Cersei and Rhaegar

[Daena the Defiant]

The laws of succession matter more in the South than in the North. We see what can happening to widows in the North in the fate of Lady Hornwood. And there is another Lady in the North, I have forgotten which one, who seems to be controlled by her steward. Even Bran realizes that when the steward and not the Lady appear at the Harvest Feast in ACoK.

I fail to see how Lady Hornwood's misfortune is illustrative in any fashion other that in times of war, open land grabs dressed up in dynastic marriage won't be able to be addressed properly by those with the responsibility to do so.

The exact same thing happened in the South. The Lannisters digested the Darry fiefdom as an open land-grab when the main family was made extinct and installed a family member in the castle, and coupled the theft with a marriage to a female member of the partially destroyed family, but who has a questionable claim on the fief. Lancel Lannister was married to Gatehouse Ami, Amerei Frey, whose mother was *a* Darry (but was not actually the next in line), as a public relations gesture for the smallfolk in Darry service. If you are the *proper* Darry heir, to whom would you complain? The Lannisters hold the crown, and it is the crown's job to enforce proper inheritence. Too bad, so sad.

Compare the Boltons seizing upon the demise of main Hornwood line to claim the lands and castle, and mimic a marriage to someone not the proper vessel of the Hornwood claim (Lady Donella), with the tacit approval of, you guessed it, House Lannister. (see also, Tyrion Lannister and Sansa Stark; Ramsay Bolton and "Arya Stark"; Tyriek Lannister and Ermesande Hayford; rinse, lather, repeat)

The situation you refer to about the lady who deferred to her steward was Lady Sybelle Glover, the wife of the absent lord and not an actual ruling lady in her own right. Her husband, Lord Robert Glover, was a Lannister captive, so it's not like anyone was disrespecting Lady Glover's right to rule. She wasn't actually ruling except in a pro tempore manner for her absent and captive husband. When her husband went off to war, he might not have actually appointed her to rule in his name (i.e. she's a little weak and/or stupid), he may have appointed a castellan to run Deepwood Motte's military and gave the steward enhanced authority to make the financial decisions about the estate. Lady Glover, however, does have the familial responsibility to represent the Glover family, if not for her husband, but also for their minor children who will be expected to come to rule if her husband is slain.

edit: double negatives are bad!!

[Lord Varys]

That's an oversimplification.

There was a war, and a long protracted at that, one in which both sides were pretty evenly balanced. With dragons!

Rhaenyra had her supporters too! The "lords" as a whole didn't revolt over the notion of a regnant queen, "some" of the "lords" did.

Of course. I did not say (and did not want appear saying) that Rhaenyra fought alone on dragonback. I only intended to say that the Lords who ended supporting Aegon II might have done so because they wanted not be ruled by a woman. The fact that Rhaenyra Targaryen was ten years older than Aegon II, that she was the chosen heir of her father, that she was married to the Hand of the King (Lord Strong of Harrenhal) with whom she had three grown-up sons (which all died during the Dance, along with their father's house) strongly indicates that Rhaenyra was more than prepared to the Iron Throne when her father died [the stuff about the Strongs is from the Campaign Guide for the new Role-playing Game]. I instead assume that Aegon needed to be 'persuaded' by Criston Cole to take the crown (just as Daemon Blackfyre needed to be persuaded by Bittersteel and Fireball). Cole is likely not named Kingmaker for following Aegon's order to crown him. He is named so, because he was at the core of the coup d'etat.

I assume this only worked because Cole was able to keep Viserys' death a secret. And if he died suddenly, Rhaenyra might have been very well away from KL, doing the King's business together with the Hand. I doubt that there would have been a war if both Rhaenyra and Aegon were present at Viserys' deathbed. Then there would not have been a coup d'etat, or if there had been any, it would have been combined with an assassination.

Cole being pissed by the fact that Rhaenyra ended their relationship seems to be good motivation for him. Certainly this guy was the most political Lord Commander of the KG ever. But I doubt that Rhaenyra ever promised him to take him as Consort. She was married twice, and if your husband is the Hand of the King it's not that likely that you exchange him for the Lord Commander of the KG. But it's likely that Cole was very ambitious, but was merely a plaything for Rhaenyra. Her second husband likely was not a non-Targaryen, as both Aegon III and Viserys II pretty much look like incest-born Targs.

This makes it my opinion quite likely that Aegon II did not have a similar powerbase as Rhaenyra when the war started. But when he was crowned, the Lords who hold a grudge against Rhaenrya and those who did not want to rule by a woman gathered around him.

What was actually going is that Rhaenyra was groomed to reign and had a lifetime's worth of friends and adherents who spent a lifetime making sure that they had cozied up to the future queen. They would share the wealth when she did ascend, getting lands, positions, favor at court, etc... Rhaenyra's mother was an Arryn, so no doubt the Vale and its rather arrogant and prissy nobility also had a vested interest in seeing the ascension of Queen Rhaenyra.

I assume that, too. Although things might have been even more complicated as Ran recently confirmed that one of Viserys' wives was actually half Targaryen (apparently either a Lord Arryn or Hightower married a daughter of Jaehaerys and Alysanne). That House Arryn felt obliged to support Rhaenyra is quite likely I think, but I'm not sure that the Hightowers were able to drag all the Reach into the war on Aegon's side. We know that the Hightowers traditionally are not very interested in war, and although this might be one of the few exceptions, we know that Aegon's mother had other children as well, and we have no idea if they all of them were on Aegon's side. Rhaenyra's second husband could very well have been a younger brother of Aegon II.

