Catelyn Stark: A Denouncement

[Evamitchelle]

1. There's nothing to suggest that the main players in the Blackfrye Rebellion even liked each other. In fact, they seemed to outright hate each other.

2. Insinuating that Jon would commit cold-blooded murder is outlandish.

I don't think it's ever mentioned that Daemon and Daeron hated each other, the feud was specifically between Bittersteel and Bloodraven IIRC. Daemon was mainly pissed because he wanted to marry Daenerys, whom Daeron gave to the Martell Prince.

1. But little brothers could rise up in rebellion couldn't they?? Perhaps they could become more popular than their older brother and usurp him. It isn't all that impossible to suggest a situation where a king might have to kill a younger brother.

2. The two are drastically different.. Theon is a follower and people pleaser; Jon has a set of values shaped by the North.

3. Jon was Ned Stark's son even at the beginning of GOT; he didn't start loving his family or absorbing the values of the North just when he went to the Wall. Those were always there. Jon's story to me is more about him breaking his inflexible moral code; learning some practical political skills that Ned never did.

1. Yes, but it's far more likely that Jon, who is the same age as Robb and looks like a Stark, would have more chance at the northern lordship than a crippled boy half his age and another wild one barely out of diapers yet.

2. 3. I disagree, I still find some similarities between Theon and Jon, both partly caused by their upbringing.

People have personal values and emotional needs that are just (if not more) important than the rules of society. Cat's main shortcoming is expecting people to react the way that society demands that they react and then becoming screwed when they don't.

Okay I'm not sure what you're referring to anymore. What characters that act outside patriarchal and feudal norms does Catelyn not understand. Most of the characters in the book take advantage of those two institutions to make a profit, rather than try to subvert them. And if you're talking about Littlefinger I'd like to point out that no character alive except maybe Varys and later Sansa has any idea what kind of shit he's been stirring. None of the Lannisters, which include Tyrion, Cersei, Jaime and Kevan at least have realized the extent to which LF has played them, the Tyrells also lost Sansa to him despite the deal they supposedly made, Ned got utterly destroyed, as did Jon and Lysa Arryn. That's basically 3/4 of Westeros.

The bottom line I think with the whole gender debate falls back on the results of actions. I get this whole "shes just a mother looking out for her kids" argument, but her blundering is a major part in Rob and Ned's deaths, and for all her Desire to be a good and honorable woman, her impulsive decisions and poor judgment make UnCat arguably more rational than Cat herself, and started the war that destroyed both her and her husbands houses. Not trying to win the game of thrones is not an option when all her other interests stem directly from that one.

Robb's biggest mistakes were : 1) sending Theon back to the Iron Islands, which enabled him to take Winterfell and "kill" Bran and Rickon and precipitated a massive Ironborn attack on the North. He then became "The King who Lost the North". He did this against the expressive advice of his mother than anyone would be better than Theon as an envoy and 2) breaking his word to the Freys and marrying Jeyne Westerling, which he did against the terms his mother had secured for him, while he was in another castle a few hundred miles away. How you can blame Cat for Robb's mistakes is beyond me.

As for Ned, I think it's important to remember that he is not actually brainwashed, and can think for himself. Cat advised him to go South, but eventually he's the one who mae the decision to accept the position of Hand of the King. Cat didn't force him to leave Winterfell, in the end she was actually against the idea. Ned is also the one who decided to tell Cersei that if she didn't go into exile with her children he would tell everyone that she and her brother have committed High Treason and have passed off their own incestuous children as the King's heirs, thus bringing down upon them the wrath of notorious violent child-killing Robert Baratheon. Like Cersei is ever going to just lay down and die.

So in the end Ned died because he was honourable verging on stupid, Bran and Rickon "died" because Robb sent Theon to the Iron Islands, Sansa got married to Tyrion because Robb would not exchange her for the Kingslayer and Robb himself got killed because he chose to break his vows. I'd say it's pretty clear that Cat isn't the one who caused most of the Starks' misfortune.

