Jump to content

Catelyn was right about everything.


Impbread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

I have no idea what they would do. I don't think it is a given that each and every one of them is performing some sort of patrolling duty out there. They obey Catelyn, but what would they do if a stranger asked them to arrest another stranger? It would probably depend on the circumstances. 

Id think theyd apprehend the suspect and take him to a lord. Probably both strangers. They cant really just ignore the scarred grieving mother, what kinda knight isu that?

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Sorry, I don't get what your point is here. It must be my fault

Nah, mine. Lots of slang and not clear. Basically Ser Rodrik did a knights duty by arresting Tyrion.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

I thought you meant to say that Cat's words to those various knights were the "legal mumbo jumbo", i.e. the legal context of the arrest. If it is so, then, legally, her own words were binding, and she should have done as she had said and taken Tyrion to Winterfell. 

I guess. Idk about legally binding, thats kinda heavy. She changed her mind, decided Winterfell is unobtainable and thought of combining her lannister prisoner with Lysas Lannister linked crime. She probably knew this beforehand though and just lied when she said Winterfell 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

But that's it, lords fighting each other over various grievances is civil war, not justice. We see minor lords of the same region taking their disputes to their overlord for decision. We also see that minor lords having a quarrel with someone from another region go to King's Landing for justice.  The high lords do not have authority over each other, the King, however, has authority over the lords of the realm. It is actually a very decent idea to turn to the King in the case of a quarrel instead of starting a war.

The high lords dont need their noble super powers to condemn other high lords though. All they need is the truth and evidence and the law will prevail under a just trial. Hopefully lol.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

How lawful those other available options are seems kind of doubtful to me, but anyway. My original point was not whether Catelyn acted lawfully or not - Westeros does not exactly have a precisely codified legal system, after all.

For sure, its all murky. 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

. It was how blatantly she ignored her family-related duty after Ned had warned her about the possibility of war and the need to strengthen the North and given her spicific, strategic instructions, which she was to pass on to Winterfell and the various Northern lords. At the time she trembled at the idea of war, and now she goes and does something that is bound to provoke a military attack before those defensive preparations have taken place. 

Well, she was originally to go to Winterfell without Tyrion and protect Bran against another attack. Who knows while she is making a detour with Tyrion, another hired assassin may already been on his way to Bran. 

That's all well and good if she does not ignore an urgent duty in the meantime.

No. I quoted Ned's words earlier in this conversation. He sent word to Winterfell that the North must prepare for war, fortify their military defences, keep Theon under close supervision etc.

That is a vitally important message from the Warden of the North to his bannermen on the subject of a potantial war, and it's not something you can just forget to deliver. 

How should she protect Bran? More so then Rodrik Robb or Greywind? Hold his hand some more, yell at Jon again?

Yea I know the quote but to me its just foolish Ned hiding his wife in the snow.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Once you are home, send word to Helman Tallhart and Galbart Glover under my seal. They are to raise a hundred bowmen each and fortify Moat Cailin.

Why? Its never been taken. Plus to attack, the enemy must pass through Hosters land (if you keep your Reek close)

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

Instruct Lord Manderly that he is to strengthen and repair all his defenses at White Harbor, and see that they are well manned

He knows that.

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

And from this day on, I want a careful watch kept over Theon Greyjoy. If there is war, we shall have sore need of his father's fleet

One of my favorite quotes from thou shall not kill children Ned. To paraphrase, "why isnt Theon under Ice?" Which as Cat notes, and I agree with her, since I know Balon. You dont need to keep your reek close

Quote

if I had listened to you and kept Theon as my hostage, I'd still rule the north, and Bran and Rickon would be alive and safe in Winterfell."

"Perhaps. Or not. Lord Balon might still have chanced war. The last time he reached for a crown, it cost him two sons. He might have thought it a bargain to lose only one this time."

 

1 hour ago, Julia H. said:

That is a vitally important message from the Warden of the North to his bannermen on the subject of a potantial war, and it's not something you can just forget to deliver. 

Theres more important things. Like Tyrion. If war starts youll want a hostage, albeit a small one. If a trial happens youll want a defendant.

Theres no reason to tuck tail and run away before the lion has a chance to roar. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

Id think theyd apprehend the suspect and take him to a lord. Probably both strangers. They cant really just ignore the scarred grieving mother, what kinda knight isu that?

