Catnapping: a PSA

[butterbumps!]

I will cop to an unnecessarily inflammatory opening with the "almost entirely hogwash." I might note that the thread is full of such comments directed at your critics, which is one reason I thought it worth another response. In fairness, however, in looking over it again it does seem that these generally do not come from you. My apologies.

This is one of my biggest problems with this thread - you and your supporters constantly bounce back and forth between Cat's limited perspective and an omniscient one, depending on which better serves your argument.

Thanks-- no problem.

I think I might understand where some of the larger disagreement comes from, though. The OP does bounce as you say, but that's because I was addressing a number of frequently criticized points, which, as a whole, are themselves bouncing between those perspectives. It might help if I explain it this way: back when I made this thread, fairly ugly fights kept breaking out about the Catnap. I took the most frequently made arguments against Cat (my bolded subheadings), which criticize the arrest from multiple perspectives, and addressed them all at once in the OP. So my defense of the act shifts perspectives between points, because I'm addressing criticisms that argue against her from multiple perspectives.

1. As I understand it, your basic argument is that Cat's decision made sense according to the information that she had. Since she knows that there is no five House conspiracy against the Lannisters, how is Tywin's state of mind relevant?

2. Not a central point, as I said - it merely goes to show a pattern.

3. Can we then agree that her action was not legal and thereby positioned the Starks as the aggressors?

4. This is your strongest point, as it does seem that Cat was spurred into action by Tyrion's recognition of her. However, we can't really know what she would have done if he hadn't, and in any case even if one assumes that she had some fear of what he would do, that doesn't make it reasonable. Capturing Tyrion clearly worsens Ned's position with the King and greatly increases the chance that Tywin would take some action against her or her children; weigh this against the vague possibility that Lannisters would magically trasnport themselves to the Neck to intercept her or persuade a river lord to kill their liege's daughter and her move doesn't seem so defensive after all. As you said elsewhere, the main attraction of the course Cat took was

5. I don't think anything would have happened, so long as the King were alive - even after Tyrion was captured Tywin does not take action openly, but sends the Mountain to goad Edmure into responding as you note in your OP. Cat doesn't know this, of course, but she knows that Tywin is a careful man and already believes that the Lannisters are conspiring against her family. What are they going to do, conspire more? Tywin needs a casus belli, and by catnapping Tyrion Cat brings him that much closer to having one - and remember, as long as Ned is Hand then it is just as likely that the Lannisters in KL become his hostages as the other way around.. BTW, this whole line of argument kind of undercuts your position that law doesn't really matter, doesn't it?

6. No, I'm saying that it was bad strategy in large part because it was illegal. It is certain to provoke a strong reaction from Tywin and, more importantly, it harms Ned's standing with the King. Cat may not have trusted Robert, but that isn't really her call to make, is it?

1. This is addressing the question of whether the Catnap is responsible for starting the war, right? This point isn't about Cat's perspective; it's addressing a more global criticism that was frequently lodged at her when this thread was made. On the forum, Cat had become so singularly criticized for starting the war, to the extent that one would think everyone was a peaceful lamb until the Catnap. The points I raised against that are reminders of the fomenting situation, the real aggressors in this, what the other side thought, pointing out that only Tywin's raising his banners (not the Riverlands rape) was the response to this from him, and so forth.

2. We can put this one point of contention aside, but I'm still not sure of what you mean. Are you referring to a pattern on my part or Cat's?

3. I'm not sure about that. It wasn't "legal," but it wasn't "illegal" either, and whether it rendered the Starks as the aggressors is a little murky, all things considered. Lysa's letter, Jaime's defenestration of Bran, and the catspaw positioned the Lannisters as the aggressors, but not openly. By contrast, the Catnap was an open declaration of opposition in response to these prior acts of aggression. So the arrest wasn't the first "aggressive" act, but it's when the presence of hostile acts became public knowledge. Cat made the first open move, but did so by appealing to the fact that the Lannisters had been making clandestine moves against the Starks, positioning them as the aggressors.

4. We know that if Cat hadn't been spotted, she'd not have arrested Tyrion. She and Rodrick are aghast when Tyrion shows up, and she tries to hide her face from him. Those aren't the actions of someone looking for an opportunity to make arrests. Instead, the arrest is the result of being exposed.

