Catnapping: a PSA

[Fauch]

No I mean the very best result she can hope for by kidnapping Tyrion is that Jaime demands an immediate trial by combat. This is the very best she can hope for. Most likely scenario is that Tywin goes to war.

Cat does not know how much Robert loved Ned. It's very believable that he would side with the Lannisters. Even Ned at times is unsure if Robert will side with him or not.

Sorry it's plain ridiculous to argue that Tyrion and his companions could overpower Cat in the Riverlands. If she was scared of her safety she could have asked for an escort. She is Catelyn Tully in her home kingdom. It's a nonsense and does not even come into her decision at all.

I wasn't really replying to your post, but to the post of cordon. I should have quoted, but didn't want to quote such a long post.

And its rather odd you could claim that killing Ned was beyond the Lannisters while Robert was alive. The only reason Jaime didn't kill him was because Cat had Tyrion.

Robert siding with the Lannisters over a dead wolf is one thing, but doing nothing when Jaime murdered Ned? Hardly.

Sorry it's plain ridiculous to argue that Tyrion and his companions could overpower Cat in the Riverlands. If she was scared of her safety she could have asked for an escort. She is Catelyn Tully in her home kingdom. It's a nonsense and does not even come into her decision at all.

100% agree.

[corbon]

Sorry but that is some pretty weird logic you apply here - Jaime would have killed Ned if Catelyn didn't have Tyrion, yet Jaime only attacked Ned because Catelyn had Tyrion - that is not naive, that is outright stupidity.

Please reread my reply. Thats already explicitly covered (lower down)

Robert wouldn't have done anything if Jaime killed Ned? I start to wonder whether we are reading the same series.

He didn't do anything when Jaime attacked Ned, killed his men and broke his leg. Even when Ned argued the point. What on earth makes you think he'd do anything if Ned had died, and wasn't even there to present his side as opposed to whatever claims Jaime made about an accident in a drunken tavern brawl?

Tyrion congratulates her for deceiving the people at the Inn because Riders could have reached and freed him before they were at Moat Cailin. First of all, the OP talked about Tyrion and his two servants overpowering Catelyn and Ser Rodrik, without any aggression on Catelyns part. Second of all, freeing Tyrion and taking Lady Catelyn captive are a wholly different pair of shoes.

And how do they free free Tyrion without overpowering Lady Catelyn and Ser Rodrik?

And why on earth would Tyrion not have her then killed, and Ser Rodrik? No witnesses, no crime. Or at least, only the crimes the "witnesses" (all in Lannister pay) bear witness to.

"We came upon a band of robbers attacking the Lady milord. They killed her man as he bravely defended her, almost buying enough time for us to save her too, but they was too quick, milord. Her wounds were mortal by the time we chased them off."

[corbon]

Sorry it's plain ridiculous to argue that Tyrion and his companions could overpower Cat in the Riverlands. If she was scared of her safety she could have asked for an escort. She is Catelyn Tully in her home kingdom. It's a nonsense and does not even come into her decision at all.

If she was at Riverrun, then yes, maybe. But she's not, she's in a public inn on the main road. Her 'escort' would come from the very men motivated by promises of Lannister gold.

Tyrion's later response proves it. She did ask for an escort, and got one. And still they both believe if she'd taken the main road north she'd be dead in a ditch within days and her family none the wiser.

The characters understand their situations a heck of a lot better than naive readers...

[Fauch]

Funny how you are apparently one of the "non-naive" readers, yet understand Catelyns situation better than herself. Or at least claim to.

As to your argument it's getting more and more ridiculous - The men at the Inn are people sworn to Riverrun + Bronn. If they were swayed so easily by a promise of gold, why didn't they side with Tyrion to begin with? It's also quite funny how only "enlightened readers" like you immediatly spotted how Catelyn feared she might be killed or taken hostage, because there is zero evidence in the books for it.

The people Tyrion could sway with gold are people who are willing to carry the message of his abduction to Casterly Rock. There is no indication that he would have found ample men to take Catelyn Tully hostage in the Riverlands.

Wouldn't you agree that, if Catelyn really fears for her life, asking for an escort to Riverrun (which no one would have denied her) wouldn't have been absolutely mandatory?

And still they both believe if she'd taken the main road north she'd be dead in a ditch within days and her family none the wiser.

There is no evidence of this either. The "friends" you are talking about would have maybe freed Tyrion. They would have certainly NOT killed Catelyn Tully. Even if your argument was plausible, she'd be way too much of a valuable hostage to kill.

First of all, the OP talked about Tyrion and his two servants overpowering Catelyn and Ser Rodrik...

Your reply to this is how would they free Tyrion without overpowering Lady Catelyn and Ser Rodrik?

Hmm....reading comprehension...

As for the Jaime situation...breaking someone's leg and killing Ned are two different pair of shoes. Especially for no reason. Your whole logic defeats itself.

I think we agree that Jaime wouldn't have attacked Ned at all, if Catelyn hadn't taken Tyrion, nor killed his men. Obviously if Jaime assasinated Ned, Robert wouldn't have done a thing. This is well in the realm of lunacy though..I could see Jaime killing Ned, but he would most certainly not lie about it.

It did save Ned's life. She has a hostage. Her having Tyrion is the only reason Jaime didn't kill Ned already. Yes, Jaime attacked Ned in this case because of her arresting Tyrion, but that he didn't kill him shows the hostage value - for Jaime if not Tywin. If Tyrion sent back word to KL that he Lannisters were under threat of exposure by the Starks, there's nothing to say that Jaime wouldn't have attacked Ned anyway (at Cersei's urging no doubt) and killed him.

I still fail to see how this makes any sense. The first part is obviously broken logic. The second part is not only purely speculation, there's also the fact that Cersei didn't kill Ned when he uncovered her real secret - the incest. There was no threat of exposure - there was outright exposure, yet Cersei didn't kill him. Jaime wasn't in the city, but don't you think Cersei could have easily found a way to have Ned killed?

As for the discussion itself...I think I am done here, because I am only a "naive reader" and certainly not as clever as you :cool4:

[Sansa_Stark]

blah blah blah.

I am certain people are arguing that Cat still started the war of the 5 kings, but I still call bulls*** on that.

Cat did not cause Renly and Stannis to revolt.

What made the two of them crown themselves was Robert's murder. Both Renly and Stannis realized that Robert was killed by Cersei and had to make a move. Stannis with double the motivation Renly had. So even if you did argue with Cat did was illegal, it makes no matter. Cersei started the war of the 5 kings. Cat at most, started an assault of the riverlands, which is an arguable topic by itself(one that I'm not willing to argue for or against).

And we all know what Robert's death led to with Ned.

So basically it was Cersei who started the war.

[butterbumps!]

Here I have certain problems. Even if we ignore the fact that the Catnapping was dicey (King Robert called it an abduction), I'd argue putting Tyrion in mortal danger (the High road) is most certainly "illegal"

The legality of putting Tyrion in danger is really beside the point, as per the SSM. It's not any danger to Tyrion's life Tywin is responding to; it's the fact that a Lannister was arrested, and anyone who arrests a Lannister, with or without a body of evidence, will be chastened: “The honor of our House was at stake. I had no choice but to ride. No man sheds Lannister blood with impunity.”

The danger of taking Tyrion to the Vale presents a different issue than a "legal" one. As per the passage I put in spoilers, Cat is more than aware of the sort of danger that lies on that road, so she knows it's a risk to both herself and Tyrion's lives. Yet, a more certain danger lies ahead if she goes straight to KL.

Word of the arrest would spread no matter which road she took at that point. We learn that despite the fact Yoren rode hard for KL to tell Ned, riders hoping for Lannister favor beat him there. Word was also sent immediately to Tywin. All it would take is a bird sent to Jaime telling him to start North from KL to intercept Cat/ Tyrion, not to mention Cersei keeps 100 Lannister guards in her service who would be sent forth as well. Riding south at that point would have been a disaster. Cat needed to cover her trail no matter what; a detour through the Vale would have been a fairly good way of throwing them off, as well as getting Lysa to call her banners, add another testimony, and go to KL with a number of knights of the Vale with them for protection.

As we discussed in the previous thread, the fact that Cat knows the danger and believes this is the best course speaks to her conviction about how necessary and right she believes this detour is. If Tyrion is accidentally killed while her prisoner, it will have extremely negative consequences for her family; I see that and Cat understood that as well. The alternatives (interception by riders outside of KL) would be worse, and she thinks she needs more evidence and more force to see her there.

Half-agree. Yes it's a calculated gamble, but she herself admits she doesn't necessarily think it through - it is a rash decision.

There's a difference between a "split second decision" and "rash" or "impulsive" decision. As per the passage I quoted in which Cat thinks over her options at the Crossroads before the arrest (North, to Riverrun, to the Vale), Cat has already considered those angles, so the way she expects this to play out in that split second is not uninformed or completely unexamined.

I just take issue with "rash" and "impulsive" wrt to the arrest. These words connote a sense of recklessness and hot-headedness that are absent in Cat's POV at that point. "Split-Second Decision" is a qualitatively more accurate way to describe that moment.

Many problems. Tyrion "discovering" Catelyn there changes nothing in the grand scheme of things. She believes that the Lannisters are conspiring against the Starks, yes. Let's say Tyrion immediatly sends a messenger to Kings Landing (he is going there himself) and tells Cersei/Jaime that he found out Catelyn Stark was travelling the Riverlands incognito - what of it? The Lannisters immediatly make their move and kill Ned? That was rather unlikely to happen as long as Robert was alive, apart from an assasination attempt - Yet if killing Ned was planned, wouldn't have the Lannisters done just that anyway, no matter if Tyrion and Catelyn meet on the crossroads? And, if she believed that Ned/Arya/Sansa were really in mortal danger, why did she allow them to stay at Kings Landing? She could have taken Arya at the very least. Remember, Family, Duty, Honor.

This was answered in the OP, but I'll rephrase it.

The issue isn't simply that Tyrion will send a raven to KL to say Cat was up to trouble and kill Ned then and there. The issue is that Tyrion would know she's up to no good, and if there really is a Lannister conspiracy, she could be easily overpowered by Tyrion and his 2 Lannister guards to be taken as his hostage as soon as she leaves the inn. As in, this presents immediate danger to Cat, as she's travelling with no retinue, and Tyrion could literally send his guards to attack and capture her as soon as she left the inn. If not these guards specifically, there is a good chance Tyrion can communicate with his family to have her intercepted elsewhere after leaving the inn.

The arrest of Tyrion was both an arrest of a suspect, a preemptive strike so that she wasn't captured after being found out, and hostage leverage.

Also, she couldn't have taken the kids from KL, as that would have been a surefire way to alert the Lannisters to the fact that she had been in KL, and send them a clear message that she and Ned were onto their supposed conspiracy.

As for Tyrion (a dwarf), his cook, and one swordsman overpowering Catelyn and Ser Rodrik...I don't buy it. I don't believe Catelyn was afraid of her own safety.

First, this actually is a very real possibility. Cat thinks on how Rodrick is "armored only in loyalty." She doesn't consider him to be the most able of body guards. Secondly, the hall was filled with Sell swords and free riders. It would not take much for Tyrion to hire one for this task. As it is, many riders were willing to race out and give word for the promise of Lannister gold. Had Cat walked away from the inn, there's a good chance she'd be overtaken (from her POV).

Agreed. Though it begs the question why she didn't just go to Lysa without Tyrion.

She said that that would need to wait, as what was needed most was for her to be at Winterfell, and to call Ned's banners as he told her to at their meeting.

Yes. Tywin does call his banners though as well. This is actually huge. Calling your banners basically means that your neighbours MUST do the same. Much the same happened during the outbreak of WW1.

But Ned called his banners when they were in KL. He gave Cat instructions to get word to Manderly and his bannermen to prepare. Cat knows that the Vale and Riverlords need to call their banners as well, and this is part of her consideration to go to Riverrun and the Vale. The banners were being called. Ned put out the command to call them first, actually.

Problem: If letting Tyrion go would have endangered Ned&co at Kings Landing, how did taking Tyrion captive not?

Tyrion can be used as a bargaining chip if any of her family members there were also taken hostage. I don't see how this is a problem.

[butterbumps!]

The men at the Inn are people sworn to Riverrun + Bronn. If they were swayed so easily by a promise of gold, why didn't they side with Tyrion to begin with? It's also quite funny how only "enlightened readers" like you immediatly spotted how Catelyn feared she might be killed or taken hostage, because there is zero evidence in the books for it.

The people Tyrion could sway with gold are people who are willing to carry the message of his abduction to Casterly Rock. There is no indication that he would have found ample men to take Catelyn Tully hostage in the Riverlands.

Well, the reason the men didn't initially side with Tyrion is easy to answer. Cat sort of tricked these men into siding with her first. She first calls them by Houses sworn to her father, and then tells them that out of service to her House, they must help her bring Tyrion to justice. The fact that she does this-- gets them to swear their oaths as her protectors first-- shows us that she does consider her personal safety here. She knows she needs "force" now that she's been spotted.

But bear in mind that there are only so many lords from Riverland Houses at this inn. In truth, the inn is full of free riders and sellswords. It's more than just Bronn there. The Riverlords would not likely side with Tyrion for the promise of gold, but we know that actually many of the others do, as they race off to send word to the Lannisters about the arrest.

But wrt the point about Riverrun, I agree that this is an option. Get to Riverrun swiftly with Tyrion, raise the banners, and get a more significant escort of knights to get to KL. This is a good option, but what makes the Eyrie more attractive is the fact that Lysa supposedly has more evidence of the conspiracy, and with multiple testimonies there is a better chance the Lannisters will be brought to justice. This is a considerable bonus to choosing the Vale over Riverrun. Cat doesn't believe she has enough evidence to convict Tyrion or prove a conspiracy; going to Riverrun would have been safer in the short-term, but the Vale held the promise of a long-term rectification of what she believed was a shadowy conspiracy.

As for the Jaime situation...breaking someone's leg and killing Ned are two different pair of shoes. Especially for no reason. Your whole logic defeats itself.

I think we agree that Jaime wouldn't have attacked Ned at all, if Catelyn hadn't taken Tyrion, nor killed his men. Obviously if Jaime assasinated Ned, Robert wouldn't have done a thing. This is well in the realm of lunacy though..I could see Jaime killing Ned, but he would most certainly not lie about it.

Well, think about it this way. While the Starks held Jaime, the Lannisters beat Sansa repeatedly (well, Joffrey, but Cersei turned a blind eye). Bodily harm to a hostage/ prisoner while keeping that prisoner's life safe is quite common. Though Ned wasn't a hostage, there is logic to what Corbon's saying: the arrest sent Jaime into a rage and he attacked Ned over it, but the fact that Cat held Tyrion's life prevents Jaime from slaying Ned. The dialogue in the street during this scene proves this:

“Would she? The noble Catelyn Tully of Riverrun murder a hostage? I think … not.” He sighed. “But I am not willing to chance my brother’s life on a woman’s honor.”...“Tregar, see that no harm comes to Lord Stark.”..... “Still … we wouldn’t want him to leave here entirely unchastened, so”—through the night and the rain, he glimpsed the white of Jaime’s smile—“kill his men.”

Jaime was intending to "chasten" Ned by killing his men; Ned wasn't meant to come to harm, but Ned fought back and had the accident with the horse. The broken leg wasn't truly Jaime's intention.

[mrunderhill]

If she was at Riverrun, then yes, maybe. But she's not, she's in a public inn on the main road. Her 'escort' would come from the very men motivated by promises of Lannister gold.

Tyrion's later response proves it. She did ask for an escort, and got one. And still they both believe if she'd taken the main road north she'd be dead in a ditch within days and her family none the wiser.

The characters understand their situations a heck of a lot better than naive readers...

Yes these men were so motivated they took Tyrion to the Vale. If she had taken the main road then Tywin would have sent riders to retrieve his son, like he well should have. Not, because she was traveling in the Vale. Cat makes terrible decisions and puts her family in real trouble. Robb's military genius gets her out of a very tight spot. In the end she hands control over to Robb and basically tells him 'you are 15, but if you don't mean the experienced Tywin and Jaime, who outnumber your forces, then we are all going to die.'

[juanml82]

Well, the reason the men didn't initially side with Tyrion is easy to answer. Cat sort of tricked these men into siding with her first. She first calls them by Houses sworn to her father, and then tells them that out of service to her House, they must help her bring Tyrion to justice. The fact that she does this-- gets them to swear their oaths as her protectors first-- shows us that she does consider her personal safety here. She knows she needs "force" now that she's been spotted.

But bear in mind that there are only so many lords from Riverland Houses at this inn. In truth, the inn is full of free riders and sellswords. It's more than just Bronn there. The Riverlords would not likely side with Tyrion for the promise of gold, but we know that actually many of the others do, as they race off to send word to the Lannisters about the arrest.

Actually, the sellswords can be hired by Catelyn - which is what Bronn and the other guy do. Tyrion has the money he has in his purse, Catelyn has the money in Riverrun at her disposal for this particular event. She can very well let Tyrion go, which won't cause the inmediate eruption of war, and arrange herself an escort to the nearest castle. From there, she can ask Edmure to provide her with a loyal escort composed of men of Riverrun. She doesn't even think about being assaulted in the roads if she doesn't take Tyrion in the text, that's just speculation

In any event, Tyrion is going to King's Landing, where Ned waits for him.

Well, think about it this way. While the Starks held Jaime, the Lannisters beat Sansa repeatedly (well, Joffrey, but Cersei turned a blind eye). Bodily harm to a hostage/ prisoner while keeping that prisoner's life safe is quite common.

No, it's not. Highborn hostages are kept safe and in comfort. The Redwyne twins are an example of this. Jaime is a bit of an excepcion, in that he's kept in a jail, but that's required as he's filthy rich and a great swordsman. Beating 12 year old girls is not common treatment.

[FuriousGeorge]

Blaming Cat for the war is like blaming the guy who shot Franz Ferdinand for the First World War. Alright they both provided the immediate spark but ultimately entire continents went to war for reasons that were very much detached from that initial spark.

[butterbumps!]

I think I should also address a certain passage from Cat's POV in which she blames herself for Tywin's fury:

" . . . they might attack?" Catelyn finished, hard. It was your doing, yours, a voice whispered inside her. If you had not taken it upon yourself to seize the dwarf . . ."

To take this as proof that Cat started the WotFK completely disregards all of the factors I listed in the OP that Cat is not aware of, and mistakenly assumes that Tywin's attack on the Rverlands is the start of the war. We know that Tywin was looking for an excuse, that Cersei wanted to get rid of Robert, that Tywin wanted the Hand position, that LF and Varys were plotting. Cat doesn't know this, and so correlates her arrest of Tyrion with everything that follows, feeling extreme guilt.

Actually, the sellswords can be hired by Catelyn - which is what Bronn and the other guy do. Tyrion has the money he has in his purse, Catelyn has the money in Riverrun at her disposal for this particular event. She can very well let Tyrion go, which won't cause the inmediate eruption of war, and arrange herself an escort to the nearest castle. From there, she can ask Edmure to provide her with a loyal escort composed of men of Riverrun. She doesn't even think about being assaulted in the roads if she doesn't take Tyrion in the text, that's just speculation

Of course Cat can hire sellswords, which she does. It could have easily gone the other way, however.

Once Cat declared her intentions, calling upon the service of those sworn lords, the balance of power in the inn swung in her favor. At that point it was in the sellswords' best interest to side with her. Had she not done that, Tyrion could have swung his influence to change that balance in favor of himself. She can't let Tyrion go, because there is an extremely good chance he hires men who choose not to accompany her in his own service and pursues her, potentially over taking her, even to Riverrun. These men would not be roused to this pursuit if Tyrion is her prisoner.

Actually, there is evidence that an assault and potential capture is a consideration. The fact that she throws off the trail by announcing she will go to Winterfell is proof of this; she knew a roadside capture was a keen possibility. Tyrion also expects that his father will intercept them along the road; he's angry about being tricked, because he believed that Lannister men would overtake the party, which won't happen now that she's thrown off the scent.

No, it's not. Highborn hostages are kept safe and in comfort. The Redwyne twins are an example of this. Jaime is a bit of an excepcion, in that he's kept in a jail, but that's required as he's filthy rich and a great swordsman. Beating 12 year old girls is not common treatment.

Beating 12 year old girls is indeed uncommon, but I gave an example of how a Stark hostage was treated by Lannisters. And it does, in fact, happen that the Lannisters will preserve a hostage's life while "chastening" that hostage physically. Mistreating prisoners is not unheard of generally, especially not Stark hostages held by Lannisters, was my point.

[Toxspecific]

Well done Butterbumps. Catelyn hate can be a bit silly sometimes. She didn't start the war; the spilling of the incest secret did.

[E-Ro]

Blaming Cat for the war is like blaming the guy who shot Franz Ferdinand for the First World War. Alright they both provided the immediate spark but ultimately entire continents went to war for reasons that were very much detached from that initial spark.

This is actually a really good comparison. In both events(wo5k and ww1) war was inevitable for a variety of complex reasons. There was no one thing that led to it all, its a situation that was a long time in the making.

[Mladen]

Blaming Cat for the war is like blaming the guy who shot Franz Ferdinand for the First World War. Alright they both provided the immediate spark but ultimately entire continents went to war for reasons that were very much detached from that initial spark.

Wonderful comparison. Gavrilo Princip's actions was initial spark but the war was bound to happen. We have the same thing here, and we had it with Lyanna's abduction/runaway. At the end, when you look in wider picture, Cat is so insignificant in the inception of Wo5K.

[juanml82]

Of course Cat can hire sellswords, which she does. It could have easily gone the other way, however.

Once Cat declared her intentions, calling upon the service of those sworn lords, the balance of power in the inn swung in her favor. At that point it was in the sellswords' best interest to side with her. Had she not done that, Tyrion could have swung his influence to change that balance in favor of himself. She can't let Tyrion go, because there is an extremely good chance he hires men who choose not to accompany her in his own service and pursues her, potentially over taking her, even to Riverrun. These men would not be roused to this pursuit if Tyrion is her prisoner.

Actually, there is evidence that an assault and potential capture is a consideration. The fact that she throws off the trail by announcing she will go to Winterfell is proof of this; she knew a roadside capture was a keen possibility. Tyrion also expects that his father will intercept them along the road; he's angry about being tricked, because he believed that Lannister men would overtake the party, which won't happen now that she's thrown off the scent.

But that's after she arrest Tyrion. There is nothing in the text backing the idea that Catelyn thought Tyrion would send men to kill her if she didn't arrest him in the spot.

Beating 12 year old girls is indeed uncommon, but I gave an example of how a Stark hostage was treated by Lannisters. And it does, in fact, happen that the Lannisters will preserve a hostage's life while "chastening" that hostage physically. Mistreating prisoners is not unheard of generally, especially not Stark hostages held by Lannisters, was my point.

That's not an example, that the only Stark hostage the Lannisters have.

[butterbumps!]

But that's after she arrest Tyrion. There is nothing in the text backing the idea that Catelyn thought Tyrion would send men to kill her if she didn't arrest him in the spot.

I'm not sure what you're looking for here in terms of evidence. The very fact that she gets those lords to first swear her loyalty and arrests Tyrion shows us that she believed it was a "capture or be captured" scenario.

That's not an example, that the only Stark hostage the Lannisters have.

I think we might be miscommunicating with each other. A poster posited that by arresting Tyrion, Cat may have helped preserve the lives of her family. Another poster disagreed with that, saying that the arrest put her family in more danger than if she hadn't. That poster said it was illogical to say that arresting Tyrion resulted in both Ned's broken leg and saving his life.

My point about beating a hostage was to show that indeed bodily harm to noble hostages is not unheard of, and I gave an example of this with a congruent set of variables at stake wrt the arrest of Tyrion: Tyrion/ Ned compared to Jaime/ Sansa (even though Ned was not a hostage, there is still a sense of congruity in this example). I brought this up to show that when someone holds a hostage of one House, it offers that House an incentive not to outright kill a member of the other family, but doesn't offer the same incentive not to hurt or "chasten them."

So I was simply pointing out that the logic does work, not trying to use the Sansa/ Jaime thing as direct precedent to forecast what would happen. It wasn't necessary because I provided a passage in which Jaime explicitly states this, proving that Corbon's assertion was correct: Jaime wanted to "chasten" Ned, but wouldn't kill him because Tyrion was a hostage.

[Sansa_Stark]

This is actually a really good comparison. In both events(wo5k and ww1) war was inevitable for a variety of complex reasons. There was no one thing that led to it all, its a situation that was a long time in the making.

The underlying cause was the incest. Both sections of the war were started from the exact same base issue

[blood of the dragoon]

Great post.

Though i never got all the cat-hate. I always found her sympathetic.

[E-Ro]

The underlying cause was the incest. Both sections of the war were started from the exact same base issue

Renly wanted cersei out of power and he rebelled with no idea of the incest. Also what about varys and LFs scheming? Like I said, it was a combination of issues.

[locke and key]

Renly wanted cersei out of power and he rebelled with no idea of the incest. Also what about varys and LFs scheming? Like I said, it was a combination of issues.

Not to mention that balon crowned himself and would've regardless of the incest, and robb decided to crown himself and cause more conflict instead of going over to stannis