If the entire realm wouldn't accept the idea of a ruling queen and thought such was repugnant under Andal law, how was there a war over the issue? Did Rhaenyra fight it all by herself?

Certainly not. But apparently not even the fact that she was considered the Heiress to the Iron Throne for decades, half the Realm immediately decided to support the usurpation of her brother. This either show that Rhaenyra was very unpopular, or that some people were not that happy about her sex, and started to fight her openly the moment Aegon was crowned.

In a way, this incident was repeated later in the Blackfyre Rebellion. By the law, Daemon Blackfyre was not the heir, yet lots and lots of people with armies decided to prosecute a war in his behalf despite the fact that the succession was clear in favor of Daeron. People, who should have kept to the oaths to accept the king's heir, decided that were just more comfortable with the cool rock star renegade bastard prince and not his bookish, effete half-brother with his foreign wife (and half-bred foreign heirs).

The Blackfyre Rebellion started years after Daeron's ascension, and Daeron seems to have made a few mistakes himself. Not making Fireball a KG, for example. Or allowing the his bastard half-brothers to stay at court, where Daemon eventually became the figurehead of the anti-Dornish movement and the favorite of a whole generation of young knights and heirs (and the people who felt wronged by the Targaryens).

The Dance started immediately after Viserys' death. The two wars have some things in common, but not that much.

I'm not sure about that. There is a long and storied tradition of Ladies Regent and Queens Regent in the medieval history of Europe that GRRM is obviously drawing upon. When the Lords Declarant show up and did their declaring, they were more against Littlefinger claiming governorship over the Vale and Robert than they seemed to have been in allowing Jon Arryn's widow to do so when she was alive (there's an actual quote from one of them about that!). That sort of thing comes with the territory. Plus, she's a Tully of Riverrun, for crissake. It's not like she was low-ranking knight's daughter.

I chose Lysa as example because no sane man would ever allow this woman to rule a land, or bring up a child. She is instable and half-mad. I really was surprised that Lysa was not facing a Penelope kind of situation back in AGoT with all those suitors. If there had been a brother of Jon alive, he would have tried to intervene. And whereas the Lords of the Vale had no right to do so (or would have fought amongst themselves who had that right; everybody wanted to become Lysa's husband, so there was no alliance among - and Littlefinger faces later a similar situation).

That Littlefinger is compared to Lysa by the Lords Declarant makes sense from a political point of view. Lysa was Robert's mother. She had a right to rule the Vale in his stead. Especially as Jon Arryn's last will apparently did not appoint anyone else (but it most likely did not appoint Lysa either; I strongly suspect that Petyr and Lysa forged his testament). But Littlefinger is no kin to Lord Robert Arryn. He was just Lysa Tully's husband, and de iure merely her employee.

No one's actually saying that, though. In the absence of a son, he kept her close, clued her in on all the affairs of the realm, taught her about the traditional personal politics of the Riverlands (e.g. the eternal Bracken vs. Blackwood brouhaha), brought her here and there to visit the major bannerhouses (like House Frey), and gave her a basic military education. Just in case.

Re-read Catelyn's POV all through aCoK. She clearly understands all about war, politics, military tactics, etc. Catelyn, of course, knew all along that if a brother came along, it wouldn't be necessary.

I admit that much. Although Brynden Tully might have been equally responsible for Cat's military knowledge. Oh, and as you refer to Cat being the faithful daughter, it is 'Family, Duty, Honor' which made me believe that the Tullys would always find a way to make their women do what they want. At least, if Hoster is the prototypical Lord Tully. I remember that the Lord Tully during the D&E novellas is a small boy, and supposedly ruled by women. They can have power, I never have doubted that, but mostly not in their own name.

Hell, even had Catelyn decided to contest the Andal custom and law regarding that, who was going to back her? Queen Rhaeryra had an actual deed of succession in her favor and she still couldn't get enough people to enforce it!

She did win in the end. At least her line was the line that survived. Aegon III was forced to marry Aegon's daughter, but she died without issue, and the mother of Aegon's children is a Velaryon.

But the male historians apparently declared Rhaenyra and not Aegon a traitor. She is not even considered to be a Queen, although de facto neither she nor Aegon II ever ruled the complete Kingdom. And I'm pretty sure that Aegon II did not outlive Rhaenyra for long, if they did not die in the same battle.

In any event, Brienne is the heir to Evenfall Hall and the Island of Tarth because at some point her father gave up on trying to have a living son and just started indulging her as she pretends to be a man. Her father could have remarried and tried to have a son who could live, ride a horse successfully and/or not drown. He didn't. He decided to abide by Brienne.

Doesn't Brienne herself consider her father to be still capable of fathering a son? He might never do it, or even have decided to give Tarth to his daughter, but if he did that, he is really a bad father. Why on earth does he allow Brienne to endanger herself if she is his chosen heir. It is entirely possible that Selwyn does this because he hopes she might not come back, which would allow him to give Tarth to someone else.

Shireen is Stannis' heir. He didn't set aside Seleyse for some younger, nubile noblewoman and try to produce sons upon her. He decided to just accept Shireen and is having her educated accordingly.

Stannis still hopes for a son. When he speaks of Shireen being his heir, he always says this is so because he has not yet a son. Getting rid of his wife is not something Stannis would do (or could do, as brother of the King). I'm pretty sure that Stannis does not have sex with Selyse anymore, but he most certainly does not admit that. Maybe he intends to start this business again should he win the war. We don't know. Shireen is his heir for now, that much is clear, although he was willing to pass her over for Renly, if the latter had submitted to him.

