Appropriate Punishment for Catelyn

[Ice Queen]

On 8/14/2019 at 9:02 AM, Tywin Manderly said:

What would have been an appropriate punishment for Catelyn for setting Jaime Lannister free without Robb's leave?

Marry her off to Walder Frey. She did commit treason, but kinslaying is a serious crime, so Robb couldn't very well execute her. I know, I know, Lord Walder was on Wife #8, so that wasn't feasible, but Jason Mallister seemed interested in her. Robb could have married her off to him as well. 

All of this, of course, ignores the fact that the minute she showed up on her way back north, she should have been sent back to Winterfell. That was her place. She should NOT have been given a place in Robb's councils or any other advisory position. She was not a Lady Mormont with the necessary skills and strategic thinking that would have been valuable, and she had no business there.

Just my two cents. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

I think that's precisely the issue. Robb is supposed to be impartial when acting the judge. Otherwise, justice is impossible

Isn't part of being impartial looking at the whole picture though? Only looking at the parts of the crimes that are the same & ignoring the parts that are different is being impartial. 

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

The majority of them also haven't committed treason. Death or life imprisonment (a permanent punishment, obviously) are the most common punishments for treason, today.

What is the most common punishment for treason IRL today is much more irrelevant than the differences in their crimes. aSoIaF isn't real life & isn't in a setting remotely close to today. 

 

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

That is essentially my issue. Although I suppose it's that she wasn't punished at all, at least by Robb, the person to whom doling out justice fell.

We will just have to agree to disagree here. Otherwise we will be in a never ending circle. I will tell you Robb did put forth a punishment, you will tell me either that it wasn't a punishment or that it doesn't count because it hadn't begun, I will tell you it is a punishment & really it had started as she was confined to her fathers room at RR, you will tell me that wasn't Robb's punishment, I will tell you it's still a punishment & the only reason her punishment from Robb hadn't started was because she died etc etc etc. 

So I'll go with the part of your sentence I can discuss without being circular. I don't necessarily disagree with Robb's punishment, however, I can see the argument for a bigger punishment for Cat. She did commit treason, she did release a very valuable prisoner. It wouldn't be unjust or extraordinary for Robb to done something harsher to her. 

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Catelyn's crime was far, far more devastating to Robb's war effort (and by extension, his entire kingdom) than Karstark's crime. To my eye, the only thing that should've stayed Robb's hand is that she's kin, and as such, protected from such reprisal.

I disagree Cat's crime was more devastating to Robb's war effort. Karstark's crime essentially cost Robb all of Karstark's men. Cat's crime only cost him Jaime. Either way though there is no rule stating that the harsher punishment has to go to the person whose crime was more devastating to the war effort. That is only one thing that should be taken into consideration when doling out punishments. Some of the other things being: What the crime actually was, the motive, any remorse, the effect the crime had on others - not just the war  etc. So for arguments sake lets say Cat's crime was more devastating to the war effort. That only makes her worse in 1 out of 5 categories. If Karstarks crime was more devastating to the war effort he is worse in 5 out of 5 categories. I agree that being kin & also being a woman should be taken into consideration. Not necessarily today, IRL but in such a misogynistic society it would be cruel to take away one of the only prejudices towards women that could actually help them. 

9 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

More nepotism. By Stannis's own code, Davos should have been killed. Rewarded for your actions, punished for your crimes. It's not the only time Stannis has let justice fall by the wayside when it suited him. But, we're not here to talk about Stannis, so I'll leave that there.

Possibly but I think it's necessary to talk about Stannis & any other King or Queen who has not killed someone for a treasonous action. I disagree that the reason is pure nepotism. 

