[BOOK SPOILERS] Cat and Jon Snow

[jotabe1789]

Credible for a completely different character in a different social system - sure. It can easily happen. For a feudal noblewoman, especially one with Catelyn's personality - I just don't see it. They may feel the need to mother someone else's child, they may even do it, but legitimising is not a option at all in their view. It goes completely against the way they are raised and taught to think and endangers their kids, and hurts the interests of their House of birth.

I think you are putting too much weight on Cat's mention of her promise to ask for him to be legitimized. In context, she said that she spent the night by his side, the night that master Luwin had said that would be the critical one. And Cat herself says it was a very long night, longer still because she was grieving over her own guilt (for having prayed for Jon to die).During all those hours, in grief, she begins to bargain with the gods. The way it makes sense to me is that this bargaining escalates as the time passes and Jon doesn't seem to get better... so Cat isn't really in the best state of mind (tired, sleepless, hungry, ridden with guilt, desperate to see a good sign) to the point that she even promised that.

I immediately thought of one of the scenes in the Fresh Prince when Carlton is in the hospital because of taking some vitamins from Will's locker, which were actually amphetamins. Seeing he doesn't recover, he begins to bargain with god:

"God, if you let Carlton be okay ... I swear I'll never make fun of him again." (bargaining, low level, he's just promising not to be bad) "I'll go to Church every Sunday." (the bargain escalates, he promises to inconvinience himself and actively do something good) "even I'll give up women." (maximum escalation, Will goes clearly out of character here, if he were to go through with the promise).

Of course, when Carlton gets better, Will quickly recants "You know I was just kidding about that 'woman' part, right?"

[David Selig]

But you object to this. Your argument is either 1) that parental instinct either doesn't exist , or 2) that Catelyn and everyone else in Westeros is somehow immune to it. What I don't think you are grasping is that while you are arguing "show me where this mothering instinct thingy exists in the text", the rest of us are saying "this is something that most parents inherently feel and expect from others as part of being a human being".

What? I've never said any of those things. At all. Of course parental instinct exists, in Westeros too. But just because of this doesn't mean that everyone feels it the same way or that the society (both our or Westerosi) expects everyone to forget everything else and act as a parent to any kid who lacks one no matter how many problems it may cause him or her.

Catelyn had to consider none of those things, which is why asking a poster if he/she has adopted children makes no sense. Jon was going to be raised in Winterfell as Ned's son no matter what, so all those "adoption" issues are irrelevant.

Yeah, but Catelyn had plenty of serious issues to consider too. Some of which much more serious than the hypothetical adoption today. Like increasing the possibility of succession war by accepting Jon and acting as a mother to him or even more so by asking for his legitimisation.

What is interesting about that justification is that it all would still apply even if Ned had told her the truth. After all, if Ned had told her, she'd still have to keep it secret, so the "major humiliation" would exist to the same degree, there's be the same succession issues, etc.. But actually, I do disagree with you here on the major humiliation. The vast majority of Westeros is going to have no clue as to exactly what is happening at that level within the Stark family at Winterfell. I'd guess very few people outside Winterfell knew that she never called him by his name. Why would they? It's not exactly the type of thing you send a raven about. To the extent there was embarassment, it would be based on the existence of Jon in WInterfell as Ned's bastard, and that wasn't changing no matter how she treated him.

If Catelyn asks for Jon to be legitimised, that would be huge news, the juiciest piece of gossip in Westeros for a long time. She'd be considered the biggest doormat ever.

Even just being nice to jon was likely to become well known and a major source of humiliation.

I also don't agree that everyone would have viewed her negatively. Sure, it is not normally done to bring a bastard back, but that's a different thing from saying it is okay for the wife to take out her resentments on the child if that should happen. I could imagine the QoT having an interesting conversation with Cat on this. "So, you exclude him from table where possible, you never call him by his own name, deliberately avoided showing him any affection despite him not having a mother. What did he do to you that warranted this? Oh, you treat the child this way because his father fucked some maid? I hope your natural children grow up with better sense than you."

The Queen of Thorns? Really? The same lady who dropped the 12 year old Sansa (who was a captive, scared and alone), like a hot potato and lost all (most likely fake) sympathy for her the second she stopped being useful, and to top it off, framed her for regicide? I have no doubts she'd have treated Jon worse if she was in Cat's place.

