Cat and Jon, part whatever

[Lummel]

...My own opinion, of course, and I've never been in Catelyns' shoes, but I've been in a similar situation to Jons', so might be I'm biased ;)...

Interesting that you say that. I have wondered reading previous threads on Catelyn and Jon just how many posters take against Catelyn because they have been the stepchild in a family and associate with Jon or have had an unfortunate relationship with someone who wasn't their birth parent.

[Lummel]

I think a couple of pages from the end, LS fluffed it off. And Lummel, who I dearly love for his well written posts ( :kiss: ) has not responded, or perhaps not noticed.

Which post? I'm not all seeing you know! But thank you, it is nice to be dearly loved. I send you a fraternal kiss.

Can not find it, hrm.

Andd Lummel is a boy? :wacko:

Er well last time I went to the bathroom I certainly still gave every appearance of belonging to the masculine gender and I don't think anything has changed since then.

ETA, really though is my gender relevent to how you read my posts or what you think of them?

[deleted01]

Interesting that you say that. I have wondered reading previous threads on Catelyn and Jon just how many posters take against Catelyn because they have been the stepchild in a family and associate with Jon or have had an unfortunate relationship with someone who wasn't their birth parent.

I do try to be objective, I was half-joking. It's not the same situation as Jon, but I know what it's like to be made to feel as he does, for nothing that I did. Anyway, personal crap aside, I can see both sides of it, but I just can't imagine ever making someone who is not at fault feel the way Catelyn does Jon. I know we live in a different time, as it were, to Catelyn, but I would have either directed my anger more at Ned, or softened after such a long time of seeing my children behave in a much more adult, loving way towards Jon. If her children didn't care, and nobody else seemed to care, why did she continue to do so? As you, or someone else, pointed out, nobody else really made Jons' bastardy that prevalent in his mind, except Catelyn. I know she was probably the most wronged, but it was by Ned, not Jon, and so I think it's probably fair to say that they're both victims of the situation. I do still believe, however, that Catelyn made the wrong choices in how she acted towards Jon, and that's where my problem lies with her. She had the ability to decide how she was going to go about the situation, and her decision, in my mind, was wrong.

[The King in the South]

Meh.

This whole thread/s seems kind of silly at this point. People are just re-wording old arguements and not really contributing anything new. Let's face it, Lyanna Stark is not going to convince Fire&Blood that her (?) opinion ia right one and vice versa. It's obvioust that some people feel Catelyn didn't do what she was supposed to in regards to Jon's upbringing well others feel she did. (And then there are those distinct few that believe Catleyn is evil/deserves to die for this; grow up.) There are decent arguements for both sides, just leave it at that.

I think the real problem here is why is Catelyn even the topic of discussion. It's pretty obvious the real problem is this whole relationship is Ned. He gives Jon high expectations and doesn't attempt to curtail them, stonewalls the kid on his ancestry (and thus makes him look to Cat for help there), stonewalls Cat on something that literally would break up 99% of marriages, etc, etc and then expects everything to turn out cheery years later. I understand his reservation if Jon is indeed Lyanna's child, but seriously Ned?...

Anyways, thats why I personally have a big problem with a lot of the Catelyn hate.

[Lummel]

...I did a post, do you remember, my first one in the thread, where I drew attention to you and Lummel and said I see you guys all the time telling us we need to read the books with our own RL-time eyes and sensibilities? And so where does all this "but that is not the way it is in Westeros, is it" stuff come from. I'm not saying Cat needs to love Jon or treat him as a son, but she could be courteous. And for heaven's sake, she doesn't ever use his name, ever? Except to be nasty when he's leaving for the wall? Man, Roose and the knife, in her own way. She should take lessons from Sansa, Sansa was taught well...

I suppose my concern is that the implicit comparison is to imagine that Catelyn should be like the ideal bourgeois modern mother (apple pie fresh from the oven in her hands) whereas she should be seen as cross between Queen Elizabeth II (Gawd save her) and Wendy Murdoch. These are the kind of circles were teh children are farmed out at the earliest age possible and more affection is lavished on the dos and horses than on the children in any case.