Robb didn't kill Cat for a slew of reasons: She is his mother, she is a woman. Robb had just made a very bad judgement call of his own (which is likely what cost him the war more than Cat or Karstark combined)  & after letting his emotions cloud his own judgement understood that she let her emotions cloud her judgement as well. Cat had just suffered devastating losses & releasing Jaime had the potential to bring those losses to an end. He understood her reasons were not malicious, they were not meant to hurt him or anyone else. He has known her his entire life & knows she is not the kind of person to purposefully hinder his war efforts. Being a woman she may not see how this would hurt his war efforts as clearly as the men who are leading & fighting the battles. He knows she would not do anything of the nature again. 

Stannis didn't kill Davos because he had served him faithfully, always been honest - even when being asked about the treason he attempted to commit. Stannis also understood that Davos was doing what he thought was best FOR Stannis with no malicious intent toward Stan or his war effort but quite the opposite. He knows Davos would not do it again. 

Daenerys didn't kill Jorah because he too had served her faithfully for the most part. She trusted him, she liked him as a person. He was very remorseful & even though Daenerys didn't like it she understood that his treason was committed before he really knew who she was. She knows Jorah would not do it again. 

Karstark on the other hand killed children. One of the most heinous crimes that can be committed. He did so knowing it could potentially cost Robb his sisters lives, knowing it would do nothing to help his own cause or to bring his child/ren back & instead of being remorseful was insulting & made it very clear he had no remorse - given the chance he would absolutely do it again. 

10 hours ago, cyberdirectorfreedom said:

Obviously, he couldn't do that. I just now realised I haven't even given a response to the OP's question (oops), but I think he should have given her over to the silent sisters. Were she a man, she could take the black, but it seems equivalent enough. Lose your family name (or close enough to make no difference), swear vows to serve only a particular order, removed from the greater world, etc.

She worships the seven, too, so it works. It'd be a better fate than the silent sister she ended up becoming:

"Lady Stoneheart."

"Some call her that. Some call her other things. The Silent Sister. Mother Merciless. The Hangwoman."

 

Her eyes glimmered under her hood.

Grey was the color of the silent sisters, the handmaidens of the Stranger. Brienne felt a shiver climb her spine. Stoneheart.

Almost fate.

I can see that. It seems harsh to me but not too harsh. Almost fate indeed. Whether Robb punished her or no she did receive punishment in it's fullest form. 

[Seams]

It's important to keep in mind, for this kind of discussion, that the so-called "code" or "King's Justice" in Westeros is arbitrary, subjective and flawed. This is one of the themes that runs through ASOIAF.

I believe we are introduced to this in the first Bran chapter in AGoT, when Ned beheads Gared. He uses the sword Ice, which I believe may have been named "Justice," originally. (Or we are supposed to infer that it is the leftover after "just" is subtracted from its name or purpose.) This is the fourth Night's Watch deserter Ned has executed this year, he tells us in a later Catelyn POV.

Beheading deserters is required by the law, so Ned is going by the letter of the law. But the reader knows that Gared saw something important and that he may have come to Winterfell deliberately to spread the word about the Others. Did Ned think he was lying? That this news was not worth spreading? Perhaps he wanted to suppress this information?

Lord Commander Mormont later bemoans the loss of Gared, saying that he can't afford to lose seasoned rangers. He also spares the life of Jon Snow, who attempted desertion. Why are we given this contrast between the two fathers? Ned was going to kill Jorah Mormont for selling poachers into slavery instead of sending them to the Wall, another case where punishment was arbitrary and out-of-step with the law. Jeor, on the other hand, was going to spare Ned's son, who was also subject to execution. He promoted him (allowing him to go on the Great Ranging) and let him keep the Mormont family sword he had given him earlier.

Ned later confessed to treason and was subject to beheading. He thought he had negotiated a deal for leniency, and that he would be allowed to go to the Wall. Joffrey dictated the King's Justice, and he decided Ned should die after all.

Don't forget the treason of Great John, also against Robb Stark. When Robb decides to accept the mantle of King in the North, initially Great John is not persuaded that he wants to support him. The direwolf Grey Wind bites off a couple of Great John's fingers, which makes the north man laugh and decide that Robb is his kind of king after all. Should Robb have executed Great John, as an example to others who might dissent? Why were the two fingers sufficient punishment in this situation?