Or how about when she prays to the Mother in ACOK:

“My lady, look down on this battle with a mother’s eyes. They are all sons, every one. Spare them if you can, and spare my own sons as well. Watch over Robb and Bran and Rickon. Would that I were with them.”

Do you think Catelyn believes the Mother would approve of the way she treated Jon? "They are all sons, every one." That's a little more than saying that mothers should care only about their own children, isn't it?

The point of "they are all sons, everyone" is that they are all human who all deserve life and to survive the battle, not that a mother (lower case) is supposed to take care of all children, period. That's what the Mother (upper case) is for. Which is not to say a mother can't take care of other children or it's frowned upon, it's just not something expected to be done at all times at all costs.

[SeanF]

I take it that is a no.

First, the point isn't whether you'd choose to adopt. The analogy would be if you were forced to accept a child into your home against your will. How would you treat that child? So whether the particular poster actually adopted a child isn't relevant.

More importantly, adoption entails a slew of duties and responsibilities -- something of which you might be aware if you are a parent. Financial responsibilities, feeding, clothing, changing, staying home or getting day care, etc. etc. etc.. All the ways in which children suck up massive amounts of time and committment. Can you even afford to provide for it? When you're talking about a poster adopting a child in RL, those are all huge real world factors that a poster has to consider.

Catelyn had to consider none of those things, which is why asking a poster if he/she has adopted children makes no sense. Jon was going to be raised in Winterfell as Ned's son no matter what, so all those "adoption" issues are irrelevant. The only question is how she would choose to treat that guiltless baby/child who is going to be raised in her home, a half-brother/sister to her own children. Are you going to be a bitch, or are you going to care for it? After all, it doesn't really take any more effort to say "Jon" than it does to say "Snow". A hug on occasion costs nothing.

I think you're asking an awful lot of any wife - let alone an aristocratic wife in a medieval society - if you expect her to act as a mother to her husband's illegitimate child from an adulterous affair. Some women might, but I don't think it's anything that one can legitimately expect from them.

Now, my contention, and the contention of others, is that most adults have a basic parental instinct that includes how you treat babies and small children who are in your presence, even those who are not your own. It may not kick into gear until you actually have children of your own, but for most people who do have children, it's there. And, by extension, how you'd view others who failed to meet that standard. There are likely innumerable instances in human history where a couple has taken care of an abandoned baby, not out of any cultural expecation, but simply because something within them thought it was wrong not to. And it's also been pointed out that this instinct has even extended across species. I'd add that I think many non-adults also have a sense of how babies should be treated, and not because they've attended a seminar on the subject.

But Jon is not an orphan, or an adoptee, or a step-child. He's just been foisted on Catelyn by her husband, in defiance of all the conventions of her society.

But you object to this. Your argument is either 1) that parental instinct either doesn't exist , or 2) that Catelyn and everyone else in Westeros is somehow immune to it. What I don't think you are grasping is that while you are arguing "show me where this mothering instinct thingy exists in the text", the rest of us are saying "this is something that most parents inherently feel and expect from others as part of being a human being".

I just don't think the parental instinct would exist, for most women in Catelyn's situation. Jon's not her son, and at no point did she ever agree to his being brought up with her own children. He's the product (as far she knows) of her husband's adulterous affair. She doesn't expect marital fidelity from her husband, but she does expect not to have her nose rubbed in it (and according to the conventions of her society, she's entitled to expect this).

In what respect was her treatment of Jon standing up to Ned? Ned likely wasn't even aware of it. He certainly wasn't aware of that final comment.

What is interesting about that justification is that it all would still apply even if Ned had told her the truth. After all, if Ned had told her, she'd still have to keep it secret, so the "major humiliation" would exist to the same degree, there's be the same succession issues, etc.. But actually, I do disagree with you here on the major humiliation. The vast majority of Westeros is going to have no clue as to exactly what is happening at that level within the Stark family at Winterfell. I'd guess very few people outside Winterfell knew that she never called him by his name. Why would they? It's not exactly the type of thing you send a raven about. To the extent there was embarassment, it would be based on the existence of Jon in WInterfell as Ned's bastard, and that wasn't changing no matter how she treated him.

If Jon is who we think he is, then Ned had good reason not to tell her in my view (the more people who share a secret the more likely it is to leak out). But, if he had told her, she would have no reason to resent Jon. He would not be a constant reminder of her husband's infidelity, and he'd stand apart from the line of succession at Winterfell.