When looking at bad behaviour in Westeros we can generally point to people in similar circumstances who don't behave badly or who show a better standard of behaviour. This is not the case with Catelyn. Having the bastard in the house during the early years seems to be a unique case. But equally for a modern person having an illegitimate child brought up in the household of a married couple has got to be pretty unusal (the couple of occasions when I have seen the interactions between illegetimate children and the wife of their aristocratic father I would describe as uncomfortably awkward) and I don't think that people's experiences of growing up in reconstructed families is universally happy either - so why the emphasis on Catelyn as having to represent an ideal or being open to criticism for failing to achieve that ideal? That leads me to wonder if the challenge isn't to our set conceptions about thinking about the family and in particular the idealisation of the Mother's role.

The situation is absolutely constructed to be a tragedy and nobody comes out of it well neither Catelyn nor The Ned. Again it is interesting that Catelyn gets the most criticism of the three in the relationship when The Ned is clearly has the most poweful influence and forces these circumstances on the three of them.

Perhaps unfairly, I tend to see criticism of Catelyn as criticism of her for not achieving an inherently unfair modern ideal that she should be universally loving and maternal simply because she is a mother. My problem is not that the ideal is modern but that it seems unfair and unreasonable in any case.

Sansa was taught well in terms of how to talk to people, but courtesy can be passive aggressive too...maybe Catelyn's silence was the best option?

[Lyanna Stark]

How so? :) I mean, he's family, Ned believes he has a duty towards him, and when did it become honourable to resent innocent children because you're angry/jealous/bitter over what their father did? Jon should not be a reminder of what her husband did.

Indeed. Jon is family. Ned's family. A Stark, and a threat to Cat's family (i.e. her own children). He is also a stain on Cat's honour and an ever existing token of how Ned failed his duty in the marriage by straying.

Jon should be an example to Cat of someone else who like her did not ask to live with the tense, uncomfortable situation. But instead of working to alleviate it, as an adult, she perpetuates it. My entire problem with this staunch defence of Cat's actions is that it misses the larger theme that Martin seems to be developing in the series, which is that it's wrong to judge others over ridiculous things like birthright and legitimacy. Yes, god forbid the laws of inheritance be tampered with, but ultimately what's shown is that instead of worrying about trueborn sons and the like, it's a lot more advisable to concern oneself with the values, morals and principles that a child is growing up with. And forgive me if I don't give a fig about the Tully words when they represent a man who used both his daughters as pawns, and forced one to abort her baby. If Jon's existence defiled those words then it must prove they weren't worth much in the first place.

Good point, and I'll try and answer it without rambling, which will be hard. I see what you mean, but I view it slightly differently.

Theme of morality vs tradition:

I see it more as a rigidity and tradition vs a certain moral fluidity. Hoster Tully and Tywin Lannister are examples of the old school thoughts of using a mallet to swat a fly (slight hyperbole, but the Reynes and Lysa's abortion are examples), while we see more "modern" characters like Littlefinger and Tyrion try more controversial things, and hopefully also characters like Sansa and Dany who use compassion and sympathy as their moral compass. They all do so within the context of their culture though, so it's not like we're going to see any suffragettes or marxist pop up. While there may be a higher percentage of "controversial" solutions among the younger characters, they are also forced to think outside the box for very real reasons of survival or as the only means of advancing. Development driven by a Darwinistic reality, if you will. In this context, it's pays off not to be rigid and to not always stick to tradition, but it's also in some ways a riskier behavour (case in point: Walder Frey's breech of the guest right. He tried something new and revolutionary but went right over the top).

Apart from the rambling here at the end, my point is: at a certain point of deconstructing a medieval soceity, you make it modern. Democracy, women's rights, a place where birthrights and tradition mean less than moral fortitude, cleverness and skill - a traditional feodal society vs a more modern meritocracy. So far, Westeros is nowhere near becoming modern, nor do I think it is likely to be.