Balon Greyjoy committed treason, rebelling against Robert and provoking a war. He was allowed to live and to keep his territory and be recognized as a Lord. Other nobles in the books have lost all of their holdings for lesser crimes.

Another good example is the Rat Cook: the gods were angered not because the cook killed a prince and secretly made the king a cannibal, but because he violated guest right. Almost every culture on earth has taboos about eating human flesh: why does GRRM challenge our idea of which crime is greater here? In my opinion, because he wants us to question whether laws are fair and whether they are administered fairly.

Whether Catelyn was treated justly or appropriately or in a way consistent with the ways other traitors were treated -- we have to examine those questions in the context of this larger theme about the nature of justice in Westeros.

[miyuki]

On 8/14/2019 at 4:02 PM, Tywin Manderly said:

What would have been an appropriate punishment for Catelyn for setting Jaime Lannister free without Robb's leave?

Was the punishment she received not appropriate enough? You have to keep in mind that Cat setting Jaime free occurred at the same time Robb himself stepped over the line - broke a promise to Freys. So the easy punishment Cat received from Robb makes perfect sense both story and character wise. 

 

This is a fun thread, but we must not forget the context in which all of this is happening.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 hours ago, Seams said:

It's important to keep in mind, for this kind of discussion, that the so-called "code" or "King's Justice" in Westeros is arbitrary, subjective and flawed. This is one of the themes that runs through ASOIAF.

Agreed. We see it repeatedly all through the books. 

2 hours ago, Seams said:

believe we are introduced to this in the first Bran chapter in AGoT, when Ned beheads Gared. He uses the sword Ice, which I believe may have been named "Justice," originally. (Or we are supposed to infer that it is the leftover after "just" is subtracted from its name or purpose.) This is the fourth Night's Watch deserter Ned has executed this year, he tells us in a later Catelyn POV.

Beheading deserters is required by the law, so Ned is going by the letter of the law. But the reader knows that Gared saw something important and that he may have come to Winterfell deliberately to spread the word about the Others. Did Ned think he was lying? That this news was not worth spreading? Perhaps he wanted to suppress this information

Indeed. It was hard for me to merge my initial impression of Ned - appalled as I was over him beheading this man & taking an 8 year old along to watch - with the man that he ultimately turned out to be. (Bran's age didn't seem so young after reading more of the books but in the beginning I couldn't imagine what kind of monster would do this!) 

I don't think Ned thought he was lying, I think Ned thought he was crazed. He doesn't appear to put much stock in supernatural things & probably thought Gared was not thinking clearly. 

2 hours ago, Seams said:

Lord Commander Mormont later bemoans the loss of Gared, saying that he can't afford to lose seasoned rangers. He also spares the life of Jon Snow, who attempted desertion. Why are we given this contrast between the two fathers? Ned was going to kill Jorah Mormont for selling poachers into slavery instead of sending them to the Wall, another case where punishment was arbitrary and out-of-step with the law. Jeor, on the other hand, was going to spare Ned's son, who was also subject to execution. He promoted him (allowing him to go on the Great Ranging) and let him keep the Mormont family sword he had given him earlier

Very interesting contrast. Why did Mormont spare Starks son's life but Stark was willing to take Mormonts. On the surface it leads one to believe Ned is more invested in the letter of the law than Mormont, which may be the case, but down deeper I think it shows Mormont is more mature, seasoned, & more apt to think for himself than to blindly follow the 'laws' - which is an issue I think we run into IRL. Do what you're told regardless what is right, or do what is right regardless of what your told. That in itself is a subject I could go on for days about so I'll stop myself before I derail the thread. 

Doesn't Jeor feel as if Jorah has shamed his family as well? I can't remember if those were his feelings or if he was just telling Jon what Jorah said/felt on the matter. 