This particular argument does pertain to Cat's own perspective and what she knows and assumes. There is no question that Cat feared the repercussions of being spotted; the fact that she and Rodrick panic when he shows up and try to keep themselves hidden tells us that she dreaded exposure here because of the consequences that would follow.

Capturing Tyrion does not necessarily worsen the Stark position in KL over not arresting him at that point. Here's the thing: from her POV, negative consequences for her family would result either way once she was exposed. She believes that the Lannisters are making moves against her family from the shadows-- not an open war, but behind-the-scenes acts against her family and their allies as part of a conspiracy. "Accidental" deaths, and that sort of thing. The worst thing in that scenario is to show the Lannisters that the Starks are onto them, as they'll start changing up the game and making more untraceable moves. Which happens the moment Tyrion recognizes her.

Now the Lannisters will know that the Starks are mobilizing in some way, and she believes this will have repercussions. The choice at this point is: 1. Does she let him go, hoping her messengers will bring the news of her exposure to Ned before it reaches the Lannisters, and pray that the Lannisters don't stage another "accidental" death or the like against her family, or put her in a position to be summoned to KL and end up having to give a testimony without enough proof? or 2. Seize Tyrion as a form of insurance to stay the outbreak of violence and secure her own hostage, expose the Lannisters as aggressors (she's arresting him for a crime against her family, after all), and buy time to gather enough evidence to present a case against the Lannisters to the king?

5. Tywin isn't the only problem here. The larger concern is the fact that it seems the Lannisters are behind several "accidental" murders and murder attempts. She thinks Cersei poisoned Jon Arryn, knows Jaime pushed Bran, and that catspaw had been sent to finish the job. It's not the open aggression that's most fearsome, but the shadowy plays.

I'm not sure why you think that argument undercuts anything. The "legal" side seems to be a major sticking point.

6. How are you understanding how the law works in this series? What's "legal" is what can be upheld by force. A "legal" claim is something that might persuade people to your side, but on its own, there's no clearly defined law that's unanimously recognized and invested with authority in its right to determine outcomes.

[E-Ro]

I had the same thought when I read it the first time, but I didn't want to say anything. Now that you bring it up, though, is it possible that you were - shall we say - somewhat "altered" at the time? In any case, don't feel bad - a lot of people seemed to like it at the time.

Ok, hold on a sec. I was actually joking when I said that yesterday. I really do agree with the lemoncake on this one, I just thought I would take the time to put her in her place there. You see, she actually used my email to sign me up for all these stupid fetish dating websites a while back. I have since been struggling to get even with her over it, shes clever. That post of mine wasn't serious. I should give credit where its due, shes good at this cat stuff.

As you where gents/ladies.

[The Poster Who Was Promisd]

1. I read your OP as primarily a defense of the wisdom of Cat's action, so I took your discussion of Tywin's likely actions as justification based on the inevitability of war. I understand now that you were addressing another criticism, so while I disagree with your reading it is not that relevant to my main criticism.

2. Yours. As with the SSM below, you seem to be stretching the text to provide cover for your interpretation - she says she does not trust LF, but her actions show that she does. Rather than accepting this as a mistake, you twist the meaning of her original thought until it means the opposite of the literal reading.

3. If we are talking strategy then the fact that Cat's action was open is the heart of the matter. As far as public (and, more importantly, royal) opinion is concerned, Cat's action was completely unjustiifed. Tyrion expresses this thought in his first POV after the 'nap - something to the effect that the Starks just got themselves in a lot of trouble because the evidence was so thin (I'll look it up when I get home). This clearly implies that Cat's act was not kosher, as it implies not merely a simple acquittal, but an actual rebound upon the Starks.

4. Actually, we don't know that. We know that she wasn't going to jump up and shout "Hi!", but we don't know what little wheels would start turning in her mind after he sits down.

She believes that the Lannisters are making moves against her family from the shadows-- not an open war, but behind-the-scenes acts against her family and their allies as part of a conspiracy. "Accidental" deaths, and that sort of thing. The worst thing in that scenario is to show the Lannisters that the Starks are onto them, as they'll start changing up the game and making more untraceable moves.