I also don't agree that everyone would have viewed her negatively. Sure, it is not normally done to bring a bastard back, but that's a different thing from saying it is okay for the wife to take out her resentments on the child if that should happen. I could imagine the QoT having an interesting conversation with Cat on this. "So, you exclude him from table where possible, you never call him by his own name, deliberately avoided showing him any affection despite him not having a mother. What did he do to you that warranted this? Oh, you treat the child this way because his father fucked some maid? I hope your natural children grow up with better sense than you."

I imagine that the Queen of Thorns would have been extremely acid towards her husband, had he proposed bringing up his bastard at Highgarden.

Or better yet, what would The Mother say? Catelyn prays to the Seven, and particularly the Mother. The ASOIAF wiki has an interesting entry on that. The last line of the Song to the Mother is "teach us all a kinder way". Is that something she followed with Jon? Or how about when she prays to the Mother in ACOK:

“My lady, look down on this battle with a mother’s eyes. They are all sons, every one. Spare them if you can, and spare my own sons as well. Watch over Robb and Bran and Rickon. Would that I were with them.”

Do you think Catelyn believes the Mother would approve of the way she treated Jon? "They are all sons, every one." That's a little more than saying that mothers should care only about their own children, isn't it?

If Catelyn was a perfect human being, then she would have set aside her own resentment of Jon, and treated him as one of her children. But, we've no reason to expect perfection from her.

Well, that's a disagreement again. To use the example of an adoptive child in a family of otherwise natural children, I think the mother never calling that child by its own name, while doing that for the other children, deliberately being cold to the child for its entire life, etc.., would be a very big deal. At least to the child.

[SerMixalot]

The difference between the parental instinct and Cat's situation is that Jon Snow is a constant reminder to Cat of Ned's supposed infidelity and and insult to her, making her reaction to Jon both human and understandable though not necessarily right.

[David Selig]

BTW, watching the scene again, this part struck me "I'd condemned this poor, innocent child to a to a horrible death all because I was jealous of his mother. ". Since from the rest of the ddialogue it's clear this happened right after Ned came back from the war while Jon was a little baby, it make very little sense. At that point Ned and Cat barely knew each other, such an extreme level of jealousy is very unlikely.

And I am again at a loss how after such a line people can interpret the scene as making Catelyn more sympathetic either than from her character in the books or from what we knew of her so far in the series. She prayed for Jon's death not because of the potential succession problems, not because she'd rather have him dead than Bran like in the books, just because of insane level of jealousy to his mother. This alone is enough to call it "character assassination".

[insertname]

No it's not.

[David Selig]

No it's not.

Thank you for this well reasoned and backed up with extensive arguments opinion.

Seriously, if you aren't going to explain your point at all, why post it?

[SeanF]

Jon Snow Pov II

He stood in the door afraid to speak, afraid to come in. Martin has written this to imply a pattern in Jon's life in regard to Catelyn Stark.

Part of him wanted only to flee.

Something cold moved in her eyes. " I told you to leave." " We don't want you here". ( who is the we? is she speaking for Bran Stark as well?) This is symbolic of Jon's later dreams of the crypt where cold eyes stare at him and say You do not belong here.

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might have even made him cry. ( pattern of earlier times with Catelyn Stark)

I prayed for my special boy. I prayed for it. she said dully. " He was my special boy". I went to the sept and prayed seven times to seven faces of gods that Ned would change his mind adn leave him here with me. Sometimes prayers are answered. (Catelyn praying to god and in her mind the gods answered her with Bran's fall and being close to death. This I think is where the TV producers took the idea that Catelyn Stark believes the gods are punishing her but they twisted it to refer to Jon Snow. The book certainly has not yet done this in AGOT

Jon tries to comfort her. " It wasn't your fault," he mangaged after an awkward silence. ( The irony of Jon Snow trying to give comfort to a woman who has hated him and made him feel unwanted his entire life)

Her eyes found him. They were full of poison. "I need none of your absolution, bastard. "

Further down in the chapter Martin tells us that Never one time has Catelyn Tully Stark ever called Jon by his name. Just this once..she says Jon so that he turns around so she can deliver the stinging words.." It should have been you."

That is not only a stabbing in the heart but a twisting the blade. She deliberatley used his name for the first time in his life so that she could utter " It should have been you".