3 hours ago, Seams said:

Ned later confessed to treason and was subject to beheading. He thought he had negotiated a deal for leniency, and that he would be allowed to go to the Wall. Joffrey dictated the King's Justice, and he decided Ned should die after all

I think we've come full circle here. Ned got beheaded for a treason that many think he was justified in when knowing the whole story. With the same sword that Ned beheaded Gared with for a treason many believe he was justified in when knowing the whole story. 

 

3 hours ago, Seams said:

Another good example is the Rat Cook: the gods were angered not because the cook killed a prince and secretly made the king a cannibal, but because he violated guest right. Almost every culture on earth has taboos about eating human flesh: why does GRRM challenge our idea of which crime is greater here? In my opinion, because he wants us to question whether laws are fair and whether they are administered fairly.

Whether Catelyn was treated justly or appropriately or in a way consistent with the ways other traitors were treated -- we have to examine those questions in the context of this larger theme about the nature of justice in Westeros.

I think GRRM repeatedly challenges us with which crime is greater. With Dany & the slavers, Arya, Jon & Bowen & Co etc. 

There really doesn't seem to be any consensus either. Some believe wholeheartedly Daenerys was completely justified, some believe she is a blood thirsty murderer, others are between the two. I think what is boils down to is your own life experiences. Like with the Rat Cook. George goes out of his way to show us that breaking guest right is a terrible, unforgivable thing. So much so that even cannibalism isn't as bad in asoiaf. It is all so very subjective. 

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, miyuki said:

Was the punishment she received not appropriate enough? You have to keep in mind that Cat setting Jaime free occurred at the same time Robb himself stepped over the line - broke a promise to Freys. So the easy punishment Cat received from Robb makes perfect sense both story and character wise. 

 

This is a fun thread, but we must not forget the context in which all of this is happening.

Yes. IMO in order to make a fair opinion on the matter you must take into consideration the context & all the surrounding pressures & situations. They make a difference. 

[Son of Man]

Appropriate Punishment for Catelyn?

An execution for the crime of treason and aiding the enemy.

[Seams]

23 hours ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Very interesting contrast. Why did Mormont spare Starks son's life but Stark was willing to take Mormonts. On the surface it leads one to believe Ned is more invested in the letter of the law than Mormont, which may be the case, but down deeper I think it shows Mormont is more mature, seasoned, & more apt to think for himself than to blindly follow the 'laws' - which is an issue I think we run into IRL. Do what you're told regardless what is right, or do what is right regardless of what your told. That in itself is a subject I could go on for days about so I'll stop myself before I derail the thread. 

This was exactly my thinking. Ned is a hero in the books, but heroes can have tragic flaws. I think Jon Arryn and Jeor Mormont (there are probably others) are set up as demi-gods in the story. Mentors of mortal humans who struggle with right and wrong. Lord Commander Mormont is above the squabbles of mere humans and takes a much more compassionate approach to crime and punishment.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

1 hour ago, Seams said:

This was exactly my thinking. Ned is a hero in the books, but heroes can have tragic flaws. I think Jon Arryn and Jeor Mormont (there are probably others) are set up as demi-gods in the story. Mentors of mortal humans who struggle with right and wrong. Lord Commander Mormont is above the squabbles of mere humans and takes a much more compassionate approach to crime and punishment.

Yes. Jeor & Jon A. Are the unsung heros of the story. What does it say about the story & the society of aSoIaf as a whole that they were both murdered by those closest to them? 

[Arthur Peres]

There is nothing that Robb could really do, other than what he did...

If he executed her for high treason he would be seen as a lunatic and lost more suport.

[James Fenimore Cooper XXII]

On 8/16/2019 at 9:22 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

I can't think of any possible way Jaime remaining captive would have avoided the RW? Walder was angry Robb went back on his word to marry a Frey = the RW. Jaime doesn't play a part in that act. 

In fact I think there are some situations where the RW would have happened even if Robb kept his word because Walder is tricksy like that. heh

But that is a discussion for another time. 