Tyrion was not a suspect. As the King himself said, this was a kidnapping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2021 at 4:06 PM, Impbread said:

     Looking back at Cat she was correct about every bit of advice she gave Rob regarding the war and a large amount of other things.This post is a Cat appreciation thread of sorts. To be honest I didn't care for her character when I first got into the books, but looking back she was right on the money with the war time counsel she gave to Rob he just never agreed for whatever reason.

     She was right when she told Rob to make common cause with Stannis or Renly. Aligning with Stannis after Renly died would have insured victory.Tywin would have been trapped between Stannis and Robs army and he would've been crushed. The whole reason Rob called his banners was to save his father. Once Ned was executed Robs first move should have been finding more allies not pissing in the wind and alienating Stannis by declaring independence which was never his goal or even a thought before Neds death. 

       She was right when she told Rob not to marry Jayne ( not knowing it was too late he already had). With Robs marriage to Jane he destroyed his alliance with the Freys and also ruined future marriage prospects with families with a much larger army and much more money(Tyrells, Hightower, even the Martells). Not to mention her mother is secretly working for Tywin making sure she wont get pregnant. I don't know what was going on with her Uncle but he was bad news to.

     She was 100% correct when she begged Rob not to release Theon. She knew that Theons father would reclaim his independence while Rob was busy fighting and that Theon would betray him once he was out of there grasp. This was Robs costliest and dumbest mistake he made. When Theon returns home the iron born are free to invade the unguarded North (which is stupid and just for spite because the Starks killed his family breached his keep and took his last living son as a hostage/ward. Attacking the cold, sparse, poor, land locked North made zero sense when the West and Casterly Rock were also undefended but impossibly rich and very accessible by boat which the iron born have lots of).If Theon was still hostage the Iron born never would have taken the North. If the iron fleet joins Rob in exchange  for independence after the war, stays neutral, or goes pillaging in the unprotected and very rich West Rob has no need to return North to retake his home. Which also means he has no need to cross the Twins and get murdered while in route. If the iron born joined the fight with him he could cut his losses with the Freys. The iron born have ships, which he is in diar need of. The iron born are also better fighters and there are more of them than Frey soldiers. Also the iron fleet enables Rob to get North any time he needs quickly without the need of crossing the Twins and getting within reach of the Freys. Even after his betrayal of the Freys and they had left his cause he still had a shot at victory.  

     Catelyn did tell Rob to be wary of Roose Bolton. And never to trust the late lord Walder Frey with your life. He will sell it to the highest bidder (this time it was Tywin) Rob does the opposite and makes Roose  one of his chief commanders and completely trusting him to have his back. Believes Walder when he says he will be forgiven if he comes to the Twins and apologized in person. This old man  is known to always pick the winning side and Robs side is currently losing what is starting to look like a hopeless war. Hes known to be extremely proud and prickly when it comes to his families respect and honor. Tired of being looked down upon by older more historical families like the Starks and Tullys. Because of Rob and Catelyns incompetence Walder has what is believed to be the last living Stark and last living Tullys under his own roof. Of course hes going to take his vengeance. Cat knew it was very possible that is why she asks for food and drink to invoke guests right. She had  to know killing guests wouldnt bither him. Hes 90 something hes not worried about being cursed After the Freys murder Rob and his mother.Roose had the opportunity to take the North for himself. The Freys couldn't have pulled this off without Roose weakening Robs army from within by getting everyone but his own men slaughtered and sewing anarchy with his false directions to the other parts of Robs army  I feel If Rob had promised Edmure to the Freys after the war to at least keep them neutral and not a threat to his rear. Roose couldn't pull his coup off without the guarantee of Robs death from the Freys and support from both house Frey,  and house Lannister,and house Dustin in the aftermath. He knows that if Rob lives his house will be extinguished. Eventually  Roose' crimes would come to light illustrating how he'd been operating  in bad faith since the  very beginning.