Another way of looking at deconstructing the traditional family and lineage structure is that when you do not have true cohesion and trust as a family unit, you get the Lannisters, who are basically powerful and successful on the face of it, but they are dysfunctional and have no loyalty to eachother as a family, and that is pictured as Wrong. Then we have the Starks, who stick together and value eachother far more, and that's seen as Right, although also traditional and a perhaps a bit provincial.

Now enter Cat, who was most likely subjected to some drilling about dutifulness (judging by her house and the way she reacted to Brandon's death and being married to Ned). She's most likely far closer to the Stark mentality described above than the Lannister one by a long margin, yet with Jon, the safe family unit crackles and breaks. This is also why I firmly belive Cat hates what Jon stands for and not his person (whom she has taken great pains to distance herself from so as to not have any relationship, good or bad with). It's clear that the author does intend strong family ties to be something positive and to come together as a family group is also positive, yet from Cat's POV, Jon is a threat to that. Of course, we as omniscent readers know that she's wrong, but she can't know that, nor can she divine the future, so to her, Jon is and continues to be, a threat. Which does not stop her from feeling guilty about being horrible to him either so despite all her distancing and coldness, some part of her recognises that despite what he is, Jon is also a human being, and not someone worthy of what she told him at Bran's sickbed.

Birthrights, lineages etc in particular

I'd say that things like birthrights, claims etc. are still extremely important. Family lineages are still extremely important. Dany's whole storyline is built around her lineage, and the same can be said about Jon. The name of the entire story is based on lineages and family. Of course, we still have at least two novels to go, so perhaps family, birthright and lineages will be completely deconstructed at that point, but that means Dany or Jon can't end up on the "winning" side and definitely not as King/Queen. As of this point, these things are still a firm part of the structure of the novels and are still somewhat of their backbone. Maybe they will be completely deconstructed by the end, but I have a hard time seeing that it will be the way the story has been structured so far.

The English as opposed to the americans have had female queens and leaders for hundreds of years, You had Elizabeth and Mary who were queens, I know Marys Mom was spanish, I'm not sure if Isabella was her Mother, who had been a prominent Queen 30 or 40 years earlier. Joan of Arc was running around a few years before that but you can find many instances of women acting outside of their place in a mideval history. I think there might have been a Pope who was secretly female.

I am not American. :) While I am certainly not an expert on the English monarchy and its history, I do know of Elizabeth I, Victoria, Mary etc. I'm also familiar with Eleanor of Aquitaine and Joan of Arc. As it happens, I have some examples from my own homecountry as well in Saint Bridget and Queen Christina.

It's certainly not unheard of with powerful women within a medieval time fram, absolutely not. In this case, I was considering the modern ideas more than female power as such.

[Jayce]

Hi Lyanna,

I'd just like to quote both of us:

I think it is reasonable (albeit not nice, soft or altruistic, as I have pointed out again and again) and that she has a valid reason for feeling as she does. I also don't believe she hated or loathed Jon, but that she was cold and distant. I think her lashing out at him was very wrong, but I don't fault her for her general treatment of him outside that episode, given the society and context she was in and the way she was brought up.

In the main we have all agreed, in the main Cat did not treat Jon that badly but could of treated him better, in the main this is because she was put in a bad position and hurt (emotionally) by her husband. The point I have been trying to make from the beginning is that blaming Jon, a child, for something that Ned, his father and her husband, chose is not Jons fault and therefore treating him badly (by any degree) because of it is just plain unreasonable.

Would you agree that we basically agree except that you think it is reasonable whereas I think it is unreasonable?.

Theme of morality vs tradition:

....stuff...

And after reading this as well as all of the posts in this new thread I am starting to think that the reason you think this is reasonable is within the context of the Westeros world and position Cat holds, whereas I think it is unreasonable because I am applying my own modern morality to this situation.

Would you agree?

[Lyanna Stark]

And after reading this as well as all of the posts in this new thread I am starting to think that the reason you think this is reasonable is within the context of the Westeros world and position Cat holds, whereas I think it is unreasonable because I am applying my own modern morality to this situation.

