actions of another free willed human being.

You can if the only reason that person is free is because you disobeyed your King and set them free. Especially because you did it for selfish reasons. Yes it was to save two live (maybe) but everyone on Robb's side was losing family and friends, why were her's more important?

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

After the incidents at the tourney of Harrenhal and the abduction itself he would have very difficult time trying to convince Catelyn that Jon is not Rhaegar's son , if Eddard told her that Jon was Lyanna's son .

[Darkstream]

You can if the only reason that person is free is because you disobeyed your King and set them free. Especially because you did it for selfish reasons. Yes it was to save two live (maybe) but everyone on Robb's side was losing family and friends, why were her's more important?

I would have to disagree. Does this mean that the blacksmith that forged and sold Jaimie's sword is responsible for everyone Jaimie kills with it?

Or if person x is about to cross a street, but person y stops them to ask for directions, when person x resumes to cross the street they get hit by a bus. Is it person y's fault?

The outcome in these examples doesn't happen without the fist persons actions, but its hardly fair to hold them responsible.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

I would have to disagree. Does this mean that the blacksmith that forged and sold Jaimie's sword is responsible for everyone Jaimie kills with it?

Or if person x is about to cross a street, but person y stops them to ask for directions, when person x resumes to cross the street they get hit by a bus. Is it person y's fault?

The outcome in these examples doesn't happen without the fist persons actions, but its hardly fair to hold them responsible.

Jaime is one of the most deadly men in all of Westeros and was safely behind bars till Cat released him.

If she had released a bear and it ate someone, she would be responsible right?

 

In you scenarios, the blacksmith would only be responsible if he was the blacksmith to Robb's side and he purposefully gave Jaime a sword after he escaped.

And person Y is only at fault if he purposefully slowed the other guy so a bus Y knew about was on it's way to hit him.

 

Your examples take away the act of premeditation and fore thought. Cat knew what she was doing, knew it was wrong and did it anyway despite the consequences. And that shows that she would also do what she considers wrong to save her children, including sacrificing Jon to that same end.

[Darkstream]

Jaime is one of the most deadly men in all of Westeros and was safely behind bars till Cat released him.
If she had released a bear and it ate someone, she would be responsible right?
 
In you scenarios, the blacksmith would only be responsible if he was the blacksmith to Robb's side and he purposefully gave Jaime a sword after he escaped.
And person Y is only at fault if he purposefully slowed the other guy so a bus Y knew about was on it's way to hit him.
 
Your examples take away the act of premeditation and fore thought. Cat knew what she was doing, knew it was wrong and did it anyway despite the consequences. And that shows that she would also do what she considers wrong to save her children, including sacrificing Jon to that same end.

Cat's action weren't with the intent of having Jaimie murder anyone, in fact she makes him swear a sacred oath not to take up arms against the Tully's or Starks. She's responsible for the crime of treason, but she couldn't be held accountable for any murders that Jaimie MIGHT commit. If Rob chose, she could be tried for treason, but it would be ridiculous to trie her for murder. Just like person y didn't push person x, Cat wouldn't be holding Jaimie's hand and helping him thrust his sword through some persons chest.

[Lady Sharya]

 
I happen to think that all of these are a product of her culture rather than herself though. Bastards ARE a separate and lesser social grade in her culture. Acknowledging that is realism, not prejudice. I don't think its fair to blame anyone for acknowledging this is the way of the world, I think what is important is how they personally treat bastards. Prejudice is shown by actions, not by acknowledging reality.
So I guess this is where we disagree. It sounds to me like you are laying blame for acknowledging cultural realities, which are the judgment by the culture as a whole, not any individual within that culture, and ignoring actual personal conduct.

First of all, If I had actually presented this as an argument, I would have provided more and better examples. If I were even disputing someone else's claim, I would provide better textual evidence. But I'm not. I responded in agreement to another poster's claim, simple as that. You dispute the other poster's claim and choose me to argue with. That fine, but TBH Cat gets enough hate on this forum for me to find myself in a position to add to it. I will argue all day long against negative misinterpretations of Cat, but I won't add fuel to the already burning bonfire of Cat crusifiering.

I will say this though: Of course Cat's thinking is a product of her culture. Who's thinking isn't? This entire series revolves around cultures that are a slap in the face to our modern civilized societies. So in that, you are right. I can't hold Cat responsible for prejudices ingrained within her cultures mindset.

However, it's the intellegent, consiencous person that rises above cultural norms to see injustices, hypocrisies and errors within a cultures mindset, and to choose to think differently. That is also a part of the series' design by the writer from Cersei's hatred of being a woman in a misogynist culture to Dany's rejection of slavery. The treatment and view of bastards is made controversial as well.