But "untraceable moves" isn't "changing up the game," it's exactly what they are already doing. If they would poison Jon Arryn and send a knife after Bran, what wouldn't they do behind the scenes? The danger is that they will be able to move it out into the open before the North is ready (say, before Cat gets her message through to fortify Moat Cailin), and Cat could not have believe that abducting Tyrion would help keep a lid on things.

The choice at this point is: 1. Does she let him go, hoping her messengers will bring the news of her exposure to Ned before it reaches the Lannisters, and pray that the Lannisters don't stage another "accidental" death or the like against her family, or put her in a position to be summoned to KL and end up having to give a testimony without enough proof? or 2. Seize Tyrion as a form of insurance to stay the outbreak of violence and secure her own hostage, expose the Lannisters as aggressors (she's arresting him for a crime against her family, after all), and buy time to gather enough evidence to present a case against the Lannisters to the king?

Yeah, this doesn't fly for me. If, as she believes, the Lannisters are already bumping people off left and right, it doesn't seem like the news that Cat is touring the river lands incognito is really going to affect their plans all that much. Why would it? And how could she be summoned to KL to testify about a crime that no one has complained about yet? If she were so summoned, it would only be because Ned lodged the complaint. Do you think the Lannisters are going to accuse themselves of attacking Bran? It seems to me that Cat's action does not promote her personal safety and gives her no evidence about Bran, while severely cramping Ned's position in KL. She does get a hostage, but at what cost?

5.&6. Put simply, the Lannisters are operating under the table because the law matters. Sure, it can be set aside - Ned's paper shield outlives Robert by a few hours. Note, though, that even powermad Cersei spurns Jaime's exhortation to expose their incest and rule side by side. The law matters, and Cat broke it.

[The Poster Who Was Promisd]

Ok, hold on a sec. I was actually joking when I said that yesterday. I really do agree with the lemoncake on this one, I just thought I would take the time to put her in her place there. You see, she actually used my email to sign me up for all these stupid fetish dating websites a while back. I have since been struggling to get even with her over it, shes clever. That post of mine wasn't serious. I should give credit where its due, shes good at this cat stuff.

As you where gents/ladies.

Oh, no. Does this mean you are off the wagon again? And you were doing so well ...

[E-Ro]

Oh, no. Does this mean you are off the wagon again? And you were doing so well ...

Who is really off the wagon though, the guy that saw this thread in a compendium of theories and just HAD to come in and prove it wrong(you know, because it was oh so highly regarded, and we cant have that now can we?!?!?!?). Or the guy that agreed with the op when it was first posted?

Anyway, I have nothing much to add here. I simply jumped back in to explain how my post wasn't serious, even though I thought it obvious that it wasn't.

[The Poster Who Was Promisd]

It was obvious. I thought it was obvious that I was joking, too.

BB called it a PSA, indicating that he believed he was performing a public service. If I think it is inaccurate, is it not equally a public service to try to correct what I see as some misunderstandings?

[butterbumps!]

1. I read your OP as primarily a defense of the wisdom of Cat's action, so I took your discussion of Tywin's likely actions as justification based on the inevitability of war. I understand now that you were addressing another criticism, so while I disagree with your reading it is not that relevant to my main criticism.

2. Yours. As with the SSM below, you seem to be stretching the text to provide cover for your interpretation - she says she does not trust LF, but her actions show that she does. Rather than accepting this as a mistake, you twist the meaning of her original thought until it means the opposite of the literal reading.

3. If we are talking strategy then the fact that Cat's action was open is the heart of the matter. As far as public (and, more importantly, royal) opinion is concerned, Cat's action was completely unjustiifed. Tyrion expresses this thought in his first POV after the 'nap - something to the effect that the Starks just got themselves in a lot of trouble because the evidence was so thin (I'll look it up when I get home). This clearly implies that Cat's act was not kosher, as it implies not merely a simple acquittal, but an actual rebound upon the Starks.

4. Actually, we don't know that. We know that she wasn't going to jump up and shout "Hi!", but we don't know what little wheels would start turning in her mind after he sits down.