The TV show upset me, but sometimes I think the people who have read the book upset me more..lol Go read that POV once again..underline the adjectives and think about the history Martin is giving us subtly in how Catelyn has treated Jon through the years..This was not a distant neglect from this woman..it was nasty and sometimes in Jon's face. Never using his name once??? So are we to imply she called him bastard daily? or Snow ? Martin does not tell us..he only gives the character Catelyn the line....bastard.

Catelyn Stark is a character that I admire for many reason, her love for her children. However I am not giving her a pass on this entire scene. I do like the idea that the TV writers are trying to make her more sympathetic and trying to show that she has struggled with guilt over her treatment and feelings towards Jon Snow and perhaps Rob making Jon his heir.

Martin's work is subjective in the sense that when we read his words..we each have emotional responses to the characters and stories. I am an older woman with a strong traditional religious faith. I am sure this colors my feelings regarding characters but I do try to actually go back and read each word written by Martin to objectively try to understand the character.

As I read this for the first time, I thought that Catelyn was a truly obnoxious person. Her comments to Jon were awful, at any level, and, in his first chapters in AGOT, Jon was portrayed very sympathetically.

It was only as the series progressed that I realised how out of character it was for Catelyn to say something like that, and that Martin's explanation, that it was an outburst caused by grief and sleepnessness, had to be right.

And, on reflection, I realised that she had every right to be unhappy about Jon's presence at Winterfell.

A good comparison is with her behaviour at the Red Wedding. Catelyn isn't in the habit of slitting the throats of the mentally handicapped. But she's out of her mind with grief and despair.

I think that scene with Jon did leave a lasting impression on me. I find Catelyn sympathetic, mostly compassionate, definitely one of the better characters in the series, yet not really a character that I can warm to.

[Slingingstones]

If I may jump into this discussion…I view Cat as having a serious bout of remorse over her life, her teenage years as a newly married wife to the next in line heir, Ned. He is not the love of her life, but she endeavors to make lemonade from the juices she is left with.

At rebellion’s end, Ned comes trotting in with a “bastard” son. She has not lived with Ned long enough to fully know of his commitment (family, honor, duty), only that he’s foisting this embarrassment upon her to bear. So when Jon becomes deathly ill, her girlish jealousy’s mistakenly attach death warrant. Yet by accidental coincidence, Jon pulls through. Again, she mistakenly attached this to the will of her prayers. The seven have spoken. - . . . -

Now in her 40’s, shunned by kin and clan, treated as the plague, having lost just about everything…especially the respect of her first true born. The remorse sets in…unbearably.

If I were the on-call Maester, I’d prescribe a heavy dose of Bee pollen.

[insertname]

Thank you for this well reasoned and backed up with extensive arguments opinion.

Seriously, if you aren't going to explain your point at all, why post it?

Because I'm tired of "character assassination" being thrown around. Cat has always had a very negative feeling towards Jon's mother. Jealousy isn't exactly the right word for it, but it comes close enough. And I wouldn't exactly summarize what Cat says with "jealousy" either. Anyway, it's a bit of a deviation, but definitely not "character assassination".

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

BTW, watching the scene again, this part struck me "I'd condemned this poor, innocent child to a to a horrible death all because I was jealous of his mother. ". Since from the rest of the ddialogue it's clear this happened right after Ned came back from the war while Jon was a little baby, it make very little sense. At that point Ned and Cat barely knew each other, such an extreme level of jealousy is very unlikely.

I think you'll probably find some disagreement with that. Ned and Cat at least knew each other sufficiently that they were married and conceived a child together before Ned when off to war I think that alone is going to create the basis for those feelings

And I am again at a loss how after such a line people can interpret the scene as making Catelyn more sympathetic either than from her character in the books or from what we knew of her so far in the series.

For me, the sympathy comes from her feeling deep, genuine remorse for her actions. Very few major characters -- Ned and Brienne come to mind -- are presented as morally "white", so they've pretty much all done things for which it is fair to criticize them. But very few actually end up showing genuine remorse. Catelyn's scene showed true heartfelt regret, and bad people don't do that. You can still dislike her past actions, but feel better about her as she is today because she had the moral honesty and character to acknowledge them. People are not static. It's particularly compelling in her case because she didn't do the kind of horrible things Cersei, Jaime, and so many others have done. She believes it was wrong to not love a motherless child that was in her care, and that speaks very well of her heart and quality as a human being. At least to me.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The difference between the parental instinct and Cat's situation is that Jon Snow is a constant reminder to Cat of Ned's supposed infidelity and and insult to her, making her reaction to Jon both human and understandable though not necessarily right.

Well, yes. I think that's exactly the point. Yes, people understand why she felt that way, but no, it wasn't right or justified. However, I still think that while her reaction to Jon would have been fairly easy to overlook if it had just been an initial reaction, to carry through that coldness for a decade and a half is something that I think most parents would find extreme. If she could manage to forgive and grow to love Ned, the guy whose fault it was in the first place, then continuing to carry that grudge against a child she knows to be innocent of any wrongdoing is pretty clearly wrong.

Therefore, for her to later express regret and sadness over actions that may have been understandable, but still cruel, makes perfect sense, and deepens her character.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think you're asking an awful lot of any wife - let alone an aristocratic wife in a medieval society - if you expect her to act as a mother to her husband's illegitimate child from an adulterous affair. Some women might, but I don't think it's anything that one can legitimately expect from them.

There are two different points here -- what Catelyn actually did to Jon, and what she said in her speech. As to the first, I do think it is fair to expect of any human being, including an aristocratic wife -- that she treat a child better than how Catelyn treated Jon. Admittedly, this may be a value judgment that varies between individuals.

But Jon is not an orphan, or an adoptee, or a step-child. He's just been foisted on Catelyn by her husband, in defiance of all the conventions of her society.

Again, I see that mattering in terms of Catelyn's treatment of Ned, and some understanding for an initial, angry reaction towards the baby. But carrying it on past that is a think I don't think most decent mothers would do. I don't think that is a "Westeros" thing any more than I think love and sex are "Westeros" things. They are all human things.

I just don't think the parental instinct would exist, for most women in Catelyn's situation.

I'm not a woman, but I am a parent, and I couldn't imagine treating an innocent child the way she treated Jon regardless of circumstances.

In what respect was her treatment of Jon standing up to Ned? Ned likely wasn't even aware of it. He certainly wasn't aware of that final comment.

But, if he had told her, she would have no reason to resent Jon. He would not be a constant reminder of her husband's infidelity, and he'd stand apart from the line of succession at Winterfell.

The argument was that she would be humiliated by the thoughts/actions of other people reacting to Jon being a bastard. Even if Ned tells her, it remains a secret from everyone else, so they would still (so the argument goes) treat her with derision and look down on her as the biggest doormat in Westeros. That won't change. Nor does Ned telling her a secret affect the line of succession one bit. If Jon presents a threat because he's Ned's bastard, that threat doesn't go away as long as the rest of Westeros -- bannermen, etc.. -- continue to believe that he is.

I imagine that the Queen of Thorns would have been extremely acid towards her husband, had he proposed bringing up his bastard at Highgarden.

Oh, absolutely no doubt there. But somehow, I think she's a bit too wise to have taken her anger out on a baby. "It's not the child's fault he has a whoremonger for a father." Of course, there's no way to prove how she'd react, but that's my take on it.

Do you think Catelyn believes the Mother would approve of the way she treated Jon? "They are all sons, every one." That's a little more than saying that mothers should care only about their own children, isn't it?

]If Catelyn was a perfect human being, then she would have set aside her own resentment of Jon, and treated him as one of her children. But, we've no reason to expect perfection from her.

First, there is quite a gulf between expecting "perfection", and expecting something better than the way she actually treated him.

But second, I asked if you thought Catelyn would believe that The Mother -- the one amongst the Seven to whom she is the closest -- would approve of her treatment of Jon. I certainly don't. And I think it is completely credible that in praying to the Mother for the safety of her own children, she would have felt pangs of guilt/regret/fear over how her treatment of Jon looked in the eyes of the Mother. After all, now that Ned is dead and her children all scattered, the issue of Jon's bastardy seems rather small potatoes at this point.

[SeanF]

But second, I asked if you thought Catelyn would believe that The Mother -- the one amongst the Seven to whom she is the closest -- would approve of her treatment of Jon. I certainly don't. And I think it is completely credible that in praying to the Mother for the safety of her own children, she would have felt pangs of guilt/regret/fear over how her treatment of Jon looked in the eyes of the Mother. After all, now that Ned is dead and her children all scattered, the issue of Jon's bastardy seems rather small potatoes at this point.

