Did Catelyn abuse Jon for his whole life? - Part 2

[mormont]

I felt that Catelyn was exaggerating in Winterfell when she was so gleeful at the thought of no wife for Jon and no children who could one day dispute her own grandchildren's rights to Winterfell.

'Gleeful'?

And you say that she was exaggerating?

[straits]

Legitimising Jon is also providing for the possibility that Winterfell does fall to someone, in Robb's eyes. In Cat's eyes Jon is a danger and the distant relatives are a safe choice. In Robb's eyes Jon is a part of the pack and the relatives aren't. Despite his Tully looks, he's of the North, so he can never understand that Cat's arguments are, for once, not dictated by her personal feelings for Jon but what is reasonable and sane. In Robb's eyes, Jon is the reasonable and sane choice.

I felt that Catelyn was exaggerating in Winterfell when she was so gleeful at the thought of no wife for Jon and no children who could one day dispute her own grandchildren's rights to Winterfell. But that was when Robb was the heir, Bran and Rickon after him, and legitimising Jon was not even a thought in anyone's mind. Now the situation is changed. Yes, Cat might dislike the idea of Jon getting Winterfell if Robb fell, on a personal level, but her advice is mostly dictated by reason.

There are several issues with making Jon a candidate for inheritance of Robb's legacy.

He would first need to relinquish his status as a member of the NW, a brotherhood founded by Starks - this hasn't been done before to my knowledge.

He would then need to be legitimized - and bastards rarely receive this, unless they have royal blood from both sides of the sheet.

He would then need to earn the trust of the Northern nobility after setting a precedent for leaving the Night's Watch, something that has been avoided to the point of father executing son, for 8000 years.

On topic, Cat's behaviour towards Jon could not be defined as abuse even by 21st century standards of our world.

I actually liked Catelyn but after this thread I am starting to dislike her. The bending over backwards to defend her actions is not making me like her very much at all. Not the character's fault, just my personal annoyance with the issue.

It's more like bending over backwards to make Cat seem a demon. She's been compared to Tywin in this thread, if you can believe that (page 12 or so if you want to see).

Perhaps it would be better to call what she did inaction, not action.

[Anath]

'Gleeful'?

And you say that she was exaggerating?

Sorry. I was wrong. She certainly said, "I don't think it's a good idea yet, Ned. Give it a few years. Just sent him away now."

Of course she was gleeful. She saw her chance to solve the problem with Jon immediately and jumped at it. She was so relieved that he would take no wife and father no children who could one day cause problems to her grandchildren.

He was 14. 14. He couldn't have known what life in the Night Watch meant. Catelyn should have had a better idea that it was only half a life and that he couldn't know it yet. She just didn't care. She saw a way to solve the problem. Her problem. The one that dwelled in her fantasy because at the moment, her 5 children were all ahead of the bastard in the succession. Oh wait, he wasn't at the succession at all and for now, nothing gave any indication that anyone in the North would ever look to him as a possible pretender for Robb's place.

[straits]

He was 14. 14. He couldn't have known what life in the Night Watch meant. Catelyn should have had a better idea that it was only half a life and that he couldn't know it yet. She just didn't care. She saw a way to solve the problem. Her problem. The one that dwelled in her fantasy because at the moment, her 5 children were all ahead of the bastard in the succession. Oh wait, he wasn't at the succession at all and for now, nothing gave any indication that anyone in the North would ever look to him as a possible pretender for Robb's place.

This was Ned's responsibility, though. That pep talk he gave Jon was less than informative of the NW's functions, and what it meant for a 14 year old. This particular situation is Ned's cross to bear.

You will provide juicy quotes to back up your 'gleeful' statement, yes?

eta: I feel that I should reiterate that Ned is Jon's parent, in function if not biologically. Not Cat.

[Anath]

This was Ned's responsibility, though. That pep talk he gave Jon was less than informative of the NW's functions, and what it meant for a 14 year old. This particular situation is Ned's cross to bear.

You will provide juicy quotes to back up your 'gleeful' statement, yes?

No. I don't have the English version. I'll translate from my own copy, though.

Catelyn wa silent. It was better for Ned to consider it himself. Her voice wouldn't be welcome now. But she was ready to jump and cover the maester with kisses. His solution was perfect. Benjen Stark was a sworn brother. Jon would be like a son to him - the child he could never have. And after a while, the boy would swear the vow, too. And he wouldn't beget sons who would one day dispute Winterfell to Catelyn's grandchildren.