5. But "untraceable moves" isn't "changing up the game," it's exactly what they are already doing. If they would poison Jon Arryn and send a knife after Bran, what wouldn't they do behind the scenes? The danger is that they will be able to move it out into the open before the North is ready (say, before Cat gets her message through to fortify Moat Cailin), and Cat could not have believe that abducting Tyrion would help keep a lid on things.

6. Yeah, this doesn't fly for me. If, as she believes, the Lannisters are already bumping people off left and right, it doesn't seem like the news that Cat is touring the river lands incognito is really going to affect their plans all that much. Why would it? And how could she be summoned to KL to testify about a crime that no one has complained about yet? If she were so summoned, it would only be because Ned lodged the complaint. Do you think the Lannisters are going to accuse themselves of attacking Bran? It seems to me that Cat's action does not promote her personal safety and gives her no evidence about Bran, while severely cramping Ned's position in KL. She does get a hostage, but at what cost?

7. Put simply, the Lannisters are operating under the table because the law matters. Sure, it can be set aside - Ned's paper shield outlives Robert by a few hours. Note, though, that even powermad Cersei spurns Jaime's exhortation to expose their incest and rule side by side. The law matters, and Cat broke it.

1. We'll put this one aside for now.

2. Ok, first of all, I'm not stretching that SSM. Since you keep bringing up the legal issue, and it seems like the source of your concerns, perhaps after this post we should just focus on dealing with that SSM in isolation.

Secondly, I really, really do not understand what the issue is here. Cat says she doesn't trust LF entirely in KL. But she ends up trusting his word about the dagger over Tyrion's. I pointed out that her trusting his word over Tyrion's on the particular issue of the dagger does not indicate that she actually does trust him entirely, so it doesn't contradict her thoughts about this in KL.

Moving forward, Cat's trusting LF's word over Tyrion's about the dagger is obviously a "mistake" in that we know LF is the one who is lying about this. But the reason she makes this "mistake" isn't due to some inherent, irrational blind trust for LF; it's because from her POV, LF is the one with absolutely no motive to lie about this, nor anything at all to do with Bran's fall; he has no foreseeable gain from lying, which is what's giving his account on this one particular matter more weight than Tyrion's, as the Lannisters would be the one with motive to lie here.

3. The law isn't what Tyrion invokes there. He tells everyone listening that Tywin will reward anyone who sends word of the arrest to him. Then he anticipates that they'll never make it to Winterfell, as Tywin will send riders to intercept them:

They would never get him to Winterfell, he would have given odds on that. Riders would be after them within the day, birds would take wing, and surely one of the river lords would want to curry favor with his father enough to take a hand. Tyrion was congratulating himself on his subtlety when someone pulled a hood down over his eyes and lifted him up onto a saddle.

The lack of concern for the legal side of this is further reinforced when Tyrion voices his appeal, and speaks to the fact that Tywin would be roused to action over this for the slight it causes against House Lannister, which does not fall under a legal debate: "Lord Tywin Lannister cared not a fig for his deformed son, but he tolerated no slights on the honor of his House."

More damning, Tyrion doesn't consider his arrest illegal. He actually reflects that the best strategy for his House to get him out of this would be to have Cersei insist on holding Tyrion's murder trial in KL with Robert as judge. The arrest isn't "illegal," as he wants a trial to exonerate himself from these charges, not get the cased dismissed for wrongful arrest:

If Cersei kept her wits about her, she would insist the king sit in judgment of Tyrion himself. Even Ned Stark could scarcely object to that, not without impugning the honor of the king. And Tyrion would be only too glad to take his chances in a trial. Whatever murders they might lay at his door, the Starks had no proof of anything so far as he could see. Let them make their case before the Iron Throne and the lords of the land. It would be the end of them. If only Cersei were clever enough to see that …

The strategic component of this really isn't about the "legality" of it in the way you're arguing. The legal "diceyness" isn't where it fails.

4. Yea, seriously, we do know she was not going to arrest him publicly until she was exposed. You can make the argument that she may have chosen to ambush him secretly after leaving the inn had she remained unseen, but this would have produced a completely different chain of events. Notably, the arrest would not have been public, and no one would have any idea what had happened, or even that Tyrion was missing at all until much, much later.