[Swordsaint]

Even thinking that there exists a chance that Jon may potentially turn against his siblings is hardly a mistake without being able to read Jon's PoV like us. "But he was a great friend with them" is a weak argument. Plenty of times in history siblings who have been friends and loved each other as children turned against each other later in life. People change. Who knows if Jon hasn't grown bitter and resentful of his siblings at the Wall? And then, if he was made heirs, and Starks have stayed in power, an ambitious manipulator might Why risk it?

But for Jon fanboys apparently even suggesting that it's possible that one day he might turn against his siblings is apparently a terrible crime.

I disagree with you. Jon was raised as a Stark from his infancy despite Cat's treatment of him. Jon never did anything to show that did he didn't love his family. While there is a "possible" future threat there, it certainly isn't a threat you would address in the middle of a war. It's hard enough finding people to trust during a war without having to worry about half brothers and sisters.

My final points of view on this thread:

In the end I think both Cat and Ned made some really dumb decisions which have already been covered many times.

Rob didn't make any particularly bad choices. Sending a best friend back to his home in hopes of gaining war ships was a decision most people would have made. I highly doubt in his wildest dreams that he thought Theon would take Winterfell, at worst, Rob probably thought Theon would leave him and go back reaving. Rob breaking his marriage vow with a "random" Frey girl at the age of 16 is also hardly a crime or a shock. And it's one that many millions of men would have made, and understand.

Theon is another dumb one, so he had to choose families, that doesn't mean on his "first" navel command he should make Winterfell his goal. I would think he'd be happy reaving some villages, learning the ways of ships, and the Iron Men first hand. At least he would still have options.

I don't really hate Cat, "dislike" would be the word I'd use for her. Now her sister Lysa... I hate!!!

[Evamitchelle]

Rob didn't make any particularly bad choices. Sending a best friend back to his home in hopes of gaining war ships was a decision most people would have made. I highly doubt in his wildest dreams that he thought Theon would take Winterfell, at worst, Rob probably thought Theon would leave him and go back reaving. Rob breaking his marriage vow with a "random" Frey girl at the age of 16 is also hardly a crime or a shock. And it's one that many millions of men would have made, and understand.

Yes, if Theon had only been Robb's best friend it would have made some sense, but he's not. He's a political hostage who was taken from his family at age 10 and has been living with a possible death sentence over his head for about 9 years, while also being despised by half the Northerners for being an ironborn. It was incredibly stupid to send Theon back to his father and expect him to stick with the North all the way through. It's as if Tyrion sent Sansa back to Winterfell after 10 years of marriage and expected her to meekly bring him back an army. It's true that the whole taking Winterfell thing was unexpected, but Theon's "betrayal" was not (and lo and behold Cat predicted it).

And yes, marrying Jeyne Westerling was incredibly stupid too, even for a 16-year-old. On one hand you have an impoverished family whose lands are in enemy country, with only 50 soldiers and 12 knights, on the other one of the most powerful houses of the Riverlands, with 4,000 soldiers, a fortified castle and a bridge that brings in a lot of money. It's not rocket science to figure out which one is the better choice of the two for prospective brides. Sleeping with Jeyne wasn't a problem, marrying her was.

[Jon's Queen Consort]

Torture a kid? Sometimes I feel like I've been reading a different series than some of you...

"you make a kid to leave his house and go somewhere where he will most definitely be killed." - I assume you are talking about Jon? Then this is ridiculous. it's absurd to say that Night's watch members "most definitely get killed", especially before the threat of the others became known. Traditionally not many of them are killed.

You don't like torture right?Ok! How about emotional abuse?

At the start of GoT we see that Ned says that NW losing men not ony because they leave the NW but because they are lost

"Ben writes that the strength of the Night's Watch is down below a thousand. It's not only desertions. They are losing men on rangings as well"

"There are darker things beyond the wall"

This shows me that a 14years old child has pretty good chances to die

[bloodymime]

You don't like torture right?Ok! How about emotional abuse?

