Catelyn

[Whatever]

Ned need not be considered weak or inspire disloyalty for trouble to occur in his children's generation. Robb certainly did not get his father's bannermen's loyalty for free, he had to prove himself. If it were Bran in his place? Could poor little Bran pull off Robb's exploits?

catelyn knows jon (or at least she should) well enough to know he would never take bran's place.

[nevermore]

maybe he promised not to tell, or maybe he didn't want to tell her of Lyannas shame (running away with Rhaegerys) or maybe lets leave Martin to explain it :P. but anyway it's not the fact that Cateyln doesn't show love, but the way she hates him out of turn, it's not like she was told to be his mother. I don't think anyone in this day and age acts cruel to kids like that (i know Westeros is different, but Cateyln is also shown as to be different and smarter and nicer than the rest of Cersei clones in court, so someone like that is a hypocrite and stupid, does the same thing with judging Robb for marring exactly when she frees the kingslayer, what kind of hypocrisy is that?). Anyway she is portrayed as a honourable and nice person but she is blind and irrational.

[Whatever]

irrational? well, a little :D

[Daena the Defiant]

catelyn knows jon (or at least she should) well enough to know he would never take bran's place.

Really?

Despite Jon's confession that he did always resent Robb and his siblings, and yes, he wanted it?

This one presumes that is Catelyn's fault too.

[Nine of Spades]

You have got to be kidding. She decides to leave Winterfell to tell her husband about a dagger sent to assassinate her son, a perfectly reasonable decision that would have seen her return home before any trouble fell were it not for an extremely coincidental meeting, and based on that you say she can't be trusted with a secret? She apprehends Tyrion in a situation of extreme duress during which there wasn't even time to consult anyone, and you conclude from that that she can't be trusted with a secret? Only in the case of releasing Jaime did she go against anyone's wishes, and that was clearly not typical of her behavior, given how everyone reacts to it.

If Ned told Cat about Jon's parentage, supposing R+L=J, then she would at most increase her efforts to have him sent away. Perhaps she would take her own children away to Riverrun when that failed, I don't know, but she demonstrates time and again that she considers and even craves others' counsel in situations that allow it.

Yes, she had her reasons for doing all those things. But she acted decisively on HER reasons. When you tell someone a secret, you hope they respect your wishes in how that secret should be handled. And in all 3 cases doing nothing was an acceptable course of action. There was no immediate pressure on Catelyn other then the pressure she put on herself. So tell me, do you think Catelyn could be counted on to act how Ned wanted her to? If you have a massively important secret, you don't tell anyone who you cant count on to keep it, or you can't count on wont act on that knowledge without at least consulting you first.

Again, specifically R+L=J, if you were Ned, would you trust her with that secret? We know Howland Reed is trustworthy, he will stay in his land and tell noone of it and take it to his grave. But do you feel comfortable saying that whatever happened, she would be willing to take that secret to her grave?

To me, the person you trust secrets with are ones who are prone to taking no action on knowledge they have, those who don't ask advice from others (since their circle of trust is likely to be different then yours, and hence more people in the know, and the more people that no a secret, the more at risk it is), but do respect others wishes. So when i say trust worthy I dont mean is she the kind of person that will use that knowledge to stab you in the back, but is she the type of person you know wont act on it without consulting you first, or can hold a weighty piece of knowledge without telling anyone.

[Lady Blackfish]

catelyn knows jon (or at least she should) well enough to know he would never take bran's place.

Jon himself admits he always wanted Winterfell, and if the enterprise was pitched in such a way that said the honor and security of the north depended on it? It's certainly a reasonable fear. That said, I think Catelyn's fears are not limited to Jon himself, but trouble that could befall future generations.

I don't think anyone in this day and age acts cruel to kids like that

Okay, but she was only cruel on that one occasion. There's a quote from Martin a few pages back that explains how she usually behaved, and it says that her behavior at Bran's bedside was "obviously" singular.