Gleeful. And paranoid. Send him at the end of the world, so he would not one day have sons to claim Winterfell.

Actually, this is the only moment in the whole Jon/Catelyn dynamic that I find truly reprehensible.

Of course it was Ned's responsibility. She just welcomed the chance to get rid of Jon without caring what that would cost him. Not that she should, of course. But she didn't care, either way. The Benjen line certainly looks like a way of rationalizing the decision to me. A man taking Jon as his son in a black fortress at the end of the world. How nice!

It isn't hard to see why there are some who think that Catelyn's rational advice to Robb to not legitimise Jon is just another occasion of Cat being intent on keeping Jon away.

[Cinder Stark]

Sorry. I was wrong. She certainly said, "I don't think it's a good idea yet, Ned. Give it a few years. Just sent him away now."

Of course she was gleeful. She saw her chance to solve the problem with Jon immediately and jumped at it. She was so relieved that he would take no wife and father no children who could one day cause problems to her grandchildren.

He was 14. 14. He couldn't have known what life in the Night Watch meant. Catelyn should have had a better idea that it was only half a life and that he couldn't know it yet. She just didn't care. She saw a way to solve the problem. Her problem. The one that dwelled in her fantasy because at the moment, her 5 children were all ahead of the bastard in the succession. Oh wait, he wasn't at the succession at all and for now, nothing gave any indication that anyone in the North would ever look to him as a possible pretender for Robb's place.

This, thank you, Is exactly what I was trying to say except, I would add, after Balon Greyjoy died, the iron born was thrown into a crazy situation since no heir was named. Robb knowing this, recently married with no heir, chose Jon, because he was his brother and could lead men and continue what he started, yes, Jon would get Winterfell as a Stark.

[straits]

No. I don't have the English version. I'll translate from my own copy, though.

Catelyn wa silent. It was better for Ned to consider it himself. Her voice wouldn't be welcome now. But she was ready to jump and cover the maester with kisses. His solution was perfect. Benjen Stark was a sworn brother. Jon would be like a son to him - the child he could never have. And after a while, the boy would swear the vow, too. And he wouldn't beget sons who would one day dispute Winterfell to Catelyn's grandchildren.

Doesn't sound like she did anything to facilitate this in any way, though. Her self contained feelings of triumph did not affect Jon's future.

Gleeful. And paranoid. Send him at the end of the world, so he would not one day have sons to claim Winterfell.

Actually, this is the only moment in the whole Jon/Catelyn dynamic that I find truly reprehensible.

Paranoid? Yet a day did indeed come that her children's right to Winterfell were threatened by Jon, at Robb's suggestion. So prudent might be a better word in hindsight. And she didn't even do anything to ensure that Jon didn't become a Stark.

Of course it was Ned's responsibility. She just welcomed the chance to get rid of Jon without caring what that would cost him. Not that she should, of course. But she didn't care, either way. The Benjen line certainly looks like a way of rationalizing the decision to me. A man taking Jon as his son in a black fortress at the end of the world. How nice!

It isn't hard to see why there are some who think that Catelyn's rational advice to Robb to not legitimise Jon is just another occasion of Cat being intent on keeping Jon away.

I'm puzzled as to why one would bother policing a character's thoughts and judge them by something they never did. There is an implied call for Cat to be supportive of Jon in some way, as opposed to being effectively neutral.

[Minsc]

There are several issues with making Jon a candidate for inheritance of Robb's legacy.

He would first need to relinquish his status as a member of the NW, a brotherhood founded by Starks - this hasn't been done before to my knowledge.

He would then need to be legitimized - and bastards rarely receive this, unless they have royal blood from both sides of the sheet.

He would then need to earn the trust of the Northern nobility after setting a precedent for leaving the Night's Watch, something that has been avoided to the point of father executing son, for 8000 years.

Additionally, his very existence is an insult to half of Robb's Kingdom. Why would Edmure and Brynden Tully bend the knee to the bastard child of Ned Stark that was created out of his lust while he was already married to their beloved sister/niece? Instead, if they are going to bend the knee to someone they have no ties to why not just ally with the stronger Iron Throne as Tywin would probably "forgive" them if they helped squash the rebellious North.