5. Perhaps I need to clarify. If the Lannisters were planning to kill Ned like Jon Arryn (which is what Cat seems to suspect), and were waiting for just the right time, realizing that the Starks were onto them by having Tyrion recognize Cat might inspire them to "change it up" by going forward with Ned's "accidental" death ahead of schedule, before he could secure himself and the girls. Do you see what I mean? She thinks they're responsible for causing these "accidental" deaths, and that it would be only a matter of time before they also murdered Ned under Robert's nose. If they've been exposed, it might inspire the Lannisters to believe the "right time" was "now."

6. Yes, the fact that Cat was traveling around the Riverlands incognito does send the Lannisters the message that the Starks are up to something according to what Cat and Ned believe. Cat and Ned are of the belief that the Lannisters have a big conspiracy going, and are planning to move against Starks. So skulking around the Riverlands secretly would alert the Lannisters that the Starks are planning something, and that they know the Lannisters are a threat.

There are a few predicted ramifications of Cat's exposure: worst case scenario, the Lannisters move forward with their plan to kill Ned untraceably. I think this is the outcome she actually fears here. Holding Tyrion stays this from happening.

But I also provided a less drastic, but likewise harmful outcome: that after word of her exposure reaches KL, Cersei has Robert insist she comes to KL under the pretense of an invitation for a visit in a way Cat can't refuse to accept. Of course the Lannisters would not demand to be put on trial for accusations no one has yet made. But if Cersei were subtle about this, inviting Cat (forcibly) to come to KL under the pretense of a visit in order to answer why she'd been traveling incognito like that would put Cat into a position to have to answer some very difficult questions. We know that Cersei doesn't know about Cat's suspicion of a Lannister conspiracy, but being put into a position of having to return to KL for a "visit" and having her suspicions about Arryn and Bran come to light would be highly premature at that point, as she wouldn't be able to make a solid case for it in the event a trial did ensue. The Lannisters would be cleared. As the Tyrion passage I just quoted above supports.

7. It looks like we might need to have a more focused discussion on the law itself. I haven't said that the law is non-existent or that it doesn't matter at all. I've said that it doesn't matter in the way you have been arguing that it does. The law is ill defined and flexible. If this is truly the root of your concerns, then maybe it would be useful to discontinue going through this point by point and just present your issue with this from the legal perspective.

It was obvious. I thought it was obvious that I was joking, too.

BB called it a PSA, indicating that he believed he was performing a public service. If I think it is inaccurate, is it not equally a public service to try to correct what I see as some misunderstandings?

The "PSA" in the title was also a joke. The difference between the titular joke and your first two posts here is that mean-spirited tone and antagonism was absent in mine. I'm not going to make a thing about this, as it was already addressed.

[The Poster Who Was Promisd]

Thank you - this is the quote I was looking for:

If Cersei kept her wits about her, she would insist the king sit in judgment of Tyrion himself. Even Ned Stark could scarcely object to that, not without impugning the honor of the king. And Tyrion would be only too glad to take his chances in a trial. Whatever murders they might lay at his door, the Starks had no proof of anything so far as he could see. Let them make their case before the Iron Throne and the lords of the land. It would be the end of them. If only Cersei were clever enough to see that …

Why would Tyrion think "it would be the end" of the Starks, in your opinion?

if Cersei were subtle about this, inviting Cat (forcibly) to come to KL under the pretense of a visit in order to answer why she'd been traveling incognito like that would put Cat into a position to have to answer some very difficult questions.

Are you suggesting that Cersei would actually abduct Cat, or simply get Robert to order her to come to KL?

[In A Coat of Gold]

Cat has no proof and siezes the son of a lord Paramount. I wonder how many people Clegane put to the sword in the Riverlands all for her rashness/ Tyrion had a few people with him. One of them a NW and another a body servant lol.

[juanml82]

I've asked this multiple times in the past: if you continue to feel compelled to respond to me, would it be at all possible to do so in a more polite fashion?