     Catelyn was even right to let Jaime go and to trust Tyrion. Tyrion being the only decent adult Lannister in the city. Joffrey executed Ned believing Rob still had Jaime as his hostage and didn't care if he was sacrificing him  Tywin was ready to move forward as Tyrion as his heir. Trading Jaime was the only hope she had of ever seeing her daughters again. Although the trade didn't work it indirectly got Brienne to take up a quest to find the girls and protect them/fight the others. Shes obviously going to succeed. They wouldn't give her a sword that was made from The Stark ancestral sword if she wasn't going to play a big part in the girls lives/ the battle for dawn. No coincidence that Valyrian steel can be set aflame and it won't change its physical make up. Flame just happens to kill the white walkers th thralls of the others and valyrian steel itself can kill others themselves. Also by releasing Jaime she inadvertently started his path to redemption. Jaime is going to play a huge part in the Starks story as he was in Brans dream as the knight that shown Like the sun with the girls around him. I also think hes going to grow apart from Cersei. I think it has already started. Hes gets the letter from Cersei begging him for help  and he doesn't just head for her immediately like he would have in the past. I think hes going to fall in live with Brienne and father a child on her.The further he drifts from Cersei the more knightly he becomes. He upholds his promise to Catelyn and doesn't take up weapons against the Tullys and does everything he can to safely return her daughters home by questing Brienne with the task with Neds own steel.

     Although Catelyns decision to release Jaime was a net positive for her family and the likelyhood of the Stark family survival. At the time it was ruinous to Robs cause. She inflamed lord Karstark by releasing jaime who killed two of his sons. So he took it out on two unarmed Lannisters. By doing so he forced Rob to punish him rather severely especially the way Karstark was mocking him calling him boy. Saying hes no king. Basically begging for Rob to execute him and forever cursing himself for kinslaying.Catelyn again giving solid advice in this crucial situation. Says he should keep lord Karstark as a hostage to ensure his heir and fighting men stay loyal. So of course Rob doing everything he can to defeat himself decides to execute him. Not a great idea when  you can still get his men to fight for you. 300 cavalry and twice as many mounts. 

     Cats last pearl of wisdom she offers Rob is to leave his bride behind when traveling to the Twins and to keep his wolf by his side. Again he didn't listen and let them cage Greywind. Sealing both there fates.

      Still have to bag on Catelyn. She knows Walder Freys word is worthless. She tells her son as much many times. When they first arrived at the Twins she wouldn't even let Rob enter to treat with Walder because she thinks he might slit his throat or hand him over to Tywin, but now she thinks its safe enough for Rob to enter, and the heir to Riverrun and other likely hostages. This defies logic. This move if returning to the Twins goes against everything we know of Cat and her skepticism and the caution she takes when it comes to her children. She doesn't even trust Jon to be in Robs will and hes Neds son as far as she knows, but we are supposed to believe she really didn't expect Walder to try an exact extreme vengeance? Her brother has no kids.That leaves her, her uncle, her brother, and Rob as the last direct blood of those  houses. Why the hell would you take your entire bloodline to an angry known betrayer tthat's likely looking for recompense for the humiliation his family endured? Greywind howled the whole way there and it poured the entire time. She knows Greywind can smell death she states that the chapter before when he howls after the Lannister prisoners are murdered.Heading where she was with the current circumstances and Greywind isn't acting normal and is howling. She also knows those wolves protect her kids but doesn't heed the terrible omen on the way to hers and her son's doom. What do you all think of Catelyn? She did give a lot of good advice but didn't follow it herself and it cost her and Robs lives.

Catelyn was a decent lady but let's not go too far in appreciation.  She betrayed her lord (Robb was not a king) by letting Jaime go free.  She put the lives of thousands to punish Bran's attacker.  That's foolish for a leader.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Springwatch said:

Ok, agree the action is equally bad whoever does it, but is the person equally bad if they were going through mental illness or not?

I'm not sure to be honest.

Actions can be good or bad, people are... complicated.

Killing an innocent is bad, we seem to be able to agree on that. It's bad no matter who does it.

But, is the person doing it less bad if they have a mental illness? I'm not so sure.

They might receive more sympathy, or be less deserving of punishment from an authority, especially if the mental illness was sudden or brought on by trauma, like we see with Cat. But is the Mad King less bad because he was mad? Is Euron less evil because he is insane? I'm not sure I'm convinced.

There might even be a case to be made that the worst people all have mental illnesses, which is part of what makes them that way.

17 hours ago, Springwatch said:

If there are truly mitigating circumstances, then the blame, the punishment, the condemnation gets reduced accordingly. That's how justice works.

Pretty bold claim... then again, people have been making bold claims about what justice is and debating them for an awfully long time! I think this story intentionally tries to explore this question.