At the start of GoT we see that Ned says that NW losing men not ony because they leave the NW but because they are lost

This shows me that a 14years old child has pretty good chances to die

Agreed, it was definetely a major failure of Ned to not make arrangements for Jon in the fourteen years he had. He's the lord of the North. It's his duty to make sure of things and have plans on top of contigency plans. It makes it hard seeing him as a great battlefield commander when he showed such an inability to improvise, adapt or plan ahead.

Frankly it also makes him look weak leaving it to his lady wife to have to explain to the children how Jon is his bastard and it is Robb that will inherit Winterfell. It's possible Sansa got her insistence on living in Fanciful Land from Ned considering how he loved to play let's pretend Jon is just another Stark. That's another part of his duty, taking care of the hard matters himself, not leaving them to others.

[Bee Diddie]

I'm isolating this post in particular, because I think it's a good example of the hyperbole that typifies the more negative readings of Catelyn. "Evil," really? First, aside from the one quote at Bran's bedside, there isn't textual evidence to support that Cat had "venomous" hatred for Jon in either Cat or Jon's POVs. When Cat thinks of Jon, she typically feels a rush of shame (because when people cheat on you and the whole world knows, it tends to be embarrassing), but it does not stop her from sympathizing with Mya Stone, who she knows won't be able to marry the guy of her dreams because of her social status.

I just think it's getting really carried away to use terms like "evil" and maintain that there was "venomous hate" involved. I tend to reserve "evil" for the characters who, for example, actually engage in crimes against humanity, and there is certainly no shortage of those in this story.

More generally though- to those who maintain that Cat harbored hatred toward Jon and treated him badly: What textual evidence is there that this is the case? Do you mind getting more specific with citations, because I can't think of anything offhand.

What did Robb ask Jon before he left WF for The Wall? I'm not going to quote the passage but Jon tells Rob he said goodbye to Bran and Robb asks "And Mother? Was she..."

"Pleasant." Jon answers.

To me, this indicates there is a history of Cat being a bitch to Jon, a fact Robb and more than likely his other siblings are aware of.

And to all the people who read with their lips moving: I never said that I believe Dany won't sit the Iron Throne because all women fail. I said that in my opinion GRRM writes his women characters kind of weak, and I also had the utter audacity to suggest that the way Martin writes his women makes me wonder if he might not like women or have faith in their abilities in real life, Again, for those of you hooked on phonix: I don't think women are weak or foolish.

[Aubry]

What did Robb ask Jon before he left WF for The Wall? I'm not going to quote the passage but Jon tells Rob he said goodbye to Bran and Robb asks "And Mother? Was she..."

"Pleasant." Jon answers.

To me, this indicates there is a history of Cat being a bitch to Jon, a fact Robb and more than likely his other siblings are aware of.

There is evidence in the text of Catelyn's chronic dislike for John. Kids are perceptive. We know that both Jon and Robb have picked up on Cat's feelings for Jon, and that that has affected them. It's an unpleasant situation, and terribly tough on kids.

But there are so many leagues between that and what Cat haters tend to accuse her of. She didn't like Jon and couldn't dissemble. But she didn't physically mistreat him. She didn't prevent him from eating with his siblings when there wasn't royalty present. Jon came from Winterfell hurt and confused about his place in the world, but well-fed, clothed, trained, taught, and with more good memories than bad about a happy home. If we're going to demonise Cat for not liking Jon, can't we also credit her for a level of fair-dealing uncommon in Westeros?

I'm also never entirely sure what strong critics of Cat would have had her do with regard to Jon. How ought she have behaved, and what would the fall-out have been?

[Evamitchelle]

I think this deserves to make another appearance :

July 14, 1999

CHRONOLOGY, TIMELINE, AND CATELYN

SUBMITTED BY: MARKUS RASCH

Thus, the question I have is if Catelyn went out of her way to mistreat Jon in the past -- and which form this might have taken -- or if she rather tried to avoid and ignore him?

"Mistreatment" is a loaded word. Did Catelyn beat Jon bloody? No. Did she distance herself from him? Yes. Did she verbally abuse and attack him? No. (The instance in Bran's bedroom was obviously a very special case). But I am sure she was very protective of the rights of her own children, and in that sense always drew the line sharply between bastard and trueborn where issues like seating on the high table for the king's visit were at issue.

And Jon surely knew that she would have preferred to have him elsewhere.

Now the only difference lies in whether you think distancing yourself from a kid not your own constitutes emotional abuse or not.

[Fantôme]

I think this deserves to make another appearance :

Now the only difference lies in whether you think distancing yourself from a kid not your own constitutes emotional abuse or not.

Just my opinion but as I've explained in post #370 , the more important think about child abuse is not so much what we think should be considered as such but the consequences on the child. And Jon clearly was deeply affected.I'll repeat what I already said in spoiler tags , since it hasn'tbeen answered:

I have to correct that. He does. Several times. And always bitterly. Example:

"Robb and Bran and Rickon were his father’s sons, and he loved them still, yet Jon knew that he had never truly been one of them. Catelyn Stark had seen to that. "

At one point he thinks about how she used to begrudge him every bit of food.

Once one he says something like "I have no sisters" and think about how Cat would have loved to hear that.

And when he considers going home at some point in games ,he thinks something like "Lady Stark would not welcome you".

Also this passage leads me to think that, as a child, Jon was pretty deeply affected by Cat's behaviour:

"Something cold moved in her eyes. “I told you to leave,” she said. “We don’t want you here.”

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might even have made him cry."

For information I like Cat and I don't think her treatment of Jon made her a terrible person. I do think it's reprehensible however.

On the Jon/Cat/emotional abuse argument I would just like to say that what we think should be considered emotional abuse doesn't matter as much as how the child receives it. And it's clear that it affected Jon to the point that he was afraid of being near her or talking to her.

"Lady Stark was there beside his bed(...) Not once did she leave the room. So Jon had stayed away.

But now there was no more time.

He stood in the door for a moment, afraid to speak, afraid to come closer. (...)

Lady Stark looked over. For a moment she did not seem to recognize him. Finally she blinked. “What are you doing here?” she asked in a voice strangely flat and emotionless.

“I came to see Bran,” Jon said. “To say good-bye.”

(...) “You’ve said it. Now go away.”

Part of him wanted only to flee, but he knew that if he did he might never see Bran again. He took a nervous step into the room. “Please,” he said.

Something cold moved in her eyes. “I told you to leave,” she said. “We don’t want you here.”

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might even have made him cry."

[Aubry]

Just my opinion but as I've explained in post #370 , the more important think about child abuse is not so much what we think should be considered as such but the consequences on the child. And Jon clearly was deeply affected.

I'm terribly sorry if I'm repeating something already said in this particular thread - I'm having trouble getting some pages to load - but surely a lot of Jon's issues come from his status as a bastard which is societally imposed rather than particular to Cat's treatment of him.

Jon has trouble with questions of entitlement - he's been brought up with no certainties about what his place in life should be. He feels keenly his difference from his siblings. He yearns to be more completely a part of the family, but he is set against the idea of a family of his own because of his own status. He has all the ambitions of a high-born lord, and the guilt and bitterness of knowing his status prevents that.

For me, this comes back to the question of how critics think Cat should ideally have treated Jon in an un-ideal world. How much could she or should she have changed things for Jon? He would still be unable to inherit. His presence at table would still be an insult to royals. He'd still be viewed with suspicion by the Westerosi for his bad blood. Ned's faffing about might still have left him uncertain about his future. (To veer briefly off topic, if Cat and Jon had had a better relationship, Ned might have been better about giving Jon clear options for his future, but we don't know for certain, and that's really on Ned, not Cat.)

Would Jon's bitterness have been less if Cat had doted on him, or would it just have been different? Cat didn't make him a bastard or dictate what his bastard-status meant about his lot in life.