I've read the post believing this was put under "theories" instead of "analysis". And clearly, this is too flimsy and disputed to be considered in the same category as R+L, the GNC, Southron Ambitions, Aegon Blackfyre, etc

Secondly, both myself and Hear me Meow thoroughly explained to you, personally, in this very thread, why Tywin would have reason to believe Stark, Baratheon, Arryn, Tully and Tyrell were in some form of alignment against his House at the beginning of aGoT. As such, Tywin would be aware of his need to do something to defuse this overwhelming threat that appeared to be looming. Sending Gregor out to terrorize in hopes of getting the Riverlands to break the peace and be neutralized (1 enemy down), while luring the head of another House into a trap (2 enemies down) is exactly the sort plan a man like Tywin, in Tywin's position, would make. Especially after we see that he's tried to neutralize the Baratheon-Arryn bloc by publicly offering to foster SR, and was therefore, most certainly, under the impression that a major threat was forming.

In particular, the Riverlands need to be clear, because Tywin believes Stannis will end up launching his attack on KL, which means Tywin's anticipating having to march through that territory. Without the Catnap at all, Tywin needed to get the Riverlands under submission, thwart the North from involving themselves, and ideally stall or threaten the Vale to stay out at least as long as it took him to get to KL, where he believed the real battle would be fought. Unless the idea is that until the moment of the Catnap, Tywin was sitting in Casterly Rock making doilies with no plans to thwart all these enemies he appeared to be cornered by

The thing is, you're jumping to conclusions a lot and assuming too much. Tywin Lannister had no reason to believe the Starks and Tullys were his enemies until/if Pycell informed him of Ned's suspicions. If Pycelle didn't, Tywin had no information nor reasons to believe the Starks were enemies until... oh, yes, the Catnapping.

First, you're assuming that Tywin wanted to foster SR to break an Arryn-Baratheon alliance. This might not necessarily be so. We know Lysa left KL soon after Jon Arryn's death. So, if it was Tywin's idea to foster SR, the following needs to happen:

Cersei writes to Tywin telling him that Jon died and she fears Lysa (not Jon) is in cahoots with Stannis

A raven from Tywin arrives from CR asking why would Lysa be in cahoots with Stannis (and what's Cersei going to answer to that?) and maybe proposing to foster SR. By now, Lysa is long gone.

Now, here comes the issue: when Tyrion joins Tywin, Tywin mentions how he's concerned about Stannis. But he doesn't mention Lysa or the Vale in relation to Stannis at all. And nowhere ever in the novels Tywin, or anyone else, hint towards this supposed Lysa-Stannis alliance.

So the burden is on you to prove this happened.

More likely, Jon died. Cersei, knowing how everyone in court believed SR had to be fostered away from Lysa, sees the opportunity and convinces Robert to ask Tywin to foster him. Lysa leaves. Tywin accepts because fostering a future Lord Paramount is a huge powerplay that doesn't need further explanations.

Now, at this point, Tywin might be aware about Renly's plot and might or might not have been informed of Jon and Stannis relationship. He should know that Stannis didn't resume his position as Master of Ships, so that's odd. So, it's likely he believes the Baratheons are up to something. And, based on his reactions in the future, he discards Lysa as a part of that conspiracy.

Enter the honorable Ned Stark, childhood friend of Robert Baratheon. A man who, despite distrusting Tywin, had fought a war together with the Lannisters when Balon Greyjoy rebelled. And a man whose daughter is to marry Tywin's grandchildren and become Queen, aka, be at the top of the female food chain. Why is the Honorable Ned Stark going to plot with Renly to set aside (kill?) Cersei and likely his daughter's fiancée and replace her with Margery Tyrell?

Even more, this idea that Tywin believed Ned would be a reluctant ally until either Pycelle's news or the Catnapping neatly explains a few things:

Why Tywin Lannister was doing nothing during the first 2/3s of AGOT

Why Tywin Lannister doesn't believe Lysa is an enemy

Why the Riverlands and the Westerlands mobilize at the same speed

Why he sends the Mountain to goad the Riverlands into attacking him after the Catnapping and after the Riverlords had time to mobilize

Why he never contacted Balon Greyjoy, his only possible ally, during AGOT

[Qhorin Halfhand and Yoren]

Butterbumps can you make it a little clearer to me what Catelyn's overall plan was? Was it to have a trial at the Vale, at King's landing, what?