Yes, she had her reasons for doing all those things. But she acted decisively on HER reasons. When you tell someone a secret, you hope they respect your wishes in how that secret should be handled. And in all 3 cases doing nothing was an acceptable course of action. There was no immediate pressure on Catelyn other then the pressure she put on herself. So tell me, do you think Catelyn could be counted on not to how Ned wanted her to? If you have a massively important secret, you don't tell anyone who you cant count on to keep it, or you can't count on wont act on that knowledge without at least consulting you first.

Again, only in the case of releasing Jaime was she going against anyone's wishes. She acted on her reasons in the other situations because it was her decision to make. To use those as support for the notion that Catelyn would contradict Ned's wishes is bizarre.

Again, specifically R+L=J, if you were Ned, would you trust her with that secret?

I'm guessing Ned wouldn't trust Baelor the Blessed himself with the secret. Catelyn's character has nothing to do with it.

For the record, I think Catelyn would turn Jon over to Robert if Robert already knew who Jon really was (supposing R+L=J) and was coming for him. But without that, I don't think she would cause further danger to Jon.

[Daena the Defiant]

Yes, she had her reasons for doing all those things. But she acted decisively on HER reasons. When you tell someone a secret, you hope they respect your wishes in how that secret should be handled. And in all 3 cases doing nothing was an acceptable course of action. There was no immediate pressure on Catelyn other then the pressure she put on herself. So tell me, do you think Catelyn could be counted on to act how Ned wanted her to? If you have a massively important secret, you don't tell anyone who you cant count on to keep it, or you can't count on wont act on that knowledge without at least consulting you first.

This is excessively complex.

Can you, as the proponent of this argument, break it down for discussion?

I mean, do you really think that the only pressure put upon Catelyn to make a case against the attempted murder of her son (and assailant on her own person) was a pressure solely from her perspective? Someone tried to murder her son. That person sliced open her hands as she intervened. To seek redress for that and possibly justice was all because, she what, wanted the attention?

Wow.

Do you beat your spouse, and assume she'll keep it to herself, otherwise she wants attention because she's an attention whore?

Is that your position? Really?

Is that?

Do you?

Really?

[Nine of Spades]

This is excessively complex.

Can you, as the proponent of this argument, break it down for discussion?

I mean, do you really think that the only pressure put upon Catelyn to make a case against the attempted murder of her son (and assailant on her own person) was a pressure solely from her perspective? Someone tried to murder her son. That person sliced open her hands as she intervened. To seek redress for that and possibly justice was all because, she what, wanted the attention?

Wow.

Do you beat your spouse, and assume she'll keep it to herself, otherwise she wants attention because she's an attention whore?

:shocked:

Slow down there, you are jumping to more conclusions then I can count. The question at hand isn't whether or not Catelyn was right to act(if you want to get into that lets just say I dont have a problem with Catelyn's goals, just that I think she tended to act a little too rashly and without proper consideration of consequences), but whether or not her temperament is one that is suited to the keeping of secrets.

Suppose a woman is raped by a well liked cop in a manner that renders it unprovable. The woman, realizing that she wont ever receive her day in court, is faced with a difficult choice. If her husband is the vengeful, gun wielding type, he might end up going, shooting that cop if she tells him. He will probably go to prison, receiving a massive sentence for shooting a cop. even though you and I might agree that the cop is getting his come uppance. The woman, knowing this, may choose not to tell her husband, not because she wants to keep a secret from him, but because she knows how he is likely to react, and finds keeping silent about the rape to be better then having her husband destroy his life.

Now if her husband were the type of person who would be more circumspect in his reaction, maybe she would feel safe in sharing, and maybe that's better. Maybe it isn't. But who we share our secrets with is strongly influenced by who we trust to act in a way we feel is appropriate. Which may or may not align with how the other person feels.

Is it right to keep that secret? Is it wrong? I don't know, its a horribly ugly little scenario that I set up. But if the woman is interested in keeping a secret, its probably good not to tell a person who is prone to action or talking. But probably ok to those may be prone to inaction, or careful, slow consideration and deliberate planning, as long as your interests closely align.