Don't forget, these high profile marriages come fully loaded with all sorts of political pressures. The wife who bears only living daughters usually has her own powerful family who would like it very much that she and her offspring stay in power. A lord/king can't just casually throw them over!

I'm not sure about that. Only if you are a small house and marrying a son to a daughter of Lord Tywin. The Kings should not have that much problems with problematic wives. Not the Targaryens, and not Robert (Renly and Loras thought it possible to replace Cersei with Margaery - this strongly indicates that the position of 'wife of the King' was not necessarily secure - not even if she fathered a male heir).

It seemed to me that the North had its own culture of not really respecting the power of the Iron Throne. I assumed that Maege just went ahead and called her daughters Mormont and it was in nobody's interests to gainsay her. Her brother and nephew did not care, Ned Stark saw no reason to interfere, and so nobody bothered her.

I hope nobody asks if Ms. Merkel beds down with bears though...I mean, you all do know that her husband exists, right? :lol:

As we see with the Hornwoods, bastards can become a problem and an opportunity. And this strongly suggest that the noble bloodlines keep track who marries who, and certainly recognize if and if not an unmarried woman gives birth to children. And Maege's daughters of 'dubious' status would essentially face problems. Jorah Mormont is not dead. What would protect little Lyanna Mormont from Jorah, if he came back now during the chaos of the war, and declared his aunt dead, and her children bastards with no claim to anything?

But as Dacey was obviously styled and considered the Heir to Bear Islands, I would rather consider this whole thing to be a joke.

After all, even Joachim Sauer's existence was questioned when did not participate in his wife's inauguration in 2005. It is rumored that he did watch it on TV at his lab at the University, but that's just a rumor ;-): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/07/AR2007060702139.html

He has something of Stannis, has he not?

Apparently, somebody taught her to joust though and I don't see how that could have been done without Lord Rickard's knowledge. And I think that there is a difference between learning how to use a sword and carrying a sword, if I recall Ned's terminology correctly.

Well, Brandon surely could have been responsible for Lyanna's training.

There are problems with this theory, though. 1) Both Robb and Catelyn agree that Sansa is Robb's heir after the deaths of his brothers. Its not just southerners coming up with this theory. 2) The female heirs in the North, enumerated by Daena and other posters.

They are heirs to Robb, de iure. But de facto Robb disinherited them the moment he decided that he would not treat his sisters for Jaime. It was crystal clear that he would do whatever he could to rob his sisters of their birthright to prevent their husbands from controlling the North.

Granted, this is in the South, not the North, but I would say holding it with swords is limited in efficiency due to the example of Ser Kevan having Lancel marry a half-Darry girl through the female line to "legitimize" his claim to Darry.

As you say, this is to 'legitimize' things. It is a charade. And everybody knows it. But it looks better than if Lancel would have been married to someone else.

I recall the example, but she can be countered by the lovely Mormont ladies and the Wolf Crones of Winterfell who fought with each other over Winterfell. There's a great variety of ladies here with different examples of their ability to hang on to power - its actually quite interesting.

This might be worth responding to - if you'd bothered to actually attempt to defend your bizarre assertion. :lol:

You refer to the D&E novel which is supposed to take place at Winterfell? After TMK it seems likely that it will be about the young wife of the dying young Lord of Winterfell (he is supposed to be wounded in the campaign against the Ironborn), who is fighting against other older Stark widows or sisters. But this scenario only works if there are only infant male Starks around. Then, of course, women will be in charge. And the young Lady Stark will really face trouble if there are Starkish Olennas around at Winterfell at that time.

I entirely agree - Lady Felyse is another example of a female heir. Lyanna Mormont another. As for why the lords troubled to train their daughters when a son could come along and displace them at an instance - there are so many reasons an heir could be lost in a world like this. Disease, a jousting accident, etc. At a guess, the lords were invested in ensuring the continued stability of their fiefdoms and that is why they trained their daughters. When push comes to shove, who wants to leave their legacy in the hands of an incompetent?

We have many ruling Ladies around in the background of the series. The Ladies Waynwood, Whent and Oakheart spring to mind. They are completely in charge of their affairs, but unfortunately we don't know how they came into power. Were they raised as heirs (Lady Whent most likely not), or took they over after their brothers died?

The business in the North is more complicated (by the way, Lyanna Mormont likely is the youngest Mormont daughter alive, Alysanne, Lyra, and Jorelle Mormont are named before her in the appendices). The only women inheriting something in the North in the near future might be Wynafryd Manderly, the elder daughter (19 years old) of Lord Wyman's heir Ser Wendel. She has a sister, Wylla, which is 15. Wyman has no male grandchildren. Maybe Davos is going to meet the girls. Alys Karstark is only 15 right now, and the castellan of Karhold is Rickard's uncle Arnolf. I see him marrying his daughter off, if he gets the chance. That is, if he has sons of his own, the appendix does not mention any.

The Glovers are really a mess. Robett Glover is no Lord, he is the heir to Deepwood Motte. His unwed brother Galbart Glover is styled 'Master of Deepwood Motte' (he is no Lord either), so he seems to be in charge (are they twins, they always appeared to share their rule?).

Very well. I'm done for today. This thing is getting out of hand...

[fionwe1987]

Very well. I'm done for today. This thing is getting out of hand...

Throughout your post, you clearly concede that the Andals and the First Men have no problem letting women rule when there is no clear male heir, or if the heir is too young to rule himself. That is exactly what everyone else here is saying. I don't think there's any point continuing this debate at all.

[Lady Blackfish]

I think Cersei wanted Rhaegar mostly for the power of being queen (and that her children would be royalty). She also didn't really mind the idea of marrying Robert at first for similar reasons). Sure, Cersei seems to have convinced herself she "loved" Rhaegar for more romantic, less selfish reasons, but I think it's all more self-delusion. She wants power, that's about it.