Without wishing to delve too far into theology (particularly fictional theology) I think that the Mother would apply a "double standard" (in the best sense). She would want (Book) Catelyn to strive to be as kind towards Jon Snow as possible, but still be forgiving of a woman in Catelyn's predicament, who couldn't bring herself to love Jon Snow.

WRT Catelyn in the TV show, I think that absolutely, the Mother would condemn her for actually praying for Jon to die.

[JediShywalker]

I didn’t think it was a huge departure from her character in the book. She’s open about her hatred for Jon Snow, and what happened on Sunday didn’t take away from that. She’s completely unapologetic for it. She knows hating a bastard kid with no mother is wrong. She knows and that doesn’t make her stop doing it.

Cat’s driving force is her fierce love and protection of her children. She sees (and has always seen) Jon as a threat to that family. He looks more like Ned than her trueborn children, he’s a good boy and a natural leader, and everyone, including her children and her husband love him. And she recognizes how dangerous that is- that Jon Snow can become just as dangerous as Ramsey Bolton if he chooses. Jon is an enigma, a problem.

He’s a son and not a son, a part of the family and a potentially dangerous usurper.

But for most of the time she knows him, he’s a boy. A boy who it’s easy to hate when he’s healthy and running alongside Robb and treated by everyone as his equal. But, in the darkness of a sickroom, Cat has to acknowledge that Jon Snow is just a boy. A boy who didn’t ask to be bastard born or brought to Winterfell. A sick boy without a mother to care for him and without a future even if he should survive. And, in that boy, Cat sees herself reflected— what this fierce protection of her family has turned her into, and she falters in her resolve.

When she’s speaking to Talisa, I didn’t take it as she was sad that she was mean to Jon Snow. I saw it as anger at wasting her prayers to all seven Gods on him. For putting the needs of this bastard boy over the needs of her family because of a moment of weakness. She saw how monstrous her behavior was reflected back at her from Jon’s sick bed, and, instead of accepting that the death of one boy on her heart would be worth the price of safety for her sons, she crumbled. She made promises she shouldn’t have out of guilt, and, when Jon recovered and she realized that she wouldn’t be able to keep them, it was already too late.

Cat’s not guilty that she treated Jon Snow badly, she’s upset because she had a moment of weakness 10 years ago. She’s supposed to protect her family, and instead she chose to save the bastard boy by making false promises to the Gods. I truly believe that Cat believes all of this has been brought down on her family NOT because of her cruelty to Jon after his recovery, but because she could not stand to bear the burden of his death. For Cat, that was the right thing, the Tully thing. Protect the family. Let the bastard die.

And she couldn’t do it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Without wishing to delve too far into theology (particularly fictional theology) I think that the Mother would apply a "double standard" (in the best sense). She would want Catelyn to strive to be as kind towards Jon Snow as possible, but still be forgiving of a woman in Catelyn's predicament, who couldn't bring herself to love Jon Snow.

Uh, does that mean you'd agree that Catelyn would think her treatment of Jon was less that the Mother would have wanted? Because if so, then that goes a long way towards explaining what she said to Salisa, particularly since she's now praying to the Mother again to save her own children. Essentially, her speech is "please forgive me for falling short of what you expected of me as a Mother. I know I should have done better."

[SeanF]

Uh, does that mean you'd agree that Catelyn would think her treatment of Jon was less that the Mother would have wanted? Because if so, then that goes a long way towards explaining what she said to Salisa, particularly since she's now praying to the Mother again to save her own children. Essentially, her speech is "please forgive me for falling short of what you expected of me as a Mother. I know I should have done better."

Unfortunately, I edited my post slightly, after you had posted.

I don't doubt for one moment, that Catelyn would feel remorse for having prayed for Jon's death, and then for having made promises to the gods that she didn't keep.

(Book) Catelyn of course did not pray for Jon's death, or make promises to the gods, so she certainly wouldn't feel that remorse. If the religion of the Seven required her to set aside any feelings of resentment which she had as a result of having had Ned's illegitimate son foisted on her, and to treat him like one of her own children, then I imagine that she would acknowledge, during her prayers, that she'd fallen short of the standards that the Mother expected.

While the religion of the Seven has similarities to Christianity, I don't think we know enough about its theology to answer that question. One significant difference between the two religions, is that while Christianity requires its adherents to forgive wrongs that have been done to them, the religion of the Seven allows revenge.

[Cinder Stark]

I didn’t think it was a huge departure from her character in the book. She’s open about her hatred for Jon Snow, and what happened on Sunday didn’t take away from that. She’s completely unapologetic for it. She knows hating a bastard kid with no mother is wrong. She knows and that doesn’t make her stop doing it.

Cat’s driving force is her fierce love and protection of her children. She sees (and has always seen) Jon as a threat to that family. He looks more like Ned than her trueborn children, he’s a good boy and a natural leader, and everyone, including her children and her husband love him. And she recognizes how dangerous that is- that Jon Snow can become just as dangerous as Ramsey Bolton if he chooses. Jon is an enigma, a problem.

He’s a son and not a son, a part of the family and a potentially dangerous usurper.

But for most of the time she knows him, he’s a boy. A boy who it’s easy to hate when he’s healthy and running alongside Robb and treated by everyone as his equal. But, in the darkness of a sickroom, Cat has to acknowledge that Jon Snow is just a boy. A boy who didn’t ask to be bastard born or brought to Winterfell. A sick boy without a mother to care for him and without a future even if he should survive. And, in that boy, Cat sees herself reflected— what this fierce protection of her family has turned her into, and she falters in her resolve.

When she’s speaking to Talisa, I didn’t take it as she was sad that she was mean to Jon Snow. I saw it as anger at wasting her prayers to all seven Gods on him. For putting the needs of this bastard boy over the needs of her family because of a moment of weakness. She saw how monstrous her behavior was reflected back at her from Jon’s sick bed, and, instead of accepting that the death of one boy on her heart would be worth the price of safety for her sons, she crumbled. She made promises she shouldn’t have out of guilt, and, when Jon recovered and she realized that she wouldn’t be able to keep them, it was already too late.

Cat’s not guilty that she treated Jon Snow badly, she’s upset because she had a moment of weakness 10 years ago. She’s supposed to protect her family, and instead she chose to save the bastard boy by making false promises to the Gods. I truly believe that Cat believes all of this has been brought down on her family NOT because of her cruelty to Jon after his recovery, but because she could not stand to bear the burden of his death. For Cat, that was the right thing, the Tully thing. Protect the family. Let the bastard die.

And she couldn’t do it.

Ok, with this line of thinking Jamie throwing bran out of a window was right, warranted. Jamie only did it to protect Cersie and his children. Once the realm learned of their relationship, all would be lost.

I can't see how people justify Cat's behavior towards Jon. Jon never did anything, if Cat could forgive and love Ned, why not Jon for her family, Ned and the stark kids?

[aedalia]

I think this scene also serves her eventual transition into Lady Stoneheart. I suspect the show won't give us enough time to understand what happened to Beric when he changed, so setting the table for unCat and her vengence early will be helpful to viewers. It sort of sets up LS as making up for mistakes, not just blind revenge on the Freys.

[JediShywalker]

Ok, with this line of thinking Jamie throwing bran out of a window was right, warranted. Jamie only did it to protect Cersie and his children. Once the realm learned of their relationship, all would be lost.

I can't see how people justify Cat's behavior towards Jon. Jon never did anything, if Cat could forgive and love Ned, why not Jon for her family, Ned and the stark kids?

I didn't say what she did was right or fair to Jon, just that the action fit in with her main motivation which has always been to protect her family. The point I was trying to make wasn't about whether Cat treated Jon was right or wrong, but why what she said in Sunday's episode didn't go against her character in the book.

What I was saying was the point of the speech (IMO) wasn less about Cat's feelings toward Jon and more about her own guilt over her own shortcomings as a mother and as a Tully. She was supposed to protect her children (her trueborn children) above all others, and Jon was a threat to that. She prayed for him to die, but when she was faced with the monstrosity of what that meant, she got scared and backed out. To truly forever protect her sons from any potential threat to their claim, she should have let Jon die. Instead, she had a moment of weakness (of vanity) because she didn't want to be that monster who killed a child, and she prayed for him to live. She prayed and made promises not to save Jon as so much as her own image of herself.

They were promises she never could have kept, and by making them and 'saving' Jon, she chose him over her own children. And now, those broken words (and any wrath they may have wrought) are (she believes) coming back to plague her and her family.

It has nothing to do with her treatment of Jon Snow before or after his sickness (which was undeniably shitty-- something which Cat freely admits to), but about her failure to do what needed to be done to protect her family.

And none of that has to do with the morality of her actions (or of Jaime's). In fact, it was her one moment of kindness, of compassion, that she believes screwed her over.