So back to Westeros. Ned has a secret. Anyone who he tells that secret to is a risk for causing the situation to spiral out of his control. Because holding a secret is about maintaining tight control of a bit of knowledge. The more that knowledge gets out, the less you are able to control the situation. Is Catelyn a good risk? To me, the answer is no. Because with that knowledge, she is a person that is prone to action.

[Nine of Spades]

Again, only in the case of releasing Jaime was she going against anyone's wishes. She acted on her reasons in the other situations because it was her decision to make. To use those as support for the notion that Catelyn would contradict Ned's wishes is bizarre.

Its hard to say whether or not the actions aligned with other peoples wishes, because they weren't consulted. That's actually the point though, its that she is a very decisive person. The problem with that when it comes to a secret is that decisive people tend to decide, and when they do things, they may not necessarily see eye to eye with you. The whole point of holding a secret is to control how people use that knowledge. If you dont trust them to use it how you want to, even if it just may be because they dont know how you want the situation handled, you dont tell them that information.

And its clear that when it comes to Jon, the two of them don't see eye to eye very often.

I'm guessing Ned wouldn't trust Baelor the Blessed himself with the secret. Catelyn's character has nothing to do with it.

For the record, I think Catelyn would turn Jon over to Robert if Robert already knew who Jon really was (supposing R+L=J) and was coming for him. But without that, I don't think she would cause further danger to Jon.

The former I would agree with, the latter I'm not so sure.

I really don't think having a Dragon in her house would sit with her at all. If for no other reason what if Jon finds out, and goes to try and claim the throne? If he fails, her whole family is at risk for hiding him. She is upset by Jon's ambitions already, and those ambitions don't even involve potentially bringing the entirety of the 7 kingdoms to war.

[Happy Ent]

catelyn knows jon (or at least she should) well enough to know he would never take bran's place.

But he was pretty close to doing exactly that. Jon has coveted Winterfell all his life. At the end of book 3, it’s even offered to him. Bran, Sansa, Arya, Rickon, are still alive at that time. You say Jon would have never accepted the offer? Then you and Catelyn know Jon better than I do, because I think it was a difficult decision to reject Stannis’s offer.

[TrueMetis]

But he was pretty close to doing exactly that. Jon has coveted Winterfell all his life. At the end of book 3, it’s even offered to him. Bran, Sansa, Arya, Rickon, are still alive at that time. You say Jon would have never accepted the offer? Then you and Catelyn know Jon better than I do, because I think it was a difficult decision to reject Stannis’s offer.

Except Bran Rickon and Arya were thought to be dead and Sansa was in Lannister hands. If they had been alive it would have been an easier decision.

[MountainThatRides]

The fact that Jon covets Winterfell is a reason for Catelyn's wariness, but we know it's unfounded. First of all, I don't think Jon coveted the stones of the castle, the wealth of its income, or the power of the north. Winterfell was symbolic of a deeper desire: to be a trueborn heir of Eddard Stark, and not a bastard. To want something like that is perfectly normal; we're all faced with things we covet on a daily basis, whether it's material wealth, the affection of a certain person, etc. Acting on that desire through malice or violence is something else, and something I doubt Jon would be capable of. The shame he feels after thinking about that secret longing makes that plain enough. However, Catelyn might not know that he'd be incapable, despite all the indications in his personality. She's a mother, of course, and is always going to be worrying about her children.

The best argument (and the one that defeated my previous assertions) is Lady Blackfish's, regarding future generations. It wasn't something I had really considered, probably because as a reader we know the different paths of the characters -- Jon joining the Night's Watch, among other things -- that obfuscates "what ifs" that were legitimate before the outcome of certain events. Say Jon did not join the Night's Watch, and the realm remained peaceful; Robb inherits Winterfell and Jon rules a minor holdfast in his name, maybe becomes a knight. He's very capable, and it's probable that he would have distinguished himself in some way. He might have wed a younger daughter of a lesser lord. Somewhere along the line, his descendants might have used their Stark blood to claim Winterfell, perhaps similar to how Robert used his Targaryen ancestry to help legitimize his claim to the throne.

So I must dip my banner to superior points. Catelyn's attitude towards Jon was justified, though I still believe her pride was a part of it. She has to think about her children first and foremost. Every House has one character who really embodies their words; for the Starks it was Eddard, for the Lannisters it's Jaime, and for the Tullys it's Catelyn. Family, Duty, Honor really sums up her motivations.

[Whitering]

He only knows Sansa is alive, he thinks the rest are dead. He knows Sansa is married to Tyrion, he doesn't have any current information. Even if he learns Sansa has disappeared he's likely to think she's been killed if she doesn't surface within a reasonable time.

He does think that Bran may still be alive, but he doesn't know for sure.

Either way, he is the last of the "Starks" in his mind. So, yes, it's a hard thing for him to turn down. Let his father's line end and give the north to the Karstarks or be legitimized and save his family from extinction. That's not a big deal in our North American society where the birth rate is outstripped by the death rate and without immigration the population would be decreasing. Family lines die all the time here. In the olden days continuation of family lines was a huge priority for most noble families. Not to mention the fact that as lord of the north he may be able to finally do something to avenge some of his family members.

Jon didn't crave Winterfell as much as he craved being a true member of that family. People keep questioning if Cat was undermining this feeling and yes, it's pretty clear from a memory of Jon's where him and Robb use to basically swap roleplaying the Lord of Winterfell and whoever else and all the sudden, one day, Robb pipes up and says he can't be Lord of Winterfell because he is a bastard.

Where did Robb pick that up if not from Cat? Either directly or through Sansa by way of Cat are the most likely routes.

[Nine of Spades]

The best argument (and the one that defeated my previous assertions) is Lady Blackfish's, regarding future generations. It wasn't something I had really considered, probably because as a reader we know the different paths of the characters -- Jon joining the Night's Watch, among other things -- that obfuscates "what ifs" that were legitimate before the outcome of certain events. Say Jon did not join the Night's Watch, and the realm remained peaceful; Robb inherits Winterfell and Jon rules a minor holdfast in his name, maybe becomes a knight. He's very capable, and it's probable that he would have distinguished himself in some way. He might have wed a younger daughter of a lesser lord. Somewhere along the line, his descendants might have used their Stark blood to claim Winterfell, perhaps similar to how Robert used his Targaryen ancestry to help legitimize his claim to the throne.

This is a wild set of what ifs. I mean, what if Jon's minor holdfast plays a crucial role in putting down a Bolton led rebellion? Without that maybe the Stark line is extinguished. Or maybe Jon's minor holdfast plays a role in a war between Arya's grandchildren and Sansa's grandchildren? Maybe without jon's minor holdfast arya's daughters daughter has to marry a spice merchant because their are no noble houses to marry into? Should Robb kill all his siblings, because they have Stark blood too, and maybe their grandchildren will try and usurp his grandchildren? They would have a far better claim then any bastard.

Anyone who thinks the hypothetical station of people who arent even an egg in their mothers ovaries (because their mother is still an egg in their grandmothers ovaries) is more important then treating people right is probably not a terribly nice person, in the modern world or in Westeros.

[nevermore]

Jon himself admits he always wanted Winterfell, and if the enterprise was pitched in such a way that said the honor and security of the north depended on it? It's certainly a reasonable fear. That said, I think Catelyn's fears are not limited to Jon himself, but trouble that could befall future generations.

Okay, but she was only cruel on that one occasion. There's a quote from Martin a few pages back that explains how she usually behaved, and it says that her behavior at Bran's bedside was "obviously" singular.

Again, only in the case of releasing Jaime was she going against anyone's wishes. She acted on her reasons in the other situations because it was her decision to make. To use those as support for the notion that Catelyn would contradict Ned's wishes is bizarre.

I'm guessing Ned wouldn't trust Baelor the Blessed himself with the secret. Catelyn's character has nothing to do with it.

For the record, I think Catelyn would turn Jon over to Robert if Robert already knew who Jon really was (supposing R+L=J) and was coming for him. But without that, I don't think she would cause further danger to Jon.

and herein lies the problem, using Jon's honour as a contingency, she should have known he would never try to take Winterfell. She outright doesn't trust him which means she will never know him. That's the cruel part, i don't want to be judged before the person judging doesn't even know me. This affects her attitude to Jon throughout the series, so why is empathetic character Catelyn doing this? because she is stupid and blind. Also her behaviour wasn't singular, she never outright insulted Jon to his face before that, but i wonder who was the one outcasting Jon from the rest of Starks, i think we both know.

[mormont]

He wasn't a Blackfyre pretender; that analogy fails. A royal bastard is something entirely different -- a pawn for others to use to gain control of the throne.

And a Stark bastard is, or could be, a pawn for others to use to gain control of Winterfell - just as both fake-Arya and real-Sansa are, and Rickon would be if he were captured, and Jon himself is to Stannis. There is no shortage of people willing and able to use Jon as a pawn to control WF. And his suitability as such is greatly enhanced by the fact that he was raised along with his legitimate siblings, by the way. It shows that he had his father's favour, thus strengthening his claim.

I guess it's possible that someone might seek to disinherit Robb and place Jon on the high seat of the Starks, but that seems highly dubious. First of all, before everything goes awry, Eddard is healthy and hale with three trueborn male heirs and his bannermen are loyal to him. Even the conniving ones. Eddard Stark was not a big softy, and his lords did not mock him in their cups. They feared him, Roose Bolton included. He was renown for his courage, his justice, and his canny ability to win battles, demonstrated in both Robert's and Balon Greyjoy's rebellions.

All of these things could be said of Rickard Stark: healthy, three trueborn sons, respected by his vassals, all that. Yet, as I said above, he died, his heir died, his daughter disappeared and then died, his second son nearly died trying to rescue her. As for Ned, he died, his heir died, his other children disappeared. The bit about there 'always being a Stark in Winterfell' looks rather like an insurance policy rather than a superstition. It's happened to other noble families too, during the Rebellion, during the War of Five Kings, even during Greyjoy's Rebellion.

Yes, these events were unlikely. But is the suggestion here that Cat ought to have been complacent? To have reassured herself with the belief that nothing bad would ever happen to her children?

But is she trust worthy? I would say that given how she acts, the answer is no. More then a few times during the books she jumps to conclusions and acts decisively without consulting anyone else. Leaving Winterfell, kidnapping Tyrion, releasing Jaime on a promise... given that Ned presumably knows her pretty well, in light of that I would be reluctant to confide a secret in her because I could not trust her to respect my wishes regarding that secret.

Before leaving Winterfell, Cat consulted at length with Maester Luwin and Robb (and possibly Ser Rodrik, though I may be misremembering). And she left WF in order to consult with Ned before taking any action over the assassination attempt.

As for taking Tyrion captive, she had no opportunity to 'consult' with anyone: it's a split second decision in what she reasonably believes to be a matter of life and death. Which leaves Jaime, a situation on which she was unable to confide in anyone and so, again, unable to consult.

Cat is actually pretty good at consulting with people, though she is more often the one asked for counsel.

[Happy Ent]

Anyone who thinks the hypothetical station of people who arent even an egg in their mothers ovaries (because their mother is still an egg in their grandmothers ovaries) is more important then treating people right is probably not a terribly nice person, in the modern world or in Westeros.

But she does treat Jon right: she is cold and distant to him, without being hostile. Nothing else is required. She isn’t supposed to “mother” Jon any more than she is supposed to mother Theon, or Beth Cassel. Nobody expects her to do that. Certainly not Jon.

For that matter, I don’t even think she’s supposed to “mother” her own children. That’s not how noble families work. Even the aristocracy in our world wouldn’t have “mothered” their own children just a generation ago or two. There is a large group of wetnurses, septas, cooks, and various other servants such as Old Nan to provide all the services a 1950s mother in North-Western Europe or the US provides the first few years. Then, at age 7 or so, the young child (if a boy) goes to boarding school / is farmed out as a page to another knight. Childhood over.

[evanesco75]

It really isn't about being nice. It's about being invested in the future of her family, their name, their rights, their place in Westeros. I'd say she is far sighted and smart. Family name is everything in that world because it denotes rights, power, privilege. If Catelyn wants to safeguard the rights of her children and their heirs, she's being a good mother if you ask me.

Several people have commented on how Jon would never usurp the trueborn Starks' rights. Apart from the fact that, as some posters have pointed out, Jon did wrestle with the decision re Winterfell when it was offered to him by Stannis, I think the very nature of the relationship between him and Cat makes this point moot. Do we know whether Cat even knew him well enough as an individual? Enough to know how honourable he was, for example? Isn't it far more likely and realistic to assume she didn't attribute overly noble intentions to this bastard of Ned's? Considering the difficult, strained aspect of their relationship, I think it's very plausible and more than that, very human.

I also find it rather far fetched to castigate Cat for her attitude toward Jon. Why should be affectionate with him anyway? I think it's asking far too much (besides being quite naive, really). And for the record, I am thoroughly against this whole exercise of consigning modern moral standards to what is clearly a medieval type society. Detracts from the fun of reading this fantastic series, if you ask me.

[Valmy]

And for the record, I am thoroughly against this whole exercise of consigning modern moral standards to what is clearly a medieval type society. Detracts from the fun of reading this fantastic series, if you ask me.

Couldn't agree more. If I wanted to read a story about the present day I would go buy a book about modern people.

[nevermore]

It really isn't about being nice. It's about being invested in the future of her family, their name, their rights, their place in Westeros. I'd say she is far sighted and smart. Family name is everything in that world because it denotes rights, power, privilege. If Catelyn wants to safeguard the rights of her children and their heirs, she's being a good mother if you ask me.

Several people have commented on how Jon would never usurp the trueborn Starks' rights. Apart from the fact that, as some posters have pointed out, Jon did wrestle with the decision re Winterfell when it was offered to him by Stannis, I think the very nature of the relationship between him and Cat makes this point moot. Do we know whether Cat even knew him well enough as an individual? Enough to know how honourable he was, for example? Isn't it far more likely and realistic to assume she didn't attribute overly noble intentions to this bastard of Ned's? Considering the difficult, strained aspect of their relationship, I think it's very plausible and more than that, very human.

I also find it rather far fetched to castigate Cat for her attitude toward Jon. Why should be affectionate with him anyway? I think it's asking far too much (besides being quite naive, really). And for the record, I am thoroughly against this whole exercise of consigning modern moral standards to what is clearly a medieval type society. Detracts from the fun of reading this fantastic series, if you ask me.

thats what i mean, the character Catelyn Tully is is false, she is being shown as a above average person when she is basically the opposite in things. She isn't far sighted, far sightedness would require good ability to read situations and she showed none of that with Bran and Jaime. both turned into mistakes. She is a mother first and foremost, which means that under the vinear of mature and wise women, she is just selfish and irrational. She hasn't made a single decision throughout the book while seeing the bigger picture. Saving Brienne was the most effective thing she has done. Everything else has been irrational; she urged Ned to go south, her enmity caused Jon to be isolated, she went south after which she got manipulated by LF, which was when i also believe Ned was forced to trust LF more because of her trust in LF, she put Tyrion in chains which caused Jaime to kill Ned's men which riled up everyone and was about the time Tywin started to make his move. everything that lead to Ned's death could have been averted if she was just a bit smarter, she believed LF because he was her friend back when they were kids, she didn't question why the Lannisters would send a common catspaw armed with a distinguishable blade, nor why. And thats just the first book. I don't mean to be cruel and i understand her love for her children, but the way she is presented and the way she handles things shows that she is not even close to a player in the game of thrones. She is smart but she has lack of something that Varys and LF have.