Would you agree?

100% :)

[mormont]

First of all, a general mod note on etiquette: it's a good idea (and I see some people are doing this) to take things you read on these threads that you feel are directed towards you in the best possible light, rather than the worst. If you think you're being criticised, take it as a gentle criticism rather than a harsh one, and so on. It may have been meant either way, but if you start taking it in the worst possible light, then other people do too, and the atmosphere gets a bit tense.

Now:

Cat ignored Jon for the most part, begrudged him for besting Robb, for looking like Ned, for eating too much some time, and other useless quibbles. That must have impacted on Jon's self-esteem and we see it in GOT how terrified he was of being in the same room than Cat.

Well, no, we don't. We see that he is apprehensive about being in the same room at a particularly sensitive time, when he knows she is under a tremendous amount of stress and is therefore unsure of how she'll react.

Like the 'child's game' example, I feel that the bolded statement takes the text much further than it actually goes (and much further than can reasonably be supported). We can certainly conclude that Cat and Jon's relationship was difficult enough that he felt nervous about going to see the newly-crippled Bran when a grief-stricken and distraught Cat was the only other person there. But 'terrified' is clearly an exaggeration, and in any case this one incident doesn't tell us how Jon normally felt about being in the same room as Cat (or vice versa). We can probably conclude that they probably didn't take afternoon tea together than often, but we can't reasonably conclude that Jon would usually be 'terrified' at the prospect of being left alone with Cat. And this distinction is important, because if we did assume the latter was true, we'd be able to use that as a justification for all sorts of other assumptions about Cat's behaviour to Jon.

Jon was motherless (and without a mother figure) and seeing a mother dote on his children who are your half-brothers and ignoring you royally must have pinched his heart even though he knew his station and apprehended her reasons.

I'm sure seeing his siblings receive motherly love must have been a constant reminder to Jon that he lacked that, yes: but at the same time, I don't see any evidence that Jon expected to receive motherly love from Cat, nor that he resents her for not providing it. Again, I look mostly to the reactions of Jon and Cat once they're separated to judge how they 'really' felt about each other, mostly because they are separated fairly early on: and when Jon thinks of Cat (again, rarely) it's not really about how disappointed he is that she loved Robb and Sansa and the rest, but didn't love him. And when he thinks of his mother, he doesn't seem bitter that Cat failed to step into her shoes. In fact, Cat doesn't seem to be a big presence in his mind at all.

He appears to be suffering from dysthymia, chronic depressive disorder, what some of y'all call being emo, I believe.

Erm, I have a degree in psychology and considerable personal experience of depression, as a sufferer and in my friends and family. I can say without doubt that Jon does not display any symptoms of chronic depression.

[Jayce]

100% :)

Great, thank you. I wasn't intending to apply my more modern morality to it, but it seems I have. That we agree means I can say thank you for a lovely conversation but I am now done with this thread, see you in other threads :)

[Arya Targaryen]

I don't think Jon ever expected Cat to love her as her own children, but she should have been more accepting. How much?

Let's imagine that Ned decides to foster another Northern Lord's bastard son at Winterfell. He would become something like Theon, except he wouldn't be a hostage. He could still be Robb's best friend, squire or anything. How would Cat feel towards him? It's definitely not motherly love. She would be somewhat disgusted by the bastard status, and a bit mistrustful as well. But she wouldn't hate him, wouldn't try sepatate her children from him. Probably she would keep remindig him about his status as well, but not like he has no room in Winterfell, or no chance of leading a normal life...

Well, that's what I would expect from Cat. To accept Jon's presence, to accept that he lives there, that he has a place there and doesn't want to send him away the moment Ned leaves.

[mormont]

So... you'd expect Cat to treat her husband's bastard son the same as some stranger's bastard son? That seems a little bit unrealistic.

[Lummel]

...Theme of morality vs tradition:...

Overall with Catelyn I don't think that she is held up as a role model - she sorry that's wrong, she is a role model but not a model of good behaviour or a moral example. She is a role model in that she repesents the ideal type or she is the archetype of the Westerosi great lady. But the whole of ASOIAF is critical of the moral and social foundations of Westrosi society which we are repented shown is unfair and unjust and so we have to see Catelyn in the context of GRRM criticism. In her case she does everything right by the standards of the Great Houses, she is the archetype. She is the dutiful daughter, representative of her house, subtle northern political leader. She does everything that could be expected of her but it all goes wrong. Her efforts, energy and intelligence come to nothing and are undone by what are effectively random acts (the beheading of The Ned, the bedding of Jeyne Westerling etc).

With regard to Jon I think the key issue in the context of the book is not the maternal/filial relationship but his status. If L+R=J and in particular if we assume some form of marriage or Targaryen polygamy then Jon is a bastard and an heir to the throne. A social outcast and the centre of Westerosi society. A threat to the Stark inheritance and not a threat to the Stark inheritance. All of these opposite states are co-existing potentially at the same time like a kind of Schroedinger's Cat. It is a tragic set up, or if you have a slightly vicious sense of humour, an ironic one. HItting on Catelyn treatment of Jon kind of misses the point. If Catelyn was swapped for Lyssa Arryn or Cersei Lannister, or Elia of Dorne (I heard a civil war resulted from marital infedelity in that case) Jon's position would not have been improved. It's not personal - it comes out of the structure of that society. He would not have been treated according to his merits as an individual person in any of the Great Houses of Westeros because of what he was perceived to be - a bastard.

GRRM's moral compass characters, I think, are figures like Brienne, Davos, the Elder Brother, Septon Meribald and his Dog. All of these are marginal figures which enables them to be either critical of society through how they think about the world or implicitly they provide a criticism of society through their actions (in the case of Brienne who looks like a knight, acts like a knight but will not be accepted as one by the society that honours a man like Gregor Cleglane instead). The other factor that unites them is a sense of guilt in it's broadest sense, they are conscious of having done wrong or of the path not taken that has made all the difference (say Brienne thinking of the children that she could or should have had sitting on her father's knee). Catelyn isn't one of those characters, in that sense I don't want to whitewash her or hold her up as a moral model to us as readers because she is instead the epitome of the Westerosi Great Lady, something which is only admirable within the deeply flawed limits of that society.

[Petyr Snow]

I agree that the big problem is (was) Ned Stark. Like most of you, I'm am pretty sure Ned is hiding the fact that Jon is in fact the child of Lyanna Stark & Rhaegar Targaryen. In fact, in aGoT, Ned always assures Jon that "you are a Stark". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he never directly says "you are my son". Although, all of Westeros believes this to be true.

If Jon would really be Ned's son, I believe Ned would've told Catelyn who the real mother was. Like mentioned here before by some of you. Keeping these 'secrets' is almost unbearably for a marriage.

Anyways, Lyanna's last words were: "Promise me, Ned." I think she asked Ned to raise her son like one of his own, and to keep 'her' secret. Ned says to Jon, before their ways split: I will tell you who your mother is, when I return. When Ned would've returned, Jon would've taken the black and therefore couldn't claim his right to the throne as a son of Rhaegar (which was then the seat of his best friend - Robert Baratheon).

Another thought: if Jon really is Rhaegar's son, it might explain why Melissandre sees Jon in her flames when she askes R'hollor for Azor Ahai. Jon was sired during Robert's Rebellion. He might have been sired in a place of 'ash and salt' (cfr. the myth): Dragonstone: seat to the heir of the throne during the reign of the Targaryens.

He also has a Valyrian steel sword and had a (sexual) relationship with a girl 'kissed by fire' (Ygritte). She died indirectly because of him. (cfr. the myth of Azor Ahai). Azor Ahai defeated the Darkness (the Others).

"A Song Of Ice And Fire": ice (starks) & fire (targaryens): Jon is not dead and will save the day in the last book of the series... (totally off topic I suppose).

[another bastard]

Things I really don't get: Catelyn-hate, Sansa-hate and Dany-hate (though I get Dany-irritation). I could write it all off to sexism, I suppose, except for the Jon-hate that also pops up (coming mostly from different people, it seems). I mean, these are all basically decent people in a pretty indecent society, who are all very consciously trying to do their best. They all have flaws, of course, which basically just means they're human.

I can understand, say, Cersei-hate and Jaime-hate (is there Jaime-hate?) and Theon-hate, because they've all done lots of pretty despicable things. And I can understand Tyrion-hate (even if I don't share it to the same degree as some), because he's done a few pretty despicable things, too. But hating on Cat for being cold and mean to Jon, after everything that's happened since then in the books? I don't get it. Or for making some mistakes that supposedly lost the war for the Starks (which I don't agree with)? I don't get it. I know this is another topic, but a lot of people made mistakes that led to the loss of the North, the sack of Winterfell, the Red Wedding, etc. But why do some people want to make Cat the scapegoat, when without her Robb never would have made it past The Twins, and if he'd listened to her a bit more often some of the worst might have been avoided? And then still hold a grudge for how she treated Jon, when Jon himself probably no longer holds one? With everything else that's going on in Westeros right now, why are people so invested in this?

In my own personal opinion, it's pretty straightforward: Cat was a total ass toward Jon when he was growing up, it almost certainly harmed Jon emotionally to some extent or another, but it's understandable why she acted like that given the context, but it's still a personality flaw of Cat's, but having a personality flaw just means that Cat is a human being, and overall she's still a better one than most people in her society. I've never met a person without flaws, and fictional characters without flaws tend not to be believable.

At the same time, I also don't get people going to the other extreme and rationalizing Cat's treatment of Jon because they don't like Jon or Cat's a woman or it's all Ned's fault or it's supposedly "rational" for Cat to be an ass because Jon's a threat to her own genetic progeny or Jon's existence is a horrible stain on her honor or whatever. Look, she was an ass. Cold and mean. Heartless. Occasionally cruel. To a child. It wasn't her finest hour. Sometimes good people do bad things for various reasons. It can be interesting to explicate those reasons (and actually is in this case), but I don't get the emotion that goes into condemning or trying to vindicate Cat on this point.

Anyway, I don't think either Cat or Ned is really the one to blame for the whole mess. Ned probably had good reasons for literally not telling a soul what he really knew (if you really want to keep a secret, keep it a secret); he could have used a bit more emotional intelligence handling the issue with Cat, but then he wouldn't have been Ned. If anyone's to blame, I'd say it's really Rhaegar and/or Lyanna (depending on what really happened between them, and assuming that most of us are right about Jon's real parents). But neither of them could have foreseen any of this either. So I guess I'd personally put the real blame on the whole patriarchal/feudal social system that made Cat feel like Jon was a threat to begin with. As long as there are "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children, and this distinction has real consequences, there will be situations like this one, which even the best people will get ensnared in. So, down with patriarchy and feudalism. And the whole concept of "legitimacy," and so forth.

It'll take a long time getting there, but somebody really needs to ass-kick Westeros in the direction of modernity.

[A wilding]

The Starks are her family. Jon is a Snow. Her honor and duty should accept Jon as a stepson. But the honor and duty of Rickon, Bran, Arya, Sansa and Robb is what conncerns Cat. Jon is a probable direct confrontation to Cat's family's happiness.

By the standards of honor and duty in Westeros this is simply not so, she has zero obligation to treat her husband's bastards as if they were her own legitimate children. By the standards of Westeros Ned is way out of line both in not keeping Jon out of his way and in treating him as almost legitimate.

[Fragile Bird]

By the standards of honor and duty in Westeros this is simply not so, she has zero obligation to treat her husband's bastards as if they were her own legitimate children. By the standards of Westeros Ned is way out of line both in not keeping Jon out of his way and in treating him as almost legitimate.

I'd have to disagree. By Cersei's standards he's way out of line, but not even by Lannister standards. Gerion's bastard Joy is obviously being raised by Lannisters - she's a Lannister, so Lannisters will look after her. Jaime comments that he likes her, though she's a lonely child, and hates marrying her off to a Westerling since they were betrayers of their king, even if the king was Robb. And look at Targ bastards - the Blackfyre rebellion et al. And even if the Freys have been sneered at by many in this thread, Walder looks after his own. And, as Jaime has pointed out to Loras, many bastards rose to be commander of the Kingsguard. They didn't get into a position to do that because they were hidden away like dark secrets somewhere.

And @ another bastard:

The original title and question of this thread is did Cat treat Jon like a dog, which is why the debate. You can take the side that Cat could do anything she damn well pleased because of Westerosi standards, or you can take the position she could have treated him decently. I'm on the treat him decently side.

[Lummel]

But Jon is looked after by the Starks, we don't know if Joy Hill has been brought up at Casterly Rock and with the legitimate Lannisters, and in his Father's castle just like the Frey bastards. Jon is a long way from being kept hidden away as a dark little secret.

[another bastard]

And @ another bastard:

The original title and question of this thread is did Cat treat Jon like a dog, which is why the debate. You can take the side that Cat could do anything she damn well pleased because of Westerosi standards, or you can take the position she could have treated him decently. I'm on the treat him decently side.

Yeah, I'm on the same side. She should have. To hell with Westrosi standards. That was sort of my own point, to the extent that I had one. But I can understand why she acted badly, given that she was thoroughly socialized in these standards and they continued to be upheld by just about everyone else every day of her life.

But even the original title, now that you mention it, reflects a degree of emotion that just seems sort of weirdly disproportionate to me. Like a dog? When I read the books, it never even occurred to me to hate (or seriously dislike, etc.) Cat. And I actually like and sympathize with Jon a lot (probably about half of my posts so far are defending Jon from people hating on him). Or Sansa. Or Jon himself, for that matter (though I now I think I get why a lot of people dislike him, no matter how wrong they are). But I come here and see that they seem to generate a lot of antipathy - more than whatever specific charges people can bring against them seems to support - and I'm trying to understand why.

[bloodymime]

I agree that the big problem is (was) Ned Stark. Like most of you, I'm am pretty sure Ned is hiding the fact that Jon is in fact the child of Lyanna Stark & Rhaegar Targaryen. In fact, in aGoT, Ned always assures Jon that "you are a Stark". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he never directly says "you are my son". Although, all of Westeros believes this to be true.

If Jon would really be Ned's son, I believe Ned would've told Catelyn who the real mother was. Like mentioned here before by some of you. Keeping these 'secrets' is almost unbearably for a marriage.

Anyways, Lyanna's last words were: "Promise me, Ned." I think she asked Ned to raise her son like one of his own, and to keep 'her' secret. Ned says to Jon, before their ways split: I will tell you who your mother is, when I return. When Ned would've returned, Jon would've taken the black and therefore couldn't claim his right to the throne as a son of Rhaegar (which was then the seat of his best friend - Robert Baratheon).

Another thought: if Jon really is Rhaegar's son, it might explain why Melissandre sees Jon in her flames when she askes R'hollor for Azor Ahai. Jon was sired during Robert's Rebellion. He might have been sired in a place of 'ash and salt' (cfr. the myth): Dragonstone: seat to the heir of the throne during the reign of the Targaryens.

He also has a Valyrian steel sword and had a (sexual) relationship with a girl 'kissed by fire' (Ygritte). She died indirectly because of him. (cfr. the myth of Azor Ahai). Azor Ahai defeated the Darkness (the Others).

"A Song Of Ice And Fire": ice (starks) & fire (targaryens): Jon is not dead and will save the day in the last book of the series... (totally off topic I suppose).

Not to nitpick but that scene of Ned telling Jon that happens in the show not the books. In fact despite Ned telling Cat and Luwin he'll tell Jon himself about going to the Wall the only interaction between Ned and his sons we see in the books is when they find the wolf pups.