I disagree wholeheartedly that the Stark boys have been partial in their roles as leaders. I think it's the people arguing that Cat should have lost her head that are being partial. 

To be impartial means to look at the entire picture & not just part of it. To make an unbiased decision. Let's take a look at the whole picture. When discussing a crime it's helpful to take into consideration the crime, motive, & any remorse the criminal may or may not have. 

Catelyn:

Crime - releasing a prisoner against the command of her king

Motive: Grief - after losing 2 sons (she believes) she released a prisoner to regain her daughters 

Remorseful? Yes

Karstark:

Crime: murdering prisoners (plural) along with guards against the command of his king

Motive: Revenge after losing his own sons wishes to pay the Lannisters back in kind but carries out his revenge on people that had nothing to do with the death of his sons. 

Remorseful? No

See the difference? To suggest that these two crimes deserve the same punishment is being very partial.  Different crimes = different punishments. 

You wouldn't sentence someone to death for slapping someone anymore than you would sentence someone to probation for torturing someone. Robb is not the Queen of Hearts screaming "Off with their heads!" At every slight nor should he be. 

I can't see Jon, Bran or Rickon doing something like murdering innocent people but if they did I think Robb would have been left with no choice but to exact the same punishment he did on Karstark. 

Likewise, if any person outside of his family released Jaime I would assume the punishment would be similar to Catelyn's.

Now if you want to argue that Karstark's punishment was too harsh or that Catelyn's was too lenient, I think there are logical arguments for that. But to say they deserved the same punishment is absurd. 

 

Tywin Lannister gave his go ahead to proceed with the red wedding because it would not have happened without his approval.  He would not give that green light if Jaime was still in Stark custody because if the plan had hiccuped in any way that golden son would die in pain.  The north are known for their cruel savagery.  Remember the story of the entrails told to Davos?  That is the way of the north.  Tywin would not risk Jaime like that.  He would flex his pride to work a deal with the Starks in exchange for Jaime.  Catelyn released Jaime and opened the way for Tywin to make a bold move.  Coded messages were moving between Tywin, Walder, and Roose.  

Robb led his army south to kill.  They were not there for a wildflower collecting field trip so they can press them for their collection.  They were there to kill enemies.  Rickard Karstark killed enemies.  Catelyn broke out from prison their best bargaining chip.  This bargaining chip costed the north the lives of thousands of loyal men to capture.  Dear Catelyn threw away the sacrifices of thousands of loyal men for a small chance of recovering two girls.  It's so very painfully obvious where Sansa got her awful math skills from.  Catelyn's math was bad.  The critics are on point when they say Catelyn's treason was more negative for the Starks.  Because it was.

Robb Stark's idea of fairness lacked consistency.  He brings down the most harsh punishment to people who isn't a Stark but he's velvet soft when it comes to Starks breaking the rules.  His mother messed up.  He messed up and betrayed the Freys.  Do we read Robb offering to cut off his offensive head for its crime of oathbreaking?  The thought never crossed his mind.  He quickly forgave himself and never would have felt any guilt until he realized he can't win without the Freys.  When it's someone else he doesn't love who steps out of the line it's execution time.  When he or his messed up he forgives them.  Robb sucked at ruling.

[SeanF]

On 8/22/2019 at 1:44 AM, Sire de Maletroit said:

 

The smart among them would respect him for his strength if he had treated both of them in the same manner.

As others have pointed out repeatedly, Karstark's actions were far more heinous.  He murdered Robb's own soldiers.

And, no one would respect Robb for killing his mother.  They would detest him for breaking the ultimate taboo in this society. 

[TheThreeEyedCow]

On 8/19/2019 at 11:23 PM, The hairy bear said:

It doesn't seem that Tywin Lannister regarded him in the same importance as you do, though.

Those are the orders that he gives immediately after he receives notice that Jaime has been captured:

“Unleash Ser Gregor and send him before us with his reavers. Send forth Vargo Hoat and his freeriders as well, and Ser Amory Lorch. Each is to have three hundred horse. Tell them I want to see the riverlands afire from the Gods Eye to the Red Fork. (...) Your savages might relish a bit of rapine. Tell them they may ride with Vargo Hoat and plunder as they like-goods, stock, women, they may take what they want and burn the rest.”

Tyrion, who knows his father well, thinks to himself that Tywin is acting as if Jaime was already dead.

While Jame was captive, Tywin'smen to go village after village burning, murdering, raping, and maiming, with a cruelty that is considered outrageous. While Jaime was captive, Castle Darry was put to the torch, its garrison executed and its boy lord killed (not even bothering to attempt to ransom him) and put all the garrison to the sword. It really doesn't seem that Tywin restrained himself in any way. It almost seems that it's the opposite: Tywin was adamant to prove that House Lannister couldn't be blackmailed.

Most people in Westeros would thing that the murders of her husband and two sons, combined with the loss of her two daughters, is punishment enough. If you add to that she was being secluded in an alien castle and deprived of all her political influence... well, I really don't see what else Robb could have done. Have her publicly flogged?

Those are good points, well made. Definitely something to think on as I approach another read of aSoS. Sobering. I get very zoomed in with Rob Stark and I can't help myself trying to figure out how he could of made it back north in one piece. 

I don't think, nor have I ever stated that the capture of Jaime could win the war for the Starks. Nor would it buy clemency. I merely believe it would of changed the outcome of the event at the twins. 

Maybe Tywin didn't give two squirts about Jaime. But I do favour the idea that he simply called their bluff. Knowing all to well the 'honor' of the Starks and that the idea of one of Ned's kin doing something despicable, just wasn't a likely eventuality. 

As for that last part. I think that's either a jab at me or an attempt at humour. *shrugs* Either way I do stand firm on the belief that for the crime of defying her king and son, Catelyn got off lightly. The death of her husband etc wasn't part of that transaction. Suffering doesn't buy you impunity. Grief doesn't excuse treachery. These things should be weighed separately or else the law would always be an utter mess. A tangle of emotional conjecture with no clear outcome. We as readers understand Cat's motives. I'm not putting her on trial for being beside herself with stress and worry. We're put into her head. We hear every thought. And yet, when I reach that pivotal moment in the series I think, no no no. Cat! You're defying your son. The man you need to support. This wasn't your decision to make. And it cannot be undone. Even if it weren't Jaime as a hostage, it would be a huge disservice to Rob. One that put's Rob in a worse situation in every conceivable way. 
 

[TheThreeEyedCow]

On 8/19/2019 at 7:15 PM, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

It's definitely a possibility but if I'm Tywin what is to stop me from having the Frey's carry out the RW while I lay siege to RR? 

 

Sure, I agree there are many different forms of vengeance but part of the beauty (in Tywin & Walder's eyes) of the RW is there is no one left to retaliate. If Jaime had been at RR & there was no way for Tywin to set him free before RR got wind of the RW therefore putting Jaime's life at risk then Tywin probably wouldn't have went through with it but that is alot of if's

 

But he was going to make her stay away from the politics of war & his prisoners after the wedding no? I don't disagree that her punishment should have been heavier but I don't really see the difference in what you suggested & what he did. 

Nothing, he can lay siege to wherever he wants. That's literally what happens in war. But, there'd be a conversation. There'd be pause for thought. If the Blackfish held Jaime after the RW had taken place. I'm certain that the Blackfish would of mounted the head of Tywin's heir
upon the walls of RR. And I think Tywin would know that. The Blackfish is a entirely different opponent than the young, Rob Stark. He wouldn't treat him the same way as he did 'the boy king'. 

It may well be a lot of 'if's' but that's literally all I have! Very little in aSoIaF is clear cut. Never black and white or definitive. There's a chance. And that's enough for me.