I don't think it's as simple as saying that she convinced herself of infatuation because of her desire for power. It all blends together to create this perfect image of Rhaegar, his status included. But IMO she perceived that power in a very Sansa-like way; it wasn't about what she could do with the power, more that she would be his queen (swoon!) and everyone would love her. Even her one happy moment with Robert was when he showed her that the commons loved her. I honestly think that part of Cersei just wanted pretty shiny things much like early Sansa.

She really only continues her affair with Jaime to humiliate Robert, even although she is unable to reveal this to him or the world.

And also, Cersei needs someone in her thrall at all times. If it can't be Rhaegar worshiping her, if it can't be Robert, then it'll be her old standby Jaime. Narcissistic love, but that's what Cersei is capable of (and for the record I think she did love Tywin in her way, at least if you asked her she'd say she did. Since she wants to be him, she has to respect him, because otherwise she'd be dissing herself. She'll only suffer any slight on Tywin if it's in comparison to her amazing self, and that's Cersei's version of daughterly affection).

I agree with those saying that Cersei had no intention in mind in getting Jaime to come to King's Landing other than being with him. It sure must've been hard seeing her dreamy sparkly prince cavorting around with his sickly little wife. Imagine, a woman like that with more devotees at court than she herself!

She would have gone with him, if his travels were that important.

Catelyn in fact does remember traveling around the Riverlands, and she continues to travel around to visit bannermen when she moves north. And it doesn't seem like Hoster's excursions were only for business, but also out of sheer restlessness; it'd make sense to leave her at home to hold down the fort on those occasions. So it seems to me that she pretty much only was excluded from the battlefields. And Hoster might have been able to father children well into old age, but Minisa seemed to be frail of health, in a time where pregnancy was already difficult. We also don't know that Edmure is Littlefinger's age, honestly. He squired for Brandon when Littlefinger was 15, he himself could've been 10 at the time.

Although, fionwe, Minisa died trying to give Hoster another son after Edmure, so we can't conclude much about his health at birth.

Anyway, however way Catelyn was raised by her Tully household, it led her to the firm opinion that "A woman can rule as wisely as a man," and her uncle is more or less in agreement. Attitudes are often not a simple "Yeah women!" or "Boo women!", but a certain proportion of empowerment, restriction, and benevolent sexism that could technically vary from case to case, even if there were surely trends.

I'm pretty sure that Catelyn Stark would never have been able to rule the North the way Lysa started to rule the Vale after Jon's death.

I imagine the difference between these cases, and even between Catelyn's and Cersei's, is that Robb is so very near the age of maturity, already 15 when he's crowned, and very able to fulfill the masculine ideals of the society. Joffrey is 12, and no warrior, and Robert is so sickly he can't even drink milk from a sippycup. I don't think it's geography here, other than the possible secondary consideration that Catelyn would face opposition because she is a Seven-worshipping southron. Regardless, if Bran had been her eldest son and Robb did not exist, I think we would have seen Lady Regent Catelyn a while longer. This wouldn't be contradicted by the North's lack of previous ruling women, since Catelyn would be regent in her son's name (like Cersei in KL and Lysa in the Vale).

Why on earth does he allow Brienne to endanger herself if she is his chosen heir.

Wait wait, is it really that much different than allowing Jaime (or Tyrion) or Brandon or Edmure to go off to war?

[Chanur]

So, I apologize for the reflexive declaration of misogyny and sexism.

However, I invite you to either A.) make your arguments about the instances of Catelyn's "bad ruler-ship" which thus will be subject to debate and refutation or B.) peruse the breadth and width of this forum's years of discourse on the same subject(s) in which all of the attacks against Catelyn are unfailingly dismantled and the basis for the attacks are ineluctably revealed to be rooted in sexism and/or a visceral dislike of the character for failing to comport with readers' expectation of what a female character in her situation "should have done." Lots of things like her being a meddlesome mother, or failing to adhere to the commands of her husband, for being too politically active (or not politically active enough), neglecting her children and/or being abusive to her husband's love child.

What say you?

Here's a few old threads to get you started:

• Why all the Stark Bashing?
  
• Ned and Catelyn: Similarities and differences
  
• Sexism in Catelyn Bashing: con't from the Anti Feminist Bing thread
  

En Garde! :fencing:

edit: typoes :)

The fact it has been discussed here is exactly why I did not bring it up in a detailed post. I was hoping not to derail this thread. Lord Hoster might have raised Cat as his heir for the first few years, but I think it must have ended there. Seizing a high lords son had to be one of the worst decisions I have ever seen. It could do nothing but cause repercussions to your family in Kings Landing. Then trying to speed through an execution could really only lead to war. Being raised as an heir she should have known that the proper way to handle this situation would be to go to the king with a grievance. You cannot execute members of a house more powerful than your own. She acts completely with out for thought. She pulled a Cersei so to speak.

The second is trading your witness and heir to the enemy you are currently fighting, with people that are notoriously brutal and untrustworthy. Again acting reasonably as a mother, but not as a ruler. That is just for a start, I am sure there were many others. Again acting with out for thought. Pulling a Cersei.

Lastly High lords are very prickly. Lesser houses being ruled by women is one thing, but do you honestly think Lord Tywin or Lord Mace would have jumped too for a woman on the throne? I certainly don't. That does not make it right, but that is what I believe. Political climates change, a woman may have been acceptable hundreds of years ago, but it certainly was not after Roberts war.

[fionwe1987]

You cannot execute members of a house more powerful than your own.

Who did Catelyn execute?

And if you mean her kidnapping Tyrion, it is far from clear that her House is less powerful than the Lannisters. She has the North behind her, and the Riverlands. The Vale, she assumed (and this was a very reasonable assumption), would support her too. Plus, her husband has the King's ear. In a war situation, Dorne could also be reasonably counted upon to oppose the Lannister faction.

Frankly, her actions wouldn't have caused the disaster they did if Hoster hadn't been so ill. He'd have kept the soldiers of his bannermen around Riverrun, which would have put a solid spoke in Tywin's wheels. Its only because Edmure failed to see the strategic implications of being kind to his vassals that the situation became so dire.

At the time of the kidnapping, Catelyn was far from being backed by the weaker faction. It was the Lannisters who were isolated and without the support of any other House.

[Lady Blackfish]

Then trying to speed through an execution could really only lead to war. Being raised as an heir she should have known that the proper way to handle this situation would be to go to the king with a grievance.

Arresting Tyrion was a choice prompted by incredibly coincidental circumstances and considerations such as her own immediate safety. For all she knew Tyrion was an attempted murderer involved in a conspiracy against her house, a dangerous element that could relay her doings to the very people Ned and Littlefinger decided should not learn of them. Furthermore, Tyrion himself does not expect Tywin to retaliate with an act of war (or terrorism, really) when he reflects on his father's likely reaction after the fact. Finally, you don't do your argument any good by omitting the fact that it was Lysa who wanted to put on the trial in the first place and get on with the execution. Catelyn was trying to get to a safe place for long enough to escape the riders she assumed would be after her, a woman all but alone and unarmed on the dangerous open road, but the trial was not her idea nor one she seemed to approve of. For all we know she meant to get back to Winterfell in one piece and wait for Robert's word. Her arrest was premature but not because she thought it was the ideal time to make the arrest, only that she was between a rock and a hard place. Honestly I fail to see how it proves her a bad ruler any more than his inflammatory kidnapping of Lyanna Stark proves that Crown Prince Rhaegar Targaryen is one.

As far as freeing Jaime, she of course wanted to make the trade for Jaime in the legal fashion way back at the start of Clash; had she been able to do that and keep her power at that point, they'd probably all have been at home safely out of the war, the north no more responsible for the goings-on in the riverlands than they were before, Sansa not a floating liability, Winterfell not burned, so on. Really the only lingering downside I could see is that Arya would still be missing.

Regarding women and high lords, if it's her place in the succession it seems like a woman can definitely enjoy support. See: Daenerys.

[Alexia]

:lol:

Reviewing the worst decisions of the story:

1. Committing high treason through an incestuous relationship with the queen

2. Passing the fruit of said incestuous relationship off as the king's trueborn children

3. Throwing the son of a High Lord out a window in an attempt to murder him after he witnesses criminal activity

4. Sending an assassin after said child in an attempt to murder him in his sickbed and giving him a valuable weapon to do it with

5. Ordering the execution of a High Lord on a whim

6. Throwing the King to the ground and beating him in public, then threatening his life in front of immediate family

7. Storming Dragonstone

8. Having the wife of the king arrested on false charges of adultery

9. Keeping the Kingslayer in the Kingsguard

10. Rearming the Faith

11. Not training the heir to the fiefdom

12. Supporting a marriage between the Lady of the Vale and the Lord of Harrenhal

13. Not having the Targaryen heir assassinated

14. Telling all one's plans to one's enemies and then leaving said enemy free to act afterwards

15. Trusting Varys or Littlefinger

16. Sending Theon back to the Iron Islands

17. Releasing Jaime

18. Telling the Iron Bank of Braavos to stuff it

19. Breaking a marriage alliance with Lord Frey

20. Burning lords alive, illegally denying them their right to a champion

21. Running away with or kidnapping Lord Stark's betrothed daughter without bothering to inform others of one's intentions

I'm sure others can add on to the list - the overall point is that: 1) Catelyn is in good company with other rulers who make mistakes; and 2) Catelyn is not the one who tried to speed through with an execution and she called that particular person a fool.

Regarding women and high lords, if it's her place in the succession it seems like a woman can definitely enjoy support. See: Daenerys.

:agree:

See also: Cersei

[Chanur]

Who did Catelyn execute?

And if you mean her kidnapping Tyrion, it is far from clear that her House is less powerful than the Lannisters. She has the North behind her, and the Riverlands. The Vale, she assumed (and this was a very reasonable assumption), would support her too. Plus, her husband has the King's ear. In a war situation, Dorne could also be reasonably counted upon to oppose the Lannister faction.

Frankly, her actions wouldn't have caused the disaster they did if Hoster hadn't been so ill. He'd have kept the soldiers of his bannermen around Riverrun, which would have put a solid spoke in Tywin's wheels. Its only because Edmure failed to see the strategic implications of being kind to his vassals that the situation became so dire.

At the time of the kidnapping, Catelyn was far from being backed by the weaker faction. It was the Lannisters who were isolated and without the support of any other House.

The Lannisters have the throne, and her violating the kings law basically does not look good for them. The Lannisters are a powerful house in their own right, and they are tied to the throne. Regardless of how it may have appeared at the time, it certainly did not go down that way did it? She was not even able to convince her sister to support her. So again lack of forethought. Hoster was very sick, and she should have factored that, the truth is she was not thinking about what she was doing.

Lady Blackwood

Finally, you don't do your argument any good by omitting the fact that it was Lysa who wanted to put on the trial in the first place and get on with the execution. Catelyn was trying to get to a safe place for long enough to escape the riders she assumed would be after her, a woman all but alone and unarmed on the dangerous open road, but the trial was not her idea nor one she seemed to approve of.

By today's standards she would still be responsible for anything that happened to him during the commission of a crime. If someone dies of a heart attack during a kidnapping, guess what it is still murder. Lord Twyin would have seen the out come in the same way, his son, died in her custody, the end.

As far as freeing Jaime, she of course wanted to make the trade for Jaime in the legal fashion way back at the start of Clash; had she been able to do that and keep her power at that point, they'd probably all have been at home safely out of the war, the north no more responsible for the goings-on in the riverlands than they were before, Sansa not a floating liability, Winterfell not burned, so on. Really the only lingering downside I could see is that Arya would still be missing.

Regarding women and high lords, if it's her place in the succession it seems like a woman can definitely enjoy support. See: Daenerys.

That is all fine and dandy, but by the point she helped him escape, she betrayed her lord son, and now she died and never got her children returned. Again she did not really think it through, she acted as a parent, which I can certainly sympathize with and would probably even do the same myself. That how ever does not excuse it.

As for Dany, I think people will follow her, for two reasons. 1 with Lord Tywin and so many other high lords dead the political climate is in turmoil and it is a perfect time for a new ruler, man or woman to take control. The second reason is she has an army, and there is 1 certified truth in Westeros, might makes right. Dany is in the perfect position take control as most of the houses are decimated. I would expect the Tyrells to cozy to Dany if possible since they are basically political opportunists.

Alexia, I completely agree!! There have been a ton of bad decisions and poor Cat is far from alone. We are discussing her at the moment though.

Cersei is not in the same boat though, as she rules through her son the king.

[Lady Blackfish]

Alexia, How popular is Cersei when she initially ascends? I know she becomes less popular as the war drags on and the masses go hungry, but that's later on.

fionwe, Hoster actually did keep his vassals reined in when he advised them to go to the Hand first before retaliating against Tywin. It took more actions from Ned, Robb, Cersei and Joff before the north had to commit to war.

[Alexia]

The Lannisters have the throne,

No, they did not.

She was not even able to convince her sister to support her.

This is not true. Lysa took over Tyrion's custody from her to prosecute him on her own charges and publically supported Catelyn's arrest.

Alexia, I completely agree!! There have been a ton of bad decisions and poor Cat is far from alone. We are discussing her at the moment though.

But she is not, and I quote, "horrible in every way." Cersei fills that bill as a ruler. Joffrey fills that bill as a ruler. Aerys fills that bill as a ruler. Catelyn gave good advice and had she been listened to from the start, House Stark would have been spared a fair number of horrors - including the "deaths of Bran and Rickon," the Sack of Winterfell, and the forcible marriage of Sansa to Tyrion Lannister. Along with the Red Wedding. She made misteps while responding to the actions of madmen, true, but that does not erase the plethora of good advice she gave.

Cersei is not in the same boat though, as she rules through her son the king.

Cersei rules the kingdom in the name of her son the king but she currently is the Regent with the power directly in her hands. She also is the ruling Lady of Casterly Rock in her own name.

Lady Blackfish, Cersei isn't particularly popular when she takes the Regency and Casterly Rock. Her treason with Jaime is well known to the point that one of her allies mocks her to her face with it during her father's funeral, and she has peasants on the street screaming Brotherfucker at her. However - she still got support from other lords (such as the rest of the Lannisters, the Tyrells, and supposedly the Dornish, Lysa Arryn was not going to challenge her, and the rest of the lords just got beat into submission) and even despised as she was - if the woman had a shred of common sense, intelligence, and thoughtfulness, she could have hung onto that throne and built herself and the Lannisters quite a dynasty. Wasted opportunities.

If you mean at the beginning of the story - hard to say. The Starks are contemptuous of her, but apparently based less on her own merits than her role as "the Lannister woman," and we don't really have any other POVs that give a good perspective of her before the war. We do know that Tywin sent Tyrion almost immediately to take power from her and Joffrey, which shows his opinion of her.

[Lady Blackfish]

She was not even able to convince her sister to support her. So again lack of forethought. Hoster was very sick, and she should have factored that, the truth is she was not thinking about what she was doing.

Dude, it's unreal to expect her to foresee her sister's crazy or her father's illness. She couldn't convince Lysa to act more reasonably because Lysa had gone off the deep end, and her own father withheld information of his illness on purpose.

By today's standards she would still be responsible for anything that happened to him during the commission of a crime. If someone dies of a heart attack during a kidnapping, guess what it is still murder. Lord Twyin would have seen the out come in the same way, his son, died in her custody, the end.

That still doesn't reflect solely on her decision-making, though. Very important persons accept culpability for other people's stupidity all the time, but that doesn't in itself make their judgment suspect.

That is all fine and dandy, but by the point she helped him escape, she betrayed her lord son, and now she died and never got her children returned. Again she did not really think it through, she acted as a parent, which I can certainly sympathize with and would probably even do the same myself. That how ever does not excuse it.

You're missing my point. If Cat had been in the place of power in the first place, things would have been better for everyone involved. It is how she deals with her lack of power that becomes tragic, but that in itself doesn't mean that she'd make poor judgments if she had had it to begin with.

There have been a ton of bad decisions and poor Cat is far from alone. We are discussing her at the moment though.

Alexia's point is that if other people make similarly bad decisions, then they should all be judged poor rulers for it. But if everyone makes those mistakes then there is, apparently, no such thing as a good ruler at all in your book.