It seems that in some of the most crucial of Ned and Catelyn decisions in GOT If Lysa and LF were to be trusted it might have gone better. Ultimately it seems both Ned and Catelyn took risks and those risks were made even more dangerous by them putting too many of their eggs on Littlefinger and Lysa's basket and acting, and taking those risks based on their trust on them.

[butterbumps!]

Thank you - this is the quote I was looking for:

Why would Tyrion think "it would be the end" of the Starks, in your opinion?

Are you suggesting that Cersei would actually abduct Cat, or simply get Robert to order her to come to KL?

That quote doesn't support the legal argument you were making.

If I were to accuse you of a serious crime, and you are proven innocent of that crime, then it makes me look like a discredited jackass with a petty bone to pick against you. Forcing a trial in front of Robert like that, with Tyrion knowing he's innocent and will be exonerated, will create an unbridgeable divide between Ned and Robert. They wouldn't be "finished" because Cat arrested him illegally. They'd be "finished" because they'd have accused him of a crime and been wrong about it. This actually supports the view that the arrest stands in a "legal" sense, but that the inevitable verdict would harm the Starks if a trial was called.

I wasn't suggesting that at all. Truly, the real issue I think Cat feared was that her exposure would hasten what she assumed was Cersei's plan to have Ned killed. I provided this second option as just an alternative that would also work out poorly. If didn't capture Tyrion, but word of her exposure came back to KL, she could have been "invited" to court and informally questioned by Cersei and Robert about what she was up to incognito. This is a speculative suggestion, though, and very tangential. I was just giving another option.

I've read the post believing this was put under "theories" instead of "analysis". And clearly, this is too flimsy and disputed to be considered in the same category as R+L, the GNC, Southron Ambitions, Aegon Blackfyre, etc

Well, this was in the first Compendium thread, and I had nothing to do with it's being there. But if I had to guess why it's in there, it would be because it organizes all the arguments in one place as a reference for the most common "back and forths" on the subject. I don't know why you feel the need to continue disparaging the quality of arguments and calling it "flimsy." It's an organized compilation of the most common objections and the counter-arguments. It's not meant to be a theory.

The thing is, you're jumping to conclusions a lot and assuming too much. Tywin Lannister had no reason to believe the Starks and Tullys were his enemies until/if Pycell informed him of Ned's suspicions. If Pycelle didn't, Tywin had no information nor reasons to believe the Starks were enemies until... oh, yes, the Catnapping.

First, you're assuming that Tywin wanted to foster SR to break an Arryn-Baratheon alliance. This might not necessarily be so. We know Lysa left KL soon after Jon Arryn's death. So, if it was Tywin's idea to foster SR, the following needs to happen:

Cersei writes to Tywin telling him that Jon died and she fears Lysa (not Jon) is in cahoots with Stannis

A raven from Tywin arrives from CR asking why would Lysa be in cahoots with Stannis (and what's Cersei going to answer to that?) and maybe proposing to foster SR. By now, Lysa is long gone.

Now, here comes the issue: when Tyrion joins Tywin, Tywin mentions how he's concerned about Stannis. But he doesn't mention Lysa or the Vale in relation to Stannis at all. And nowhere ever in the novels Tywin, or anyone else, hint towards this supposed Lysa-Stannis alliance.

So the burden is on you to prove this happened.

More likely, Jon died. Cersei, knowing how everyone in court believed SR had to be fostered away from Lysa, sees the opportunity and convinces Robert to ask Tywin to foster him. Lysa leaves. Tywin accepts because fostering a future Lord Paramount is a huge powerplay that doesn't need further explanations.

Now, at this point, Tywin might be aware about Renly's plot and might or might not have been informed of Jon and Stannis relationship. He should know that Stannis didn't resume his position as Master of Ships, so that's odd. So, it's likely he believes the Baratheons are up to something. And, based on his reactions in the future, he discards Lysa as a part of that conspiracy.

Enter the honorable Ned Stark, childhood friend of Robert Baratheon. A man who, despite distrusting Tