Question: Catelyn taking Tyrion hostage and other decisions

[ab aeterno]

arrest goddamn it, Arrest! She arrested him. What she did was not illegal. We can debate how clever or stupid it was but why are you referring to it as kidnapping?

Because you just said that she didn't intend to try him at the Eyrie, she just intended to hold him there. Even if that was just in the short term, that's not an arrest, that's a kidnapping or abduction.

"Right, one more time. Brought Tyrion to safest place to hold him. The reader has no idea what the next step was, but it certainly wasn't to let Lysa put him on trial. But there would have been a trial. Just not by Lysa."

And as I just said, Cat knew that Lysa would want to put him on trial, and that that was her right as Lady of the Eyrie.

[Daena the Defiant]

Because you just said that she didn't intend to try him at the Eyrie, she just intended to hold him there. Even if that was just in the short term, that's not an arrest, that's a kidnapping or abduction.

Care to walk us through that assertion?

He was in her custody, she stopped off at a safe location to gather her resources and proceed onward to trial - how does her going to the Eyrie temporarily convert this to a kidnapping other than the fact you disagree with her motives?

[Daena the Defiant]

And as I just said, Cat knew that Lysa would want to put him on trial, and that that was her right as Lady of the Eyrie.

That's a completely baseless fabrication on your part.

[lilenadheas]

This is the problem with a society like Westeros. What determines if something is illegal or not? Power. That's all. We have no precedent for it, and the king wants Tyrion let go for political reasons and never mentions the law so "illegal" is a very gray area.

That said, once Ned declares that he sent Cat to arrest Tyrion it does indeed become legal. Did Tywin know that before he flipped his shit? I doubt he cared really. He moved far too quickly for me not to be suspicious.

I agree, which it is why it's so difficult to argue about the concept of justice in ASOIAF. However, the public declaration of intent makes it very hard for me to call what she does kidnapping.

[ab aeterno]

Care to walk us through that assertion?

He was in her custody, she stopped off at a safe location to gather her resources and proceed onward to trial - how does her going to the Eyrie temporarily convert this to a kidnapping other than the fact you disagree with her motives?

Proceed onward where, exactly? In case you haven't seen a map, the Vale is a dead end, unless she's planning on shipping him across the sea.

As I have said, and will repeat one final time:

Lysa is Lady of the Eyrie.

Lysa hates the Lannisters.

Cat knows both of these things.

The Lady of the Eyrie has the right to try prisoners in the Eryie.

Cat also knows this.

Either Cat is mindnumbingly stupid, or Cat knew that Lysa would put him on trial and that it wouldn't be a fair trial.

[ab aeterno]

That's a completely baseless fabrication on your part.

Unless Cat is a complete moron, she would have known. It is unreasonable to assume otherwise.

[Daena the Defiant]

Proceed onward where, exactly? In case you haven't seen a map, the Vale is a dead end, unless she's planning on shipping him across the sea.

As I have said, and will repeat one final time:

Lysa is Lady of the Eyrie.

Lysa hates the Lannisters.

Cat knows both of these things.

The Lady of the Eyrie has the right to try prisoners in the Eryie.

Cat also knows this.

Either Cat is mindnumbingly stupid, or Cat knew that Lysa would put him on trial and that it wouldn't be a fair trial.

What makes you think that she should know Lysa would put him on trial?

You keep repeating your conclusion without any underpinning.

Why would Catelyn think that Lysa would take custody of Catelyn's prisoner and put him on trial for the murder of Jon Arryn?

Because you think that Catelyn should know that Lysa hates Lannister so it's abundantly clear that that means she's been spoiling for a chance to get a Lannister in her hands to conduct a trial? It's sooooooooooooo obvious. Duh.

[ab aeterno]

What makes you think that she should know Lysa would put him on trial?

You keep repeating your conclusion without any underpinning.

Because she knows that Lysa hates the Lannisters! She has a letter from Lysa accusing the Lannisters of killing her husband. She then takes a prisoner to Lysa and doesn't expect her to want to try him?

If it was you, would you honestly think that Lysa wasn't going to do that? By any reasonable standard, it is a very likely outcome, and Cat knows this.

Assuming that Cat doesn't know that Lysa would put him on, she has abducted Tyrion to hold in a dungeon and not put him on trial. This would have to be permanent, because it wouldn't take Tywin Lannister too long to work out that she had not gone to WF, and just have men searching the mountain pass and Riverlands.

[Daena the Defiant]

Because she knows that Lysa hates the Lannisters! She has a letter from Lysa accusing the Lannisters of killing her husband. She then takes a prisoner to Lysa and doesn't expect her to want to try him?

If it was you, would you honestly thing that Lysa wasn't going to do that? By any reasonable standard, it is a very likely outcome, and Cat knows this.

No, it's not by any reasonable standard It's your opinion.

[lilenadheas]

Because you just said that she didn't intend to try him at the Eyrie, she just intended to hold him there. Even if that was just in the short term, that's not an arrest, that's a kidnapping or abduction.

"Right, one more time. Brought Tyrion to safest place to hold him. The reader has no idea what the next step was, but it certainly wasn't to let Lysa put him on trial. But there would have been a trial. Just not by Lysa."

This doesn't hold up. You can't hold a prisoner somewhere other than the courthouse? you are working with hindsight, something the characters do not have, and making assumptions based on it

And as I just said, Cat knew that Lysa would want to put him on trial, and that that was her right as Lady of the Eyrie.

No she didn't. Sorry but find me the line where it says she wants or knows that Lysa will preside over the trial and that is why she is taking him to the Eyrie, and then I'll point you to one of David Selig's previous comments addressing the fact that Cat objects to this "farce of a trial".

[Jolene Brown]

HOW?

I said how in the rest of my post! Insisted on accompanying him herself. The Blackfish would not have just let HER go without protection. He would have insisted on going with and he would have ensured that other people came with them. She rounded up an escort to take Tyrion to the Vale, she could have at least tried to round up an escort to take him from it. And again, if she didn't want to do that, she shouldn't have taken him into her custody in the first place!

[lilenadheas]

Unless Cat is a complete moron, she would have known. It is unreasonable to assume otherwise.

Ha, what? that is a pretty big statement to make

[Currawong]

Why quibble over terms as to whether Catelyn 'arrested' or 'kidnapped' Tyrion? In the context of Westerosi society, it makes very little difference: she took him into some kind of 'custody' without anything other than say-so about whose dagger it was.

Tyrion was not just "any" Lannister - being Tywin's second son, he was the obvious heir to House Lannister, seeing that Jaime was sworn to the KG. So Catelyn didn't 'just' take a Lannister into custody, she took the person who would have been assumed to be Tywin Lannister's heir. Cat would have known this, she would have known the implications of doing so - and yet she still decided to walk right up and metaphorically taunt the big lion and then pull his tail! I'm sorry, but whatever her stated reasons and wherever she took Tyrion, her actions were just plain asking for Very Big Trouble. You can't blame the lion if he then gets rather upset, and decides to attack that person (or the family) right back. If you think about the situation and reverse the names of the Houses, the idiocy of her actions becomes even more apparent.

This is not saying that she "caused' the whole war, because things were simmering anyway and you can keep going back and back for 'causes', but it was a very big trigger in bringing the war about.

[ab aeterno]

No, it's not by any reasonable standard It's your opinion.

A court of law would likely consider it a reasonable standard. All I can say is that I pray to god that if I ever have the misfortune to be put on trial, you are not a juror.

This doesn't hold up. You can't hold a prisoner somewhere other than the courthouse? you are working with hindsight, something the characters do not have, and making assumptions based on it

No she didn't. Sorry but find me the line where it says she wants or knows that Lysa will preside over the trial and that is why she is taking him to the Eyrie, and then I'll point you to one of David Selig's previous comments addressing the fact that Cat objects to this "farce of a trial".

You can't hold him in the Eyrie while you wait for the heat to die down so you can try him somewhere else. If she intended to try him, where did she intend to do it?

Cat may object to it once it has began, but either Cat is stupid, or she should have known what Lysa is likely to do. If you disagree, what do you think she expected Lysa to do?

[ab aeterno]

Ha, what? that is a pretty big statement to make

It may be a big statement, but legally, a court would probably conclude that it would have been a reasonable assumption for Cat to make, knowing what she knew.

[ab aeterno]

Why quibble over terms as to whether Catelyn 'arrested' or 'kidnapped' Tyrion? In the context of Westerosi society, it makes very little difference: she took him into some kind of 'custody' without anything other than say-so about whose dagger it was.

Tyrion was not just "any" Lannister - being Tywin's second son, he was the obvious heir to House Lannister, seeing that Jaime was sworn to the KG. So Catelyn didn't 'just' take a Lannister into custody, she took the person who would have been assumed to be Tywin Lannister's heir. Cat would have known this, she would have known the implications of doing so - and yet she still decided to walk right up and metaphorically taunt the big lion and then pull his tail! I'm sorry, but whatever her stated reasons and wherever she took Tyrion, her actions were just plain asking for Very Big Trouble, so don't blame the lion if he gets rather upset, and eats you and any of your friends/family nearby. If you think about the situation and reverse the names of the Houses, the idiocy of her actions becomes even more apparent.

This is not saying that she "caused' the whole war, because things were simmering anyway and you can keep going back and back for 'causes', but it was a very big trigger in bringing the war about.

I agree. All I was ever arguing was that Cat's taking Tyrion was an act of war.

Anyway, I'm tired of all these arguments. I feel I have made a reasonable and logical case that would stand up to objective scrutiny better than yours. I'm sure you disagree, but to be honest, I'm not particularly concerned either way. I'm not going to go over the same ground again. I hope you all have a good night/ nice day. It was at the very least, an entertaining debate.

[David Selig]

Because she knows that Lysa hates the Lannisters! She has a letter from Lysa accusing the Lannisters of killing her husband. She then takes a prisoner to Lysa and doesn't expect her to want to try him?

If it was you, would you honestly think that Lysa wasn't going to do that? By any reasonable standard, it is a very likely outcome, and Cat knows this.

Lysa, when Catelyn knew her when they were living together as girls and before she became crazy, was a timid person, doing her best to avoid conflicts and any kind of danger. So her putting Tywin's son on trial was really not that likely based on what Cat knew when she decided to go to the Vale. Arranging for a ship from Gulltown to take Cat to the lands of the Stark and avoiding more involvement in the whole mess seemed much more likely.

[lilenadheas]

1.You can't hold him in the Eyrie while you wait for the heat to die down so you can try him somewhere else. If she intended to try him, where did she intend to do it?

2.Cat may object to it once it has began, but either Cat is stupid, or she should have known what Lysa is likely to do. If you disagree, what do you think she expected Lysa to do?

1. Says who? Really, who is your authority here, because it seems like you're just making stuff up at this point. I don't know where she was planning the trial, so it is a waste of time guessing. i do know, from Cats POV, that a trial by Lysa was not what she planned.

2. Cat is not a mind reader or a fortune teller, so no, it is not a reasonable assumption that she would know that her sister, who had become unhinged in the years since they parted, would want to circumvent her own authority and forcibly take her political prisoner from her. She made a mistake in trusting her sister but that doesn't make her stupid, and how could she have known Lysa wasn't all there, considering they very rarely saw each other? I expect she thought Lysa would provide protection while she figured out what to do next, or maybe she knew what she was going to do next and just wanted a safe haven. The text doesn't tell us that much.

It may be a big statement, but legally, a court would probably conclude that it would have been a reasonable assumption for Cat to make, knowing what she knew.

No, sorry, given the circumstances, it wouldn't. Family of lawyers here. I can get back to you in the morning if you want with a more detailed reply as to the conclusion.

Goodnight.

[Daena the Defiant]

A court of law would likely consider it a reasonable standard. All I can say is that I pray to god that if I ever have the misfortune to be put on trial, you are not a juror.

I'm more likely to be the prosecutor, actually.

[Currawong]

Cat's behaviour with regards to Tyrion was stupid on two counts:-

1. She actually did take him into custody - see my post above. Simply doing that (whatever term you like to give it) was major provocation, regardless of how 'justified' it might have been.

2. She didn't take Tyrion to KL under with the Tully escort. The way she behaved - taking him instead to a Tully relative - would look for all purposes as though she was acting from purely personal motives, and was not interested in obtaining any sort of objective 'justice' for the assassination attempt and her own injuries.

Catelyn was the wife of the King's Hand, who was the Lord of Winterfell. She also knew perfectly well that King Robert was not fond of the Lannisters, and would more than likely listen to Ned if there was some sort of evidence against a Lannister in terms of an assassination attempt on the Hand's son, and his wife. The proper thing to do would have been to put on a very righteous air, march Tyrion right back to KL under Tully escort, and present him plus any evidence to King Robert. Tywin wasn't in KL at the time: it would have been Robert dealing with Ned and a very serious complaint about an attack on Ned's wife and son.

If she'd done that, both Catelyn and Ned would have held the high moral ground against the Lannisters and would be seen by everyone to be acting properly, coming to the King for a significant matter between two leading families and (hopefully) preventing the start of inter-family feuding. If you leave aside the names of the Houses, the knife attack on Bran was an assassination attempt against the wife and child of the head of one House, allegedly arranged by the son and heir of another major House.

By acting as she did, without obvious thought as to the consequences, Catelyn allowed the Lannisters to take formal offence (as would any of the Westerosi Houses, if had happened to them!) and not only weakened her husband's position, but also indirectly weakened Robert's position and authority as King.