Just for clarification, I'm not going to argue your general distaste for the character, but very specifically your thesis that such-and-such actions prove that Catelyn was or would be a bad ruler.

[Chanur]

No, they did not.

This is not true. Lysa took over Tyrion's custody from her to prosecute him on her own charges and publically supported Catelyn's arrest.

But she is not, and I quote, "horrible in every way." Cersei fills that bill as a ruler. Joffrey fills that bill as a ruler. Aerys fills that bill as a ruler. Catelyn gave good advice and had she been listened to from the start, House Stark would have been spared a fair number of horrors - including the "deaths of Bran and Rickon," the Sack of Winterfell, and the forcible marriage of Sansa to Tyrion Lannister. Along with the Red Wedding. She made misteps while responding to the actions of madmen, true, but that does not erase the plethora of good advice she gave.

Cersei rules the kingdom in the name of her son the king but she currently is the Regent with the power directly in her hands. She also is the ruling Lady of Casterly Rock in her own name.

Actually they did have the throne. A Lannister was the queen and Lannisters ( In Tywins mind) was the heir. The throne also owed the Lannisters a great deal of money. A Lannister croney was master of coin. You could not possibly be more in bed with the Lannisters.

I will agree my comment on horrible in just about every way was a bit misleading. Her spectacular mistakes tends to over shadow her sometimes good advice. Because it is hard to take it seriously when she is out causing her family to go to war, and betraying her lord son. Her

misteps while responding to the actions of madmen

is a complete misnomer. She

believed she was acting against a madman

but really she was acting against the wrong person! So yes she made some mistakes, and some good decisions but they are over shadowed by the former. You also assume the advice she gave in some of those instances would have worked out well, we do not know that. It does seem like good advice at the time, but that frankly does not mean anything. I how ever am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

What does Cersei being the ruler of Casterly Rock have to do with the discussion? No one said a woman cannot be a lord. As for being regent yes the power is in her hands because her son is a 10 year old boy, look at how much power she had as regent with Joffery? She rules only by his will.

Someone correct me on this because I might very well be wrong, but didn't Catelyn believe her sister to be rather unstable before she got there? I thought there was some question to her state of mind early in the book, or in a flash back to their younger years. I have not read the books in years.

I will add this, bad decisions alone do not make you a bad ruler, but bad decisions leading to the destruction of your family and house certainly does.

[Alexia]

A Lannister croney was master of coin.

Wasn't Littlefinger master of coin? I was under the impression that he was the lover of Lysa Arryn, got the position through Jon Arryn (previous Hand), and was a former protegee of Hoster Tully.

She but really she was acting against the wrong person!

Not really. Tyrion was fully aware of his siblings' attempt to murder Bran Stark and helped them cover it up - which makes him complicit in it. Did he send the dagger specifically, no, was he part of a cover-up of the attempted murder of Brandon Stark, yes.

You also assume the advice she gave in some of those instances would have worked out well, we do not know that.

Well, I do know that if her advice against releases Theon had worked out, Winterfell would not have been sacked, the murder of her sons would not have been faked, and Ramsey Bolton would not be marrying "Arya Stark." Just for one example.

What does Cersei being the ruler of Casterly Rock have to do with the discussion? No one said a woman cannot be a lord.

Have you read the past four pages of this thread? The debate has centered on just that issue.

As for being regent yes the power is in her hands because her son is a 10 year old boy, look at how much power she had as regent with Joffery? She rules only by his will.

By Tommen's? She had no power with Joffrey because she chose not to control him - Tommen, OTOH, can't even choose a highly qualified knight to teach him jousting. A quote from Tyrion: "When his Grace comes of age, he may give or withhold his consent as he chooses. Until then, I am his Hand and you are his Regent and he will marry whomever we tell him to marry."

Someone correct me on this because I might very well be wrong, but didn't Catelyn believe her sister to be rather unstable before she got there?

No. In fact, she was quite appalled by Lysa's condition.

I will add this, bad decisions alone do not make you a bad ruler, but bad decisions leading to the destruction of your family and house certainly does.

Great. So we agree Catelyn is a bad ruler - as well as Tywin Lannister, Cersei Lannister, Jaime Lannister, Robert Baratheon, Aerys Targaryen, Rhaegar Targaryen, Joffrey Baratheon, Stannis Baratheon, Mace Tyrell, Olenna Tyrell, Jon Arryn, Ned Stark, Robb Stark, need I continue?

[Chanur]

Wasn't Littlefinger master of coin? I was under the impression that he was the lover of Lysa Arryn, got the position through Jon Arryn (previous Hand), and was a former protegee of Hoster Tully.

The Lannisters and many others believed him to be a Lannister friend.

Not really. Tyrion was fully aware of his siblings' attempt to murder Bran Stark and helped them cover it up - which makes him complicit in it. Did he send the dagger specifically, no, was he part of a cover-up of the attempted murder of Brandon Stark, yes.

Perhaps I am misremembering due to how long ago I read it, but I thought it was apparent Joffery sent the assassin after Bran and Tyrion did not know.

Well, I do know that if her advice against releases Theon had worked out, Winterfell would not have been sacked, the murder of her sons would not have been faked, and Ramsey Bolton would not be marrying "Arya Stark." Just for one example.

On this we mostly agree. Ramsey would still be marrying "Arya Stark" because she would still be missing and Rob would still be dead, and Bolton still be Head of the north.

Have you read the past four pages of this thread? The debate has centered on just that issue.

I did yes, and it had to do with the previous discussion and not what we are talking about now with this derail.

She had no control over Joffery because Joff was just like her. Willful and head strong, and she was not smart enough to control him. Hence the beheading of Ned. Tyrion was more devious than Cersei and was able to gain some control of Joffrey.

Thank you for clearing that up, I was really unsure and appreciate it.

No need to continue, the he/she was doing it also stopped being a defense when we were 6.

[Alexia]

The Lannisters and many others believed him to be a Lannister friend.

Ned Stark believed him to be a Stark friend, he was Catelyn's foster brother, and his appointment was made by the previous Hand, Jon Arryn. I suppose you have some citation of text to support the idea that LF was commonly considered a "Lannister crony" at the start of AGOT rather than your own uncorroborated assertations?

Perhaps I am misremembering due to how long ago I read it, but I thought it was apparent Joffery sent the assassin after Bran and Tyrion did not know.

Jaime and Tyrion, privy to information that Catelyn was not, were both able to conclude this in the last book (when Catelyn is already dead). However, nobody outside of these two seems to have come to a similar conclusion and I did not consider it to be apparent when I was reading the story.

On this we mostly agree. Ramsey would still be marrying "Arya Stark" because she would still be missing and Rob would still be dead, and Bolton still be Head of the north.

No, Ramsey would be securely held in the Winterfell dungeon because there would be no Theon around to release him. Whether or not Bolton would have ultimately betrayed him is in question: Bolton was forced to do so due to Ramsey's actions and Robb lost the respect of all his men (along with the war) when Winterfell and his heirs were lost.

No need to continue, the he/she was doing it also stopped being a defense when we were 6.

So we agree that all the rulers in the book suck and have destroyed their families and that Catelyn is not unique in being "horrible in every way"? Well, that's something I suppose.

Although, at least she doesn't throw children from high windows and burn lords alive...

[Chanur]

Ned Stark believed him to be a Stark friend, he was Catelyn's foster brother, and his appointment was made by the previous Hand, Jon Arryn. I suppose you have some citation of text to support the idea that LF was commonly considered a "Lannister crony" at the start of AGOT rather than your own uncorroborated assertations?

Jaime and Tyrion, privy to information that Catelyn was not, were both able to conclude this in the last book (when Catelyn is already dead). However, nobody outside of these two seems to have come to a similar conclusion and I did not consider it to be apparent when I was reading the story.

No, Ramsey would be securely held in the Winterfell dungeon because there would be no Theon around to release him. Whether or not Bolton would have ultimately betrayed him is in question: Bolton was forced to do so due to Ramsey's actions and Robb lost the respect of all his men (along with the war) when Winterfell and his heirs were lost.

So we agree that all the rulers in the book suck and have destroyed their families and that Catelyn is not unique in being "horrible in every way"? Well, that's something I suppose.

Although, at least she doesn't throw children from high windows and burn lords alive...

I certainly agree Jaime and Cersei are terrible people. I also think Aerys was horrible and he brought the death of his house as well. I am starting to wonder if Dany has the madness also, there is definitely something not right with her. Hopefully she is a great queen though.

[fionwe1987]

The Lannisters have the throne,

I read a book called A Game of Thrones where a Baratheon had the throne and despised his Lannister wife. I wonder who wrote that...

and her violating the kings law basically does not look good for them.

For whom? The Starks? Do remember that Robert just asked Ned to have Tyrion released. Had he not been killed, he'd have crushed Tywin's attempts to attack the Riverlands, which is precisely why Tywin was so cautious about having the identity of his reavers as secret as possible. Given Ned's closeness to Robert, we can safely say that Catelyn was in a unique position where she could get away with capturing the King's brother in law with barely any repercussions. But the king died, which she had absolutely no way of predicting.

The Lannisters are a powerful house in their own right, and they are tied to the throne.

As are the Starks. Further, the Starks have the Tully's behind them, and could certainly assume strong Arryn support, and also count on the Baratheon's not supporting the Lannisters against them. That's an extremely powerful position to be in.

Regardless of how it may have appeared at the time, it certainly did not go down that way did it?

So? It ended different due to factors Catalyn had absolutely no control over. When you critique someone's judgement on the basis of their failures, you need to take into account unrelated factors that said person has no control over and no way of anticipating. You've failed to do that.

She was not even able to convince her sister to support her. So again lack of forethought.

How, exactly? Tywin did not foresee that Robb would split his forces either, and it cost him very dearly. Is Tywin a horrible incompetent too? Or is he simply, like Catalyn and any other human being, incapable of knowing everything?

Hoster was very sick, and she should have factored that, the truth is she was not thinking about what she was doing.

Well, she did factor Hoster into her plans, which is why she went to the Vale. Which also disproves your assertion that she wasn't thinking.

[fionwe1987]

fionwe, Hoster actually did keep his vassals reined in when he advised them to go to the Hand first before retaliating against Tywin. It took more actions from Ned, Robb, Cersei and Joff before the north had to commit to war.

But what I was saying was that if Edmure had kept the Bannermen's levies with him, the course of the war would have been very different. The war happening was beyond doubt.

With Riverrun not taken, Tywin wouldn't have been able to advance so much into the Riverlands. Which means Robb has no need for Lord Frey. The implications of that are fairly obvious, no? Even if Tywin's whole host was involved with Riverrun and Robb wanted to go help, Lord Frey would have had a weaker bargaining position, so he'd probably never have gotten away with a demand for Robb's hand in marriage to his family. Again, the implications are staggering.

[Daemrion]

No matter what, attacking the Lannisters would have been an attack on the throne itself, until and unless Robert divorces Cersei. This could very well have happened, but at the moment that Catelyn kidnapped Tyrion, she was still attacking the Queen's brother. It is an attack on the King's family. And that would be undermining Robert's power as King.