Why does everyone hate Catelyn Stark?

[Alexia]

Well-known liar? Exactly "who" knew Littlefinger was a liar? King Robert, Eddard Stark, Jon Arryn, Lysa,... All those trusted Littlefinger, and it's OK. But suddenly Cat does and she's dumb.

You forgot to mention Kevan Lannister, Jaime Lannister, Tywin Lannister... :rolleyes:

[The Khal]

Why does everyone hate Cat?

What can I say that hasn't already been said?

I can get over her outright idiotic cruelty to Jon, but leaving her boys, ages 8 and 4 alone in Winterfell while she goes to play detective in KL is just colossally stupid. As if this wasn't stupid enough, she decides to arrest Tyrion known to be cunning, for giving some two-bit "assassin" his personal dagger to kill Bran. Even Hodor could probably have figured out this probably wasn't how it went down. The icing on the cake though is releasing Jaime - even though we knew from his POV he intended to honor his oath, Cat would have had NO reason to believe he would. She could have brokered any number of deals with Jaime, and with Jaime still safely in the dungeon, I believe the Red Wedding wouldn't have occurred, as Tywin wouldn't have risked the blackfish executing Jaime.

She killed her kid

[Mizzer]

I do not like her because of Bran and Rickon. i mean what kind of mother will leave her nearly 8 year old and his very young brother to go to KL to find some stupid proof. how could she even say to Bran the cripple boy " there should always be a Stark at WF".

I don't get why she had to leave winterfell either why not just send Ser Rodrik

I don't hate Cat, but I have to agree with this. At the very least, she should have returned to Winterfell after she brokered the deal with the Freys and got Robb to Riverrun. At that point, Robb had a Tully advisor she could trust implicitly in the Blackfish. Cat should have kissed Hoster goodbye (she had already done everything she could do for him) and gone back to her very small children who needed her.

[PogosMom]

I liked Catelyn Stark. She was a woman of her times, trying to be the best she could be, and doing what she saw as her duty and responsibilities.

Encouraged the husband move up and be successful, guided the kids as much as she could, provided for their health and education, was as faithful to her family as she could be. What kind of mother wolf would let one of her kids be attacked? If anyone is to blame, it could have been Bran who went climbing after he promised his mother he wouldn't.

Her boys were in very good hands when she went off for that exhausting trip to KL. She needed to check in with her husband and her other child, Sansa, who she knew was very young. She stepped up to be at the battlefields with her son, and did her best to negotiate with the Freys for the crossing when no one else could make a plan.

If the times weren't so brutal and her losses of family members hadn't been so sharp, she would have had a great life. But it all was a tragedy.

Actually, I believe that, given the times, the morality of the other contenders for the throne, and viciousness of 'the game' that at least two or more of her children would have been lost or damaged one way or another. She was not the cause of all the instability in the realm -- it was a dangerous and unhappy place to be, as the stories of all the other players indicate. Nobody is having much of a good time, except Mance Rayder.

[The Red Keep]

I for one like her because she's a symphatic character even if no superwoman by any chance. She's got alot of flaws but I also see that she's got alot of virtues like dutiful, loyal, hardworkinig, loving (with the exception of Jon but she would be right to treat him alot worse than she did, in my mind). Therefor I for one don't hate Catelyn and I know there are a few on the forum who share my sentiments.

While I totally respect your right to your own opinion, why would the harsh treatment of an infant (when Jon arrived at Winterfell) be justified? For sure, Catelynn could have treated Jon a lot worse, be it physically or emotionally, but still, she treated him fairly badly. Its not like he arrived as a five-year old or a ten-year old - Winterfell is the only home he's ever known. Why should the son be held responsible for the sins of the father? Its for this reason (primarily) that I do not like Catelynn Stark. Why treat a young boy so harshly when it is your husband that is responsible for the transgression?

[Skadhi]

I like her.. she is a mother who has made rash decisions that she thought were the right things to do at the time. I thought arresting Tyrion was a courageous display of cool headed assertiveness and hutzpah. At the time I cheered for her (despite knowing Tyrion was innocent). Letting Jaime go, under care of Brienne... well, not quite so much.

It's easy to sit and judge, but honestly, what would you do if a Kingslayer pushed your nine year old son out of a window? Hell hath no fury like a vengeful mother cub. As a new parent, I can relate!

She had two sons at Winterfell while she pranced around the riverlands hindering a son who is grown and THE KING. He didn't need her there, and her presence made it harder for him to rule. I won't go so far as to say it emasculated him, but she should have butted out.

As a mother, her place was at Winterfell with Bran and Rickon. Look at what was happening to Rickon. He needed her, and she wasn't there. He was only a baby and didn't understand what was happening.

There was nothing she could have done about Jaime. And the castle was going to hell because she couldn't set aside her grief and take care of her other children and do her duty as lady of the castle. The world doesn't stop just because one of your children is hurt. When you have other kids, you have to cope with it all as best you can. You grieve, but you have to think of your other kids as well. She's selfish and foolish.

And yes, I'm a parent, too.

As for Jon, I think we saw a glimpse of Lady Stoneheart there. How anyone could treat a child that way, whether it's your husband's bastard or not, is beyond me. Yes, I know, it's the Middle Ages and that's the way it was, but not every woman was like that. In England, one of the Eleanors (I forget which) raised all of her husband's illegitimate children and did it gladly. Cat never even took the chance to get to know him. She just always saw him as a greedy schemer who was after Winterfell, and no amount of talking to her by Ned did any good.

[Mizzer]

She had two sons at Winterfell while she pranced around the riverlands hindering a son who is grown and THE KING. He didn't need her there, and her presence made it harder for him to rule. I won't go so far as to say it emasculated him, but she should have butted out.

As a mother, her place was at Winterfell with Bran and Rickon. Look at what was happening to Rickon. He needed her, and she wasn't there. He was only a baby and didn't understand what was happening.

There was nothing she could have done about Jaime. And the castle was going to hell because she couldn't set aside her grief and take care of her other children and do her duty as lady of the castle. The world doesn't stop just because one of your children is hurt. When you have other kids, you have to cope with it all as best you can. You grieve, but you have to think of your other kids as well. She's selfish and foolish.

And yes, I'm a parent, too.

As for Jon, I think we saw a glimpse of Lady Stoneheart there. How anyone could treat a child that way, whether it's your husband's bastard or not, is beyond me. Yes, I know, it's the Middle Ages and that's the way it was, but not every woman was like that. In England, one of the Eleanors (I forget which) raised all of her husband's illegitimate children and did it gladly. Cat never even took the chance to get to know him. She just always saw him as a greedy schemer who was after Winterfell, and no amount of talking to her by Ned did any good.

This. In medieval times it was fairly common for a queen to raise their husbands illegitimate children as long as they claimed them as theirs. Even scary badass queens like Eleanor of Aquitaine.

[twist of cake]

My issues with Cat came from her poor choices. But I started warm up to her.... during Storm =(

[Francis Buck]

Honestly, I just found here chapters really boring. The only parts that were good were when she was with other more interesting characters (Renly and Stannis, Jamie, Brienne, hell even Robb, though I also found him to be a bit on the boring side).

[Stinky Steward]

She had two sons at Winterfell while she pranced around the riverlands hindering a son who is grown and THE KING. He didn't need her there, and her presence made it harder for him to rule. I won't go so far as to say it emasculated him, but she should have butted out.

As a mother, her place was at Winterfell with Bran and Rickon. Look at what was happening to Rickon. He needed her, and she wasn't there. He was only a baby and didn't understand what was happening.

Wow... I agree Cat wasn't perfect, her impulsive actions (telling off Jon, capturing Tyrion, releasing Jaime) were terrible, but I don't think what you're saying is fair (to the extent one can be "fair" to a fictional character).