Cat is a character I admire very much because she rises above the war mentality to see the bigger picture of what it actually costs in human life and the destruction of people's lives...and she doesn't get to stand on the sidelines watching it like most highborn nobles in Westeros. She pays for her cultures mindset and for her own mistakes, and she pays dearly! My ONLY disappointment in her character is that she doesn't rise above the prejudices against bastards and stop viewing them as a different sort of creature. Is this a harsh unfair judgement? Yes. But it's a judgement of my personal expectations of an admired character, not a judgement of her disposition within the culture she lives in.

[Lady Sharya]

You can if the only reason that person is free is because you disobeyed your King and set them free. Especially because you did it for selfish reasons. Yes it was to save two live (maybe) but everyone on Robb's side was losing family and friends, why were her's more important?

Well then you are gonna have to pin the selfish label and responsibility of unforeseen deaths on a lot more characters if you choose to see it this way:
-Tyrion for the hangings of 10 men at RR who infiltrated the castle for the selfishness of trying to rescue Jaime.
-Wyman Manderly for the selfishness of waiting until his son was safely home before taking steps to aide the norths recovery. Who knows how many lives were lost in this delay.
-Jason Mallister for surrendering Seaguard because Black Walder had his son. How many lives will it take to recover that castle?
-The Umber uncles for dividing their pathetic forces to ensure the safe return of the GreatJon, and every other house who chose to surrender because they had a family member held hostage.
-Oberyn Martell's responsibility for Tywin's death for the selfish need to extract a confession from Gregor before killing him, resulting in Tyrion's subsequent release in the tunnels, giving him the opportunity to kill Tywin.
You see where this goes? No where.;)
Releasing Jaime was Cat's ONLY option to retrieve her daughters because NO ONE else cared to make any efforts. Poopoo the snot nosed king she bore and raised to his whole 15years of life. No mother can be expected to go from whipping her child's face to bowing to his holiness in the space of a few months.;)

She made Jaime vow to not take up arms against them, and this is the only trust any king or lord actually has in another. So, it was as stupid as all those vows from surrendered enemies passing through the throne room to give felty to the king they just lost a war against.

[King Viserys Targaryen IV]

Well then you are gonna have to pin the selfish label and responsibility of unforeseen deaths on a lot more characters if you choose to see it this way:
-Tyrion for the hangings of 10 men at RR who infiltrated the castle for the selfishness of trying to rescue Jaime.
-Wyman Manderly for the selfishness of waiting until his son was safely home before taking steps to aide the norths recovery. Who knows how many lives were lost in this delay.
-Jason Mallister for surrendering Seaguard because Black Walder had his son. How many lives will it take to recover that castle?
-The Umber uncles for dividing their pathetic forces to ensure the safe return of the GreatJon, and every other house who chose to surrender because they had a family member held hostage.
-Oberyn Martell's responsibility for Tywin's death for the selfish need to extract a confession from Gregor before killing him, resulting in Tyrion's subsequent release in the tunnels, giving him the opportunity to kill Tywin.
You see where this goes? No where. ;)
Releasing Jaime was Cat's ONLY option to retrieve her daughters because NO ONE else cared to make any efforts. Poopoo the snot nosed king she bore and raised to his whole 15years of life. No mother can be expected to go from whipping her child's face to bowing to his holiness in the space of a few months. ;)

She made Jaime vow to not take up arms against them, and this is the only trust any king or lord actually has in another. So, it was as stupid as all those vows from surrendered enemies passing through the throne room to give felty to the king they just lost a war against.

The point was, would Catelyn sacrifice Jon for the sake of her children. The answer is yes because here is an example of her already doing something similar

 

And I agree with almost all of those above, there are consequences for an action and / or choice

Except one:

Oberyn Martell's responsibility for Tywin's death for the selfish need to extract a confession from Gregor before killing him, resulting in Tyrion's subsequent release in the tunnels, giving him the opportunity to kill Tywin.

Oberyn already poisoned Tywin, so he was going to die either way.

[Lady Sharya]

The point was, would Catelyn sacrifice Jon for the sake of her children. The answer is yes because here is an example of her already doing something similar
 
And I agree with almost all of those above, there are consequences for an action and / or choice
Except one:
Oberyn Martell's responsibility for Tywin's death for the selfish need to extract a confession from Gregor before killing him, resulting in Tyrion's subsequent release in the tunnels, giving him the opportunity to kill Tywin.
Oberyn already poisoned Tywin, so he was going to die either way.

:lol: He's still responsible...just doubly so.;)
And, for nth time, releasing Jaime only shows her willingness to defy her adolescent son-king's wishes and her desperate desire to trust an untrustworthy Jaime because he was the only power big enough to have her daughters safely returned. It does not show her willingness to sacrifice the life of a completely innocent child. I have already conceded to Darkstream@ that she probably would have given up Jon Snow, Ned's bastard, but not Jon Targaryen Lyanna's son.
And btw- so far her trust in Jaime has merit since he has sent Brienne in search of Sansa and avoided bloodshed at the siege of RR.:)

[YunoGasai]

A better childhood than even trueborn children of high lords, whose fathers were cold and uncaring. You must have been readind a different book if you think otherwise.

What? Eddard had never been cold to Jon. Fathers aren't the issue here, but the stepmothers.

If he has no life, he has no childhood.

What? you think Catelyn will spill the info that Jon is Rhaegar's son? As the OP said, Eddard doesn't even have to tell her who the real parents are. He only needed to say 'no Cat, i did not fuck another woman. He's not mine child, but i can't tell you more bec. i just don't want to. Now be a good wife and gimme a kiss.' Was that so freaken hard? 

[Shmi44]

Becauz Jon is Ned's son obviously.

[YunoGasai]

 

No, I'm not blaming Cat at all. I'm just saying that she states and believes she'd be fine with Ned having other or more bastards, as long as they grow up somewhere else and aren't recognized, though taken care of. Who are you to devalue Cat's opinions on this. 

But you do. You're blaming her for her for Ned's stupid mistakes.

 

She betrayed her son, a king, by releasing Jaime to get her daughters back. She'd do the same with Jon if she'd believe the lives of her children are on the line. It's an observation. When it comes to her own children, and their safety, Cat would give up anyone who isn't her child. While Jaime's release cost her son, I don't hate her for feeling like that. Everything else is wishful thinking about - oh, if only she knew, she'd love the boy and do anything to protect him, while he's not her own blood. It's just not Cat. When it comes to her own children, her blood, she's ferocious. And everybody else can be given up for them.

Gahh. In case you noticed Arya and Sansa were not trapped in Kings' Landing when Ned brought Jon to Winterfell.

 

Brienne is completely unrelated. Taking Brienne endangered no children of hers. But hey, if LF had said - give up Brienne and I'll give you your 2 daughters, she'd give her up without blinking an eye.

Duh how did you know? as i said your antipathy towards Cat that's making assumptions and not facts at all. Brienne is unrelated but Littlefinger is not? *rolls eyes.

 

Cat was so bloody dutiful she only treated Jon with cold treatment not abuse incase you noticed. If Ned was married to any other maiden from any other most-powerful House: Lannister, Bolton, Frey, Martell, Greyjoy, Tyrell, Baratheon.....Do you think that Jon will even reach childhood? boo

[David Selig]

My ONLY disappointment in her character is that she doesn't rise above the prejudices against bastards and stop viewing them as a different sort of creature. Is this a harsh unfair judgement? Yes. But it's a judgement of my personal expectations of an admired character, not a judgement of her disposition within the culture she lives in.

But she doesn't view them as different kind of creature. I really don't see how your examples prove anything like that.

 

 

-She regards Aegon IV legitimizing his bastards as folly.

Wasn't it folly? It was an idiotic act made out of pettiness and it lead to a huge war.

 

 

- She immediately notes Mia's bastard name.

OK, so? If she was called "Noble family X", she would have noted that too (as she does a lot of times). Plus Martin needed to make an infodump about bastard names.

 

 

She thinks the larger parties of soldiers at the RW will find their way across the river to where the bastards are seated to see how much more fun they are having.

Again, so? The lower ranked guys tend to have more rowdy parties than the highest nobles who have to maintain their dignity and stick to protocol.

 

 

And this statement showing that she doesn't think of bastards as valuable children to their fathers:

The full quote is:

 

 

Still, she was struck again by how strangely men behaved when it came to their bastards. Ned had always been fiercely protective of Jon, and Ser Cortnay Penrose had given up his life for this Edric Storm, yet Roose Bolton’s bastard had meant less to him than one of his dogs, to judge from the tone of the queer cold letter Edmure had gotten from him not three days past.

The point isn't that Catelyn doesn't think of bastards as valuable and that she sees them as unworthy of love (just before that passage she wondered whether Jon's mother prayed for her son like Cat did for her own kids), but that it's the inconsistency in treatment which she finds strange.