[the trees have eyes]

No. I don't have the English version. I'll translate from my own copy, though.

Catelyn wa silent. It was better for Ned to consider it himself. Her voice wouldn't be welcome now. But she was ready to jump and cover the maester with kisses. His solution was perfect. Benjen Stark was a sworn brother. Jon would be like a son to him - the child he could never have. And after a while, the boy would swear the vow, too. And he wouldn't beget sons who would one day dispute Winterfell to Catelyn's grandchildren.

Gleeful. And paranoid. Send him at the end of the world, so he would not one day have sons to claim Winterfell.

Actually, this is the only moment in the whole Jon/Catelyn dynamic that I find truly reprehensible.

Of course it was Ned's responsibility. She just welcomed the chance to get rid of Jon without caring what that would cost him. Not that she should, of course. But she didn't care, either way. The Benjen line certainly looks like a way of rationalizing the decision to me. A man taking Jon as his son in a black fortress at the end of the world. How nice!

It isn't hard to see why there are some who think that Catelyn's rational advice to Robb to not legitimise Jon is just another occasion of Cat being intent on keeping Jon away.

I don't get your point really. You say she is paranoid but in another post acknowledge that the exact circumstance she was worried about came to pass. Surely that is foresight not paranoia, caution not irrationality? Her "glee" is relief that this potential cuckoo in the nest will, by taking the black, remove the potential for a future threat. There is no spite or triumph at the thought that Jon the person will not know happiness but great relief that the threat is removed. Why is this reprehensible? Maester Luwin speaks in favour of it - surely you will pour condemnation on him as well? As to what it would cost him: younger sons of nobility go to the wall - Denys Mallister, Waymar Royce, Benjen Stark. It is a hard life but it is not a dishonourable one for the volunteer as opposed to the convict. And Catelyn does not force this on Jon or advocate it or even plant the suggestion - her hands are clean of this. She doesn't look the gift horse in the mouth but what is reprehensible about her actions?

[Minsc]

He was 14. 14. He couldn't have known what life in the Night Watch meant. Catelyn should have had a better idea that it was only half a life and that he couldn't know it yet. She just didn't care. She saw a way to solve the problem. Her problem. The one that dwelled in her fantasy because at the moment, her 5 children were all ahead of the bastard in the succession. Oh wait, he wasn't at the succession at all and for now, nothing gave any indication that anyone in the North would ever look to him as a possible pretender for Robb's place.

Ned was the one who sent him to the Night Watch, by refusing to make any plans for Jon's potential future. Instead, he just expected his wife to continue to sacrifice her own sense of self respect because he made a promise to his dead sister and decided to lie to his wife for 14 years.

[Anath]

Doesn't sound like she did anything to facilitate this in any way, though. Her self contained feelings of triumph did not affect Jon's future.

Of course they didn't. Mormont claimed that she felt no such thing. My point was that the situation in Winterfell and Robb's decision to legitimise Jon were two different occasions and we shouldn't automatically claim that Catelyn did not want Jon to become Robb's heir out of spite. Her concerns were legitimate then. In Winterfell, the situation was entirely different. No one could foresee that the Starks would be left with Jon and the distant relatives as the only options (as far as Cat and Robb know). Cat felt triumph over someone who was not an enemy or a threat. Later, all that changed and she was simply being reasonable.

Paranoid? Yet a day did indeed come that her children's right to Winterfell were threatened by Jon, at Robb's suggestion. So prudent might be a better word in hindsight. And she didn't even do anything to ensure that Jon didn't become a Stark.

But Jon did not claim anything and his descendants certainly didn't. Cat was being prudent against the threat of malicious intent, not against Robb's desire to place Jon in the succession. Again, that first time at Winterfell nothing could have given them a clue as to how things would turn out. Besides, Cat being prudent didn't give much good, did it? Robb is ready to take Jon back from the very Wall where Cat was so pleased he was sent to.

I'm puzzled as to why one would bother policing a character's thoughts and judge them by something they never did. There is an implied call for Cat to be supportive of Jon in some way, as opposed to being effectively neutral.

Again, there was a claim that Cat was being vicious in not being cooperative to Robb's wish to legitimise Jon. I was making point that this time, she was being rational.