For what it's worth, at no point did I say anything about punishment, this isn't a trial, but people should accept the blame for their own actions, and I condemn the killing of innocents no mater by who or what the "mitigating circumstances" were said to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Id think theyd apprehend the suspect and take him to a lord. Probably both strangers. They cant really just ignore the scarred grieving mother, what kinda knight isu that?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't recall any such situations in the books, but there are lots of different kinds of knights. Specific circumstances may always influence them, as it was a specific circumstance that this time they were asked by Lord Tully's daughter, and that was hard to ignore.

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

I guess. Idk about legally binding, thats kinda heavy. She changed her mind, decided Winterfell is unobtainable and thought of combining her lannister prisoner with Lysas Lannister linked crime. She probably knew this beforehand though and just lied when she said Winterfell 

I have no problem with the lie itself, it is part of strategy. The reason why I said it was binding is that you seemed to be saying Catelyn's plea provided the legal context, and I think if it is really so, then she was bound by her own words to still keep the situation legal. But it isn't necessarily so. 

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

The high lords dont need their noble super powers to condemn other high lords though. All they need is the truth and evidence and the law will prevail under a just trial. Hopefully lol.

Can you give me an example? I mean one that did not lead to war.

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

How should she protect Bran? More so then Rodrik Robb or Greywind? Hold his hand some more, yell at Jon again?

Yea I know the quote but to me its just foolish Ned hiding his wife in the snow.

Why? Its never been taken. Plus to attack, the enemy must pass through Hosters land (if you keep your Reek close)

He knows that.

Those lords have no idea about an impending war. There are no newspapers, no internet, no television. They don't know that they need to fortify their castles and watch out for an attack or to show off their strength, which Ned also says may prevent the Lannisters from attacking. You may disagree with Ned regarding how necessary those messages are, but he is the Warden of the North, and when he wants his instructions delivered to his lords, they must be delivered, no matter what. It is not Catelyn's place to decide they are not important after all. And that's also a way for her to protect her sons.

15 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Theres more important things. Like Tyrion. If war starts youll want a hostage, albeit a small one. If a trial happens youll want a defendant.

Theres no reason to tuck tail and run away before the lion has a chance to roar. 

Well, first of all, you need to decide whether you regard the person as a hostage or as a defendant. If he is a hostage, you won't give him a fair trial and won't let him go, no matter how loudly he protests his innocence. If you regard him as a defendant to be tried in a fair way, then you must make sure that the whole affair does not look like taking a hostage. 

Hostage: In this case, taking a hostage is what triggers the war itself - worse still, it happens before your side is ready. Could Cat realistically expect the Lannisters to sit back and wait for someone somewhere to condemn or absolve one of their family? They can respond with war, which they do. Also, Jaime attacks Ned (who has no idea of the kidnap) in King's Landing. They could also try and kidnap Arya or Sansa or both so they have a hostage / hostages as well (which eventually also happens). It's not that it is so difficult for the Lannisters to get near those girls in the Red Keep. Then Cat will be all eager to give them back Tyrion, if she still can, to free her daughters, because they are worth any number of Lannisters. Bottom line: You don't want to escalate a conflict while your unsuspecting loved ones are directly within the reach of your enemy. 

Defendant: Sure, Cat and Lysa can put Tyrion on trial (as they do). With a little luck, they could kill him. And then? Will it be suddenly all right? Will everyone just accept that they must have had a reason up there in the mountains although no one knows what it was? Or will the Lannisters capture Ned or Cat and arrange their own trial? As we know, they chose to start a war against the totally unsuspecting Riverlands, and the war went on even after the defendant was honourably released, and we know how safe Catelyn's children were then. The reason why Ned wanted the King's justice as well as presentable evidence was to make it clear that it was just punishment for a crime or crimes really committed, not some hothead's desire for bloodshed, and that anyone who sided with the culprit(s) was acting against the King. All that would have provided as good a legal context as Westeros could produce; and, by isolating the Lannisters, it would have at least reduced the chance of war.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

I'm not sure to be honest.

Actions can be good or bad, people are... complicated.

Killing an innocent is bad, we seem to be able to agree on that. It's bad no matter who does it.

But, is the person doing it less bad if they have a mental illness? I'm not so sure.

They might receive more sympathy, or be less deserving of punishment from an authority, especially if the mental illness was sudden or brought on by trauma, like we see with Cat. But is the Mad King less bad because he was mad? Is Euron less evil because he is insane? I'm not sure I'm convinced.

I'd say absolutely yes, a person who commits crime is less 'bad' if they do it influenced by mental illness. ('Bad' to me means triggering that sense of righteous anger.) But like you say, this is much easier to apply in theory than in practice.

What I feel at the moment is that people like Tywin and LF are both sane, insightful and very bad. Renly is sane and doesn't have a cruel mindset - but he does go to war for no good reason. He doesn't seem to have much insight that his actions are bad - I can't decide if that makes him any better than the other two. Tyrion is probably more like Tywin than Renly.

Aerys and Gregor are mad and bad - the madness should be taken into account, but probably like Joffrey, they were sadistic by nature (this is fantasy, don't know how it works in real life). The mental illness/drug taking doesn't wash out their evil nature, but I'd feel some pity for them - only after they're safely locked up or dead.

Cat's different again - she does have a baseline character that is different to when she's mentally ill. Normal Cat is all about duty, honour and family - and those don't allow her to murder innocents. Her crimes are only committed under enormous pressure; she needs treatment more than punishment.

4 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

There might even be a case to be made that the worst people all have mental illnesses, which is part of what makes them that way.

Pretty bold claim... then again, people have been making bold claims about what justice is and debating them for an awfully long time! I think this story intentionally tries to explore this question.

Yes. Drill down too far and it turns into a philosophical debate, and I don't think philosophy has the answers on this one - all I think we can do is try and create a justice system that works for most people most of the time.

4 hours ago, Mourning Star said:

For what it's worth, at no point did I say anything about punishment, this isn't a trial, but people should accept the blame for their own actions, and I condemn the killing of innocents no mater by who or what the "mitigating circumstances" were said to be.

I don't totally disagree - sometimes victims murder their abusers and the circumstances justify them completely - but still they have done a terrible thing, taking a human life. I can feel that and still not blame them for it.

Back to fantasy fiction, we've got any easy example of no-fault violence: a mouse will attack a lion after a taste of basilisk blood. All sympathies should be with the mouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Springwatch said:

I'd say absolutely yes, a person who commits crime is less 'bad' if they do it influenced by mental illness. ('Bad' to me means triggering that sense of righteous anger.) But like you say, this is much easier to apply in theory than in practice.

What I feel at the moment is that people like Tywin and LF are both sane, insightful and very bad. Renly is sane and doesn't have a cruel mindset - but he does go to war for no good reason. He doesn't seem to have much insight that his actions are bad - I can't decide if that makes him any better than the other two. Tyrion is probably more like Tywin than Renly.

Aerys and Gregor are mad and bad - the madness should be taken into account, but probably like Joffrey, they were sadistic by nature (this is fantasy, don't know how it works in real life). The mental illness/drug taking doesn't wash out their evil nature, but I'd feel some pity for them - only after they're safely locked up or dead.

Cat's different again - she does have a baseline character that is different to when she's mentally ill. Normal Cat is all about duty, honour and family - and those don't allow her to murder innocents. Her crimes are only committed under enormous pressure; she needs treatment more than punishment.

Yes. Drill down too far and it turns into a philosophical debate, and I don't think philosophy has the answers on this one - all I think we can do is try and create a justice system that works for most people most of the time.

I don't totally disagree - sometimes victims murder their abusers and the circumstances justify them completely - but still they have done a terrible thing, taking a human life. I can feel that and still not blame them for it.

Back to fantasy fiction, we've got any easy example of no-fault violence: a mouse will attack a lion after a taste of basilisk blood. All sympathies should be with the mouse.

I think almost any ethical or legal system considers that the state of mind of the perpetrator of an offence is hugely relevant to the moral or legal guilt to be attributed to that perpetrator.

This matters both in terms of motive, and in terms of ability to distringuish right from wrong.  

One can agree that the killing of an innocent person is a bad thing, but there may be nothing morally or legally wrong about killing an innocent person.  If I kill that person in the honest, but as it turns out, mistaken, belief that that person was on the point of killing me, no offence has been committed.  In law, you need both actus reus (the criminal act) and mens rea (the criminal mind) in order to convict a person.

Another case where it is lawful to kill the innocent would be through necessity.  Suppose a ship is struck by a torpedo, and risks sinking.  A good ship's captain will seal off that part of the ship which is taking in water, notwithstanding he will be condeming some sailors to drown, in order to save the ship and the rest of the crew.

One cannot wage war at all without killing the innocent, in certain circumstances.  The issue that matters there is proportionality.

Turning to the issue of mental health, then yes, temporary or permanent insanity is a very big factor in attributing guilt to a peson for their actions.    This is not simply a modern idea - the concept of insanity as a defence to murder is a very old one in English law.  So is the view that a person who kills in the face of intense provocation is a good deal less blameworthy than the person who kills for gain or out of malice. Such a person may need to be securely detained for their own safety, and others' safety, but such a person should viewed with sympathy, not condemnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2021 at 11:40 AM, John Suburbs said:

Everybody gets some wood on the ball sometimes. She made a good number of mistakes, too. Some of them pretty foolish.

I don't think word of Jaime's capture had reached the capital by the time Ned was executed. These wo events are only two chapters apart, and Tywin doesn't learn of it until about four chapters after the execution. So maybe, but not likely.

I think you are mistaken. Tywin knows before he returns to the capital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2021 at 1:18 PM, Groo said:

Remind me again why Greatjon is missing two fingers. Is it because bannermen always do whatever their liege tells them? We have five books of examples of bannermen who are reluctant or headstrong or greedy or fearful or disloyal or ambitious. We have pointed discussions about the nature of power and whether it's just a shadow on the wall. What was Robb's alternative to accepting the crown? Going back to the North with a) the Riverlands still overrun and his uncle in a poor position, b) his sisters still captive or missing, c) his father dead and unavenged, d) several of his bannermen held captive by the Lannisters, e) no lands or money gained, and f) several of his bannermen with dead sons and fathers and nothing to show for it. Is that what you meant by "let's go home to our families before winter you know they would be more then happy to."? They'd go home alright and then they'd never come again when he called them.

I see your point  The idea would be to sue for peice. Trade hostages. It would be hard giving up and just heading home with so much lost. I do believe his banner men would have done his bidding but you have changed my mind. After Ned was killed the North wasn't going to pack up and head home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2021 at 1:44 PM, sifth said:

Sorry, but I'll never view freeing Jamie as a smart move. Despite what Tyrion might think, I really doubt Tywin would have killed Rob at the RR, had Jamie still been alive.

I wouldn't use the word smart I guess. Maybe a dumb move that has worked out better than it should have. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2021 at 10:38 AM, Mourning Star said:

I’m not demanding anything.

Cat isnt Cersei, she didn’t have Jon killed in his cradle. But, that isn’t enough to call her behavior good.

I think you have a low bar for goodness and humanity.

For all of these things, there are extenuating circumstances and understandable motivations to sympathize with. However, that’s literally the point I was making, it’s the hard choices that show who someone is not the easy ones, or as the author likes to say, the heart in conflict with itself.

Cat treating Theon and Jon with live makes absolutely no sense. Especially with Theon. Theon didn't arrive as a little helpless baby that perhaps she could learn to love. He isn't family of any kind. Hes the spawn of an enemy who her husband had to go to war with. She was distant as Theon describes her. She wasn't cruel. I think that fits the circumstances. I kinda agree with you on Jon but it could go either way. If Jon had appeared after Cat had a few more sons I think she would have been much more comfortable with having him around. The first time she and Ned are together he has his supposed bastard with him. So as far as she knows Ned has been with someone more than her. Perhaps loves Jon's mother more. This obviously made her very uneasy and although she shouldn't have she took her resentments out on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2021 at 8:20 PM, Hugorfonics said:

Id think theyd apprehend the suspect and take him to a lord. Probably both strangers. They cant really just ignore the scarred grieving mother, what kinda knight isu that?

Nah, mine. Lots of slang and not clear. Basically Ser Rodrik did a knights duty by arresting Tyrion.

I guess. Idk about legally binding, thats kinda heavy. She changed her mind, decided Winterfell is unobtainable and thought of combining her lannister prisoner with Lysas Lannister linked crime. She probably knew this beforehand though and just lied when she said Winterfell 

The high lords dont need their noble super powers to condemn other high lords though. All they need is the truth and evidence and the law will prevail under a just trial. Hopefully lol.

For sure, its all murky. 

How should she protect Bran? More so then Rodrik Robb or Greywind? Hold his hand some more, yell at Jon again?

Yea I know the quote but to me its just foolish Ned hiding his wife in the snow.

Why? Its never been taken. Plus to attack, the enemy must pass through Hosters land (if you keep your Reek close)

He knows that.

One of my favorite quotes from thou shall not kill children Ned. To paraphrase, "why isnt Theon under Ice?" Which as Cat notes, and I agree with her, since I know Balon. You dont need to keep your reek close

 

Theres more important things. Like Tyrion. If war starts youll want a hostage, albeit a small one. If a trial happens youll want a defendant.

Theres no reason to tuck tail and run away before the lion has a chance to roar. 

You raise a good point. Even if Theon remains a hostage his father might have gone to war. It seems like when Theon arrived home they were already planning on war. As it is noted by several characters that Balon had excepted the fact that Theon was lost to him and Asha was going to be his heir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2021 at 10:25 PM, The Lord of the Crossing said:

Catelyn was a decent lady but let's not go too far in appreciation.  She betrayed her lord (Robb was not a king) by letting Jaime go free.  She put the lives of thousands to punish Bran's attacker.  That's foolish for a leader.  

I can agree with your point about Jaime but I don't think she risked much taking Tyrion. War between the two houses was imminent. Ned still would have found out about the incest. Cersei was still going to have Robert killed. So I don't think anything would have changed but she may have sped things up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Impbread said:

I can agree with your point about Jaime but I don't think she risked much taking Tyrion. War between the two houses was imminent. Ned still would have found out about the incest. Cersei was still going to have Robert killed. So I don't think anything would have changed but she may have sped things up.

It was her fault for starting a war when the Riverlands and the North were not prepared. If she had obeyed Ned's orders the North would be in a much better position to face the Lannister. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2021 at 1:27 PM, Julia H. said:

Maybe, maybe not. I don't recall any such situations in the books, but there are lots of different kinds of knights. Specific circumstances may always influence them, as it was a specific circumstance that this time they were asked by Lord Tully's daughter, and that was hard to ignore.

Sounds Dunkish in sworn sword. But for sure theres lot or knights, most as Sandor notes are not obsessed with righteousness and justice and are just not trying to get murdered by Tywin. Like the Frey knights. 

 

On 7/2/2021 at 1:27 PM, Julia H. said:

I have no problem with the lie itself, it is part of strategy. The reason why I said it was binding is that you seemed to be saying Catelyn's plea provided the legal context, and I think if it is really so, then she was bound by her own words to still keep the situation legal. But it isn't necessarily so. 

Word. Perhaps I went to much describing the legality of it instead of highlighting the mumbo jumbo. Point being, I see Westeros law as murky with lots of leeway, which isnt to say theres no laws just that the real high lords can do anything short of crowning yourself and they probably have a good case on why its legal. (And even Robb Balon Euron Aegon Dany and Stannis all claim the crown as legal. Not Renly though which is pretty funny)

On 7/2/2021 at 1:27 PM, Julia H. said:

Can you give me an example? I mean one that did not lead to war.

I dont think so. I cant even think of a great lord judging another great lords family. The judgments in my mind are like Tarly in affc, or Targaryen in Hedge Knight. Neither are what we're talking about. Its probable that in the 300 years past this is unprecedented

But war isnt the worst outcome in the 7k, theyre just pissing contests after all. 

On 7/2/2021 at 1:27 PM, Julia H. said:

Those lords have no idea about an impending war. There are no newspapers, no internet, no television. They don't know that they need to fortify their castles and watch out for an attack or to show off their strength, which Ned also says may prevent the Lannisters from attacking. 

There are riders, ravens. Robb finds out whats happening south so hes not completely dependent on Catelyns information

On 7/2/2021 at 1:27 PM, Julia H. said:

You may disagree with Ned regarding how necessary those messages are, but he is the Warden of the North, and when he wants his instructions delivered to his lords, they must be delivered, no matter what. It is not Catelyn's place to decide they are not important after all. And that's also a way for her to protect her sons.

Catelyn is Brans mother, it is her place. Now legally? No,I guess not. But Ned never said " no matter what", and even if he did, Tyrions incarnation is to good to pass by.

On 7/2/2021 at 1:27 PM, Julia H. said:

Hostage: In this case, taking a hostage is what triggers the war itself - worse still, it happens before your side is ready. Could Cat realistically expect the Lannisters to sit back and wait for someone somewhere to condemn or absolve one of their family? They can respond with war, which they do. Also, Jaime attacks Ned (who has no idea of the kidnap) in King's Landing. They could also try and kidnap Arya or Sansa or both so they have a hostage / hostages as well (which eventually also happens). It's not that it is so difficult for the Lannisters to get near those girls in the Red Keep. Then Cat will be all eager to give them back Tyrion, if she still can, to free her daughters, because they are worth any number of Lannisters. Bottom line: You don't want to escalate a conflict while your unsuspecting loved ones are directly within the reach of your enemy. 

The triggering of the war was when Tywin sent Gregor to the Riverlands. Did Tyrions abduction convince Tywin, sure! But thats not the only reason. Lady, Neds Job, Dragonspawn, Kingslayer. The war is on the horizon no matter what, which means Arya and Sansa are in danger no matter what, bottom line, you take the free chip. I mean, if both Tyrion and Jamie were in Robbs custody Tywin probably would have sued for peace.

On 7/2/2021 at 1:27 PM, Julia H. said:

Defendant: Sure, Cat and Lysa can put Tyrion on trial (as they do). With a little luck, they could kill him. And then? Will it be suddenly all right? Will everyone just accept that they must have had a reason up there in the mountains although no one knows what it was? Or will the Lannisters capture Ned or Cat and arrange their own trial? As we know, they chose to start a war against the totally unsuspecting Riverlands, and the war went on even after the defendant was honourably released, and we know how safe Catelyn's children were then. The reason why Ned wanted the King's justice as well as presentable evidence was to make it clear that it was just punishment for a crime or crimes really committed, not some hothead's desire for bloodshed, and that anyone who sided with the culprit(s) was acting against the King. All that would have provided as good a legal context as Westeros could produce; and, by isolating the Lannisters, it would have at least reduced the chance of war.

I dont believe Catelyn wanted a rushed trial, nor did she want Tyrion to die in the sky cells. This was the work of Lysa who knew damn well that she was helping pit Stark against Lannister and its Iron Throne.

Even Tywin and Keaven wanted Tyrion to have witnesses in his kangaroo court, thats closer to what I expect Cat wanted. 

Ok, if the mission was prevent war, she failed. But if the mission was to find justice for Bran, well she failed that too, but certainly not for lack of trying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hugorfonics said:

I dont believe Catelyn wanted a rushed trial, nor did she want Tyrion to die in the sky cells. This was the work of Lysa who knew damn well that she was helping pit Stark against Lannister and its Iron Throne.

This.

More than that, Cat doesn't really want Lysa at all, the person she wants to be with is Ned. If Lysa hadn't grabbed control, I reckon Cat would have gone straight through the Vale and found a ship to take them all to KL, and Ned, and the king's justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Springwatch said:

This.

More than that, Cat doesn't really want Lysa at all, the person she wants to be with is Ned. If Lysa hadn't grabbed control, I reckon Cat would have gone straight through the Vale and found a ship to take them all to KL, and Ned, and the king's justice.

If she wanted to go to KL all she needed to do was to go south, no need to pass through the Vale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Hoare said:

If she wanted to go to KL all she needed to do was to go south, no need to pass through the Vale.

She was afraid of the King's Road, remember? Creeping along in disguise. She's not going to go there publicly with Tyrion tied to the back of a horse. She wouldn't even go north on the King's Road.

Tyrion thought the same - word would get to Tywin quickly, and there would be a rescue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2021 at 3:13 AM, Julia H. said:

Yes, Jinglebell was innocent, if not exactly a child (about 50 years old). As a rule, Catelyn does not kill children, she made one desperate and mad move in extreme distress, acting on impulse. It was a last minute, desperate attempt at negotiating for her son's life, and that attempt failed - Robb was killed (as her other children had been, to her knowledge), her people were being slaughtered, she was about to die, the world had gone mad around her, and she may have felt it was at least partly her fault. She couldn't bear it with stoic resignation, but any mother in her situation could go mad and do anything that she normally wouldn't have thought of ever doing. Based on her psychological state at the moment, I don't think she would be convicted by a modern-day criminal court. It doesn't mean killing Jinglebell was the right thing to do, but she was out of her mind, and I cannot blame her for that, nor do I think that this is the act that defines her character. 

Killing Jinglebell was the right thing to do in a way.

She had taken him hostage and was willing to do a hostage exchange: Jinglebell for Robb. Walder Frey declined and allowed Robb to be killed anyway. Thus, the life of the Frey hostage in Catelyn's custody was forfeit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...