1. Cat's presence at Robb's side was invaluable. She had information about personalities and loyalties of dozens of lords Robb had never met but had to manage in battle. She was the only available source of such info for him without any hidden agenda, and her advice was generally very sound. If Robb had listened to her and kept Theon close, he'd have spared himself much grief. If Edmure had listened to her advice and not given fight to Tywin... etc. etc. When she kept a level head, her instincts were usually dead on.
   
2. I agree that Robb had a lot on his hands and that having his mother around, fresh after losing his father and being crowned to command men, wasn't easy on his male identity. However he was an adult by Westerosi standards and it was his responsibility to judge when to solicit or follow his mother's advice. Blaming his confusion and discomfort on her alone, and considering it more important than the advice and emotional support she had to offer, strikes me as very one-sided.
   
3. Rickon going insane in Winterfell. You've got to make difficult choices in wartime, and I agree that taking care of the weakest in your family is usually a good bet. However, another priority is to help end the war, favorably if possible. Since Robb was the sovereign, the security of the younger boys ultimately depended on his success, and Cat's presence at his side could have made the difference between victory and defeat. In hindsight it turns out it did not, but Robb failed largely because of his mistakes and those of his bannermen. If he had failed because Catelyn hadn't been around to give him advice/ negotiate on his behalf etc. etc., her decision to remain with Bran & Rickon would have proven worse than useless.
   

Just my 5c.

[David Selig]

She had two sons at Winterfell while she pranced around the riverlands hindering a son who is grown and THE KING. He didn't need her there, and her presence made it harder for him to rule. I won't go so far as to say it emasculated him, but she should have butted out.

As a mother, her place was at Winterfell with Bran and Rickon. Look at what was happening to Rickon. He needed her, and she wasn't there. He was only a baby and didn't understand what was happening.

Robb was 15. Even by Westeros standards, that's not fully grown (majority is at 16). Apart from the battles, he screwed up everything else and made blunder after blunder. Of course he needed Catelyn.

If Robb fails in his war, Bran and Rickon and the rest of the family are doomed. So it makes sense to stay with him and try to help. bran and Rickon ahd a whole castle of people to look after them, and they have largely been raised by people like Old Nan and Luwin. Catelyn is a medieval high noble, not a modern socer mom.

[guad]

I'm amused at the crowd that simultaneously says that "ohh poor Robb couldn't possibly know that Theon would betray his whole family" but at the same time say "Cat provoqued EVERYTHING because she HAD TO BE ABLE TO PREDICT that encouriging Ned to become Hand would have him killed, that childhood friend and SMALL COUNCIL MEMBER is a lying manipulating schemer, etc.

Oh and stuff like "she killed her kids"...probably comes from people who think that Randyll Tarly is the most badass dude ever... :rolleyes:

Sorry Cat haters. Not taking you serious here. :drunk:

Regarding Cat=boring...like the Red Wedding? That was some boring chapter, I agree.....

[Frey Pies]

While I totally respect your right to your own opinion, why would the harsh treatment of an infant (when Jon arrived at Winterfell) be justified? For sure, Catelynn could have treated Jon a lot worse, be it physically or emotionally, but still, she treated him fairly badly. Its not like he arrived as a five-year old or a ten-year old - Winterfell is the only home he's ever known. Why should the son be held responsible for the sins of the father? Its for this reason (primarily) that I do not like Catelynn Stark. Why treat a young boy so harshly when it is your husband that is responsible for the transgression?

Catelyn didn't treat Jon nearly as badly as some other people. Cersei, anyone? And if you haven't noticed, in Westeros, a bastard is held responsible for what his father did, and they are supposed to be wild and black hearted liars.

[Nausicaä]

Catelyn didn't treat Jon nearly as badly as some other people. Cersei, anyone? And if you haven't noticed, in Westeros, a bastard is held responsible for what his father did, and they are supposed to be wild and black hearted liars.

Besides the one incident at Bran's bedside, she didn't treat Jon badly at all, as an infant or a child or a teenager. He grew up with her trueborn children and received exactly the same care and education as them and enjoyed the benefits of being a lord's son fully and Cat didn't do much to stop it. She tried to talk Ned into fostering Jon with one of him bannermen like he should have, but she didn't ban Jon from anything in the Winterfell, including being seated at the same high table as her. I think people who say that Cat should have treated Jon better just mean that on top of everything she should have loved him because he was a child, which in my opinion is not something that should be expected of any woman who's faced with the product of her husband's cheating.

[Boy and Girl Wadish]

There are a litany of threads of similar topics, unfortunately with the search down it's hard to find them.

Catelyn doesn't hate Jon - aside from the single time she snapped at him when Bran was recovering, what evidence is there of her hatred?

She might have hated Jon beceause he reminds her of Ned's moment of forgotten honor or something like that. Ned was supposed to be faithful and all that but when he came back a year later after Robert's rebellion, he has a bastard son in tow. For her, it was not supposed to happen like that.

[The hairy bear]

leaving her boys, ages 8 and 4 alone in Winterfell while she goes to play detective in KL is just colossally stupid.

Playing detective, or providing useful information to his husband about the viper's nest he has just entered to? I believe that what's "stupid" here is the assertion that Cat should stick to his little sons instead of going to where she feels she might be more helpful to the Stark household.

I don't get why she had to leave winterfell either why not just send Ser Rodrik

This is outright sexist. And besides, if she had send Rodrik you Cat-haters would be criticizing her for leaving Winterfell defenseless without his master at arms.

As if this wasn't stupid enough, she decides to arrest Tyrion known to be cunning, for giving some two-bit "assassin" his personal dagger to kill Bran. Even Hodor could probably have figured out this probably wasn't how it went down.

Known for his cunning? Again, known by who? Not by Catelyn, who had never met Tyrion before. Do not infer your knowledge on other characters. You could as well say that the Lannisters are known by their boldness, they fearlessness, and for leaving the remains of their deeds in open sight (Ruins of Castamere).

But that's not the point. Cat didn't sentence Tyrion. He just hold him for trial. And to paraphrase you, even Hodor would know that the owner of the dagger would be a prime suspect.

The icing on the cake though is releasing Jaime - even though we knew from his POV he intended to honor his oath, Cat would have had NO reason to believe he would. She could have brokered any number of deals with Jaime, and with Jaime still safely in the dungeon, I believe the Red Wedding wouldn't have occurred, as Tywin wouldn't have risked the blackfish executing Jaime.

She killed her kid

This is plain stupid. Roose Bolton's betrayal has anything to do with Cat? The Freys unhealthy pride is Cat's fault? Did she force Jeyne into Robb's bed?

Even your weak claim that Tywin would have refrained to allow the RW to take place with Jaime as a prisoner is discredited by the text. He is shown planning it before he gets news of Jaime's release, and both the Freys and the Boltons are shown to have abandoned Robb by the end of ACOK.

She had two sons at Winterfell while she pranced around the riverlands hindering a son who is grown and THE KING. He didn't need her there, and her presence made it harder for him to rule. I won't go so far as to say it emasculated him, but she should have butted out.

Of course he needed her. Many seem to forget that the gambit that fooled Tywin and allowed to capture Jaime and free Riverrun was only possible for Cat's negotiations with Walder Frey. Who would have done it if not for her? Robb? Bolton?

The point remains that while Robb listened to her, everything went fine. But once he stopped doing it, he sent Theon to the Iron Islands, he failed to comunicate to Edmure the meaning behind their strategy, and he shattered the alliance with the Freys to pieces.

As a mother, her place was at Winterfell with Bran and Rickon. Look at what was happening to Rickon. He needed her, and she wasn't there. He was only a baby and didn't understand what was happening.

Sexism again. Cat should be where her abilities can be put to a better use, and that was at Robb's side. It's war time, and winter is coming. Caring for a four year old can be done by any servant.

[Raventhal]

There are good reason to not like the woman.

She created a lot of chaos when she went to Kings Landing. She should have sent a messenger to let Ned know about the assassination attempt. She left her youngest sons alone. Her advice to Robb should have been when he raised the banners not out in the field.

She should have never grabbed Tyrion. Nothing good could become of it even if he was guilty. She then involved her father's family which lead to her homeland being razed and war. It also left her husband and daughters who were in a vipers pit at risk.

The Jon thing was dumb after all that time. Its not like she knew Ned like that anyways. Get over it.

Releasing Jamie Lannister made no sense. His value as a hostage was much greater. Tywin valued Jamie probable more than than anything. It undermined her son who just had killed one of his bannermen for killing a hostage.

[mormont]

There are good reason to not like the woman.

She created a lot of chaos when she went to Kings Landing.

How was this her fault? Because she met up with Tyrion on the way home? Blame the author for that. Cat could not possibly have foreseen it.

Other than that, no 'chaos' was created by her decision to go to KL personally, rather than send a messenger. (And the question of whether she should have arrested Tyrion has already been addressed.)

Releasing Jamie Lannister made no sense. His value as a hostage was much greater. Tywin valued Jamie probable more than than anything. It undermined her son who just had killed one of his bannermen for killing a hostage.

You're a little confused about the order of events there...

But anyway, for all of Jaime's supposed value as a hostage, can anyone point to any effect Jaime's captivity actually had on Tywin's tactics? How did it restrain him? How did it weaken him? What did he do, or not do, because Jaime was being held by the Starks? Tywin doesn't try to free Jaime, he doesn't try to trade for him, he doesn't restrain his prosecution of the war in any way for fear of harm coming to Jaime. So what value did continuing to hold Jaime actually have? Some symbolic value, perhaps. But little practical value, surely.

[danw132]

But anyway, for all of Jaime's supposed value as a hostage, can anyone point to any effect Jaime's captivity actually had on Tywin's tactics? How did it restrain him? How did it weaken him? What did he do, or not do, because Jaime was being held by the Starks? Tywin doesn't try to free Jaime, he doesn't try to trade for him, he doesn't restrain his prosecution of the war in any way for fear of harm coming to Jaime. So what value did continuing to hold Jaime actually have? Some symbolic value, perhaps. But little practical value, surely.

I would argue that the value of Jaime held hostage is perhaps the political aspect. With Jaime captured and considered dead because of his capture, releasing him changes the dynamic in which Tywin would view the Starks (most likely weaker), as well as their valuation of the Starks that he held and perhaps even reinforces the weak position that the Starks were in at the moment.

Personally, I think she's a terrible mother (slightly better than Cersei) who, unlike Cersei, seems to run more away from the leadership of her house rather than take control. She'd rather have her children (understandable), but I like characters who do their duty. I understand that her words are "Family, Duty, Honor", but that just reinforces my dislike for the Tullys in general.

[Raventhal]

How was this her fault? Because she met up with Tyrion on the way home? Blame the author for that. Cat could not possibly have foreseen it.

Other than that, no 'chaos' was created by her decision to go to KL personally, rather than send a messenger. (And the question of whether she should have arrested Tyrion has already been addressed.)

You're a little confused about the order of events there...

But anyway, for all of Jaime's supposed value as a hostage, can anyone point to any effect Jaime's captivity actually had on Tywin's tactics? How did it restrain him? How did it weaken him? What did he do, or not do, because Jaime was being held by the Starks? Tywin doesn't try to free Jaime, he doesn't try to trade for him, he doesn't restrain his prosecution of the war in any way for fear of harm coming to Jaime. So what value did continuing to hold Jaime actually have? Some symbolic value, perhaps. But little practical value, surely.

Granted it wasn't in Kings Landing but it was caused by going to Kings Landing and trying to take matters into her own hands.

Yes, I was confused. Karstarks killed the Lannisters afterwards. I am sure the releasing of prisoners like Jamie did not help. No Tywin had no reason to stop with the war no more than any other person at war because of a POW. Halting war is was never the point of holding Jamie. It was to protect their own people held hostage. An important hostage for an important hostage.

Releasing Jamie would have done what? He was not a high lord, not king, not in the counsel. How was he going to free Sansa exactly?