[straits]

I don't get your point really. You say she is paranoid but in another post acknowledge that the exact circumstance she was worried about came to pass. Surely that is foresight not paranoia, caution not irrationality? Her "glee" is relief that this potential cuckoo in the nest will, by taking the black, remove the potential for a future threat. There is no spite or triumph at the thought that Jon the person will not know happiness but great relief that the threat is removed. Why is this reprehensible? Maester Luwin speaks in favour of it - surely you will pour condemnation on him as well? As to what it would cost him: younger sons of nobility go to the wall - Denys Mallister, Waymar Royce, Benjen Stark. It is a hard life but it is not a dishonourable one for the volunteer as opposed to the convict. And Catelyn does not force this on Jon or advocate it or even plant the suggestion - her hands are clean of this. She doesn't look the gift horse in the mouth but what is reprehensible about her actions?

It seems Cat's sentiment is held doubly against her because it just so happens that circumstance aligns with her interest (Jon being out of the picture).

[David Selig]

I am at a loss what's the reprehensible part here. Jon wanted to go the NW. That suited Cat, solved a major issue in her life, vastly reduced the potential for future inheritance messes. So naturally she was glad about it. Yes, Jon won't have kids and wife - but again, his own choice. Yes, he was 14, but in Westeros, the age of majority is 16, and he was precocious.

How was Cat to know that both Ned and Benjen had done nothing to inform Jon about the reality at the Wall? And Jon still had the option to refuse to take the oath if he found the conditions in the NW weren't to his liking.

[Anath]

The reprehensible part is that the potential for future inheritance messes was, at this point, extremely small. And while we're at Cat's prudence, would someone explain to me what was so very prudent in assuming that a man who had fought a duel for her would happily forget about that and go merrily back to being her foster brother? The potential for future inheritance messes grew substantially after Cat acted on Littlefinger's word alone and kidnapped the Queen's brother, no less.

Despite my tone, I am really puzzled by this. From someone as smart as Cat, this is really weird for me. The only explanation I can come up with is her tunneled vision - Littlefinger was once part of her family, sort of, and to her, family is above all and she trusts them above all others. But this much?

[Kittykatknits]

It seems Cat's sentiment is held doubly against her because it just so happens that circumstance aligns with her interest (Jon being out of the picture).

MTE. She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't seems like.

The reprehensible part is that the potential for future inheritance messes was, at this point, extremely small. And while we're at Cat's prudence, would someone explain to me what was so very prudent in assuming that a man who had fought a duel for her would happily forget about that and go merrily back to being her foster brother? The potential for future inheritance messes grew substantially after Cat acted on Littlefinger's word alone and kidnapped the Queen's brother, no less.

Despite my tone, I am really puzzled by this. From someone as smart as Cat, this is really weird for me. The only explanation I can come up with is her tunneled vision - Littlefinger was once part of her family, sort of, and to her, family is above all and she trusts them above all others. But this much?

LF is a lord and member of the small council and made a claim in front of the Hand and another member of the small council. LF took a big gamble here as he could have easily been caught, events just played so that he got lucky. Why in the world would she suspect that LF consipred to have Jon Arryn killed, have her sister send her a letter, and be plotting how to start a war? She made the prudent call here too.

[the trees have eyes]

The reprehensible part is that the potential for future inheritance messes was, at this point, extremely small. And while we're at Cat's prudence, would someone explain to me what was so very prudent in assuming that a man who had fought a duel for her would happily forget about that and go merrily back to being her foster brother? The potential for future inheritance messes grew substantially after Cat acted on Littlefinger's word alone and kidnapped the Queen's brother, no less.

Despite my tone, I am really puzzled by this. From someone as smart as Cat, this is really weird for me. The only explanation I can come up with is her tunneled vision - Littlefinger was once part of her family, sort of, and to her, family is above all and she trusts them above all others. But this much?

But the possibility is there and that is all that really matters. Is it likely? No. But how likely does it need to be before you consider it reasonable rather than reprehensible that she want Jon to be no threat rather than a slim threat to her sons? Jon's situation - in being openly acknowledged as Ned's bastard and raised at Winterfell with his own legitimate son and heir - is unique in Westeros. Catelyn has more grounds to worry about Jon and how he might regard himself than any other great lady in the realm. I don't find it reprehensible that she would be greatly relieved that that problem would suddenly have a simple and concrete solution: the Night's Watch. Littlefinger is revealed as the story progresses to be a consummate liar and well practised in the arts of deception and manipulation. It's not really surprising that she should fail to imagine that the lovesick boy she knew could have grown to be this man. While the potential threat Jon represents as an alternative source of Ned's blood is obvious there is no potential threat that the Master of Coin can conceivably represent. There is no real basis for contrasting Catelyn's trust of Littlefinger with her identification of a threat in Jon. LF fools everyone except Varys and he achieves what he does by not seeming a threat to anyone.

[Wanderer]

Why hold a grudge against someone if one does not blame them for something? She holds a grudge against his presence? Why? Because he is a threat to her kid's inheritance? Is Jon to blame for that? And is that grudge against a child justified? That's the question I have been asking. You answered. David Selig thinks it's justified and I think all the rest of the Cat fans agree as well.

I disagree in that I don't think holding a grudge against a child is justifiable in any way or form.

I'm in total agreement. Holding a grudge against an innocent child is not only morally repugnant IMO, but pretty damn petty and silly as well. Not to mention illogical.

However,I find no fault in Cat being concerned about her children's claim to house Stark. While I find that worry to be a bit neurotic, it isn't totally without precedent. But, that is not the question here.

I think it's plain as day that Martin expects the reader to see her treatment of Jon as Cats ugly side. It's setting up the challenges young Jon had to face and overcome. It is the very definition of an injustice to blame a helpless child for something they cannot control, and it forced Jon to grow up a way too early. Otherwise his brooding nature and tendency towards melancholy would feel more whiny and less realistic. The fact is, children are very perceptive and sensitive to justice. Even dogs have been proven to understand the concept of justice. Consider Theons betrayal; while horrible, it was in no way without reason and it makes Jon's loyalty to his family despite the abuse from Cat all the more remarkable. I don't think this contrast is without purpose.

On this topic I see no end. I'm a bit depressed that I see so much mental gymnastics going on around here to try to justify the blaming of an innocent child. It has all the lawyer logic concerning the letter of the law, but seemingly devoid of the spirit of the law.

[LordStoneheart]

I hear arguments trying to put the blame on Ned and his actions. Yet, where is the personal accountability? When do we stop blaming other people and their actions for the reason why someone treats someone else poorly? And this doesn't pertain to Jon because he is a child and is therefore absolved, and also he didn't treat Catelyn poorly, so get that terrible counterargument out of your heads. Now the fact that her real children from her own womb could see past her obvious coldness and treat Jon like a peer speaks volumes about Catelyn's petty and "if you aren't from my loins you don't get a smile or a pat on the head EVAR!" attitude towards Jon. Now abuse can be seen as something that was done for a good amount of time. So yes I think there are shades of abuse there in that she never deviated from her behavior since he was brought to Winterfell and clearly acted differently with the other 5 children than with him. Neglect is a form of abuse which is what she did to him. Emotional neglect. So I redact my statement about shades of abuse, she did abuse him. The icing on the cake was when she called him by name for the first time ever and told him, "It should have been you." Grief be darned. She has the presence of mind to realize this was the last time she would ever see him and she made the conscious effort to think of that statement after seeing it was in fact Jon coming in and intentionally waited till he was literally one more physical step out of her life forever to outright audibly say it. She's like a freaking teenager and it makes me sick. She should have stayed dead.

This is by far the dumbest statement about Catelyn that I've ever read. It's probably been said to death, but I feel like responding directly to you. Neglect is not abuse, and she had no, and get it through your head, NO obligation to be anything toward him. Even if he was a baby. If she didn't birth it, there was nothing anyone could do to make her feel like she had some sort of "womanly" obligation to raise it, and to think she did is just plain sexist. Even in Westeros world.

[LordStoneheart]

I'm in total agreement. Holding a grudge against an innocent child is not only morally repugnant IMO, but pretty damn petty and silly as well. Not to mention illogical.

I disagree. Some kids can just be plain bad people.

[Lady Blue Rose]

Facts:

Catelyn is not Jon's Stepmother.

Jon's done all right for a bastard. Just look how fucking awful the small-folk get treated in this world.

Just a FYI:

Catelyn is in fact Jon's stepmother. According to the American Herritage Dictionary, stepmother is defined as t

he wife of one's father and not one's natural mother.

And in the merriam-webster dictionary it is the wife of one's father when distinct from one's natural or legal mother