I think there'd be greater symbolism in leaving Cat behind at her families castle. That's my opinion. It's a form of exile where her misjudgement has cost her her place amongst them. The gods forbid any kind of capital punishment. I think that this punishment would be felt and it wouldn't spill a drop of blood.

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

2 minutes ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

Nothing, he can lay siege to wherever he wants. That's literally what happens in war. But, there'd be a conversation. There'd be pause for thought. If the Blackfish held Jaime after the RW had taken place. I'm certain that the Blackfish would of mounted the head of Tywin's heir
upon the walls of RR. And I think Tywin would know that. The Blackfish is a entirely different opponent than the young, Rob Stark. He wouldn't treat him the same way as he did 'the boy king'.

Agreed. The Blackfish is no Robb Stark & definitely would have used the opportunity to pay Tywin back in kind. 

 

2 minutes ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

It may well be a lot of 'if's' but that's literally all I have! Very little in aSoIaF is clear cut. Never black and white or definitive. There's a chance. And that's enough for me.

Haha! Yes everything is so ambiguous & left open to interpretation & thought. One of my favorite things about this series. 

 

3 minutes ago, TheThreeEyedCow said:

I think there'd be greater symbolism in leaving Cat behind at her families castle. That's my opinion. It's a form of exile where her misjudgement has cost her her place amongst them. The gods forbid any kind of capital punishment. I think that this punishment would be felt and it wouldn't spill a drop of blood.

Seems fair. Off topic kind of but would you have forbid her to attend the wedding? It would be rather ironic if Robb's punishment is what saved her life. 

[TheThreeEyedCow]

23 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Haha! Yes everything is so ambiguous & left open to interpretation & thought. One of my favorite things about this series. 

Same!

 

26 minutes ago, Lyanna<3Rhaegar said:

Seems fair. Off topic kind of but would you have forbid her to attend the wedding? It would be rather ironic if Robb's punishment is what saved her life. 

Oh yes. Leaving her behind at RR would be part of that. And it is interesting to think on how Cat would of reacted in the wake of it all. I suppose it would be irony. And it would mean that she had to live with it albeit until Tywin kicks the door down. And who knows. She may of gone all vengeful LS without having to die. 

That said. It would risk The Mountain getting his hands on her. And she doesn't deserve that. 

[Minsc]

On 8/26/2019 at 9:52 PM, James Fenimore Cooper XXII said:

He would not give that green light if Jaime was still in Stark custody because if the plan had hiccuped in any way that golden son would die in pain. 

When does Tywin ever show himself to be a sentimental father?  Tywin would absolutely sacrifice Jaime if it means securing his grandson's throne.  He might like Jaime more than Tyrion yet isn't some great sentimental importance to Tywin.  Hell, Tyrion figures out that Tywin has written Jaime off for dead all the way back in AGOT when he names his Acting Hand.

[PrinceHenryris]

If Robb had been creative enough, he could have placed Cat's life in Karstark's hands.

"Let the man who passes the sentence wield the sword " or whatever.

Then how does Rickard act if he knows he's accused of the same crime?

Suddenly, leniency doesn't seem so bad, does it?

 I would elaborate further, but it's past my bedtime.

[Minsc]

18 hours ago, PrinceHenryris said:

If Robb had been creative enough, he could have placed Cat's life in Karstark's hands.

"Let the man who passes the sentence wield the sword " or whatever.

Then how does Rickard act if he knows he's accused of the same crime?

Suddenly, leniency doesn't seem so bad, does it?

 I would elaborate further, but it's past my bedtime.

Why should Karstark get any say in Catelyn's punishment?

[Lyanna<3Rhaegar]

8 minutes ago, Minsc said:

Why should Karstark get any say in Catelyn's punishment?

Because if Karstark knows that whatever punishment he calls for for Cat is going to be the same one he gets he isn't going to want Cat to be punished very severely. 

By all rights he has no say in Cat's punishment, the poster is just saying it would be a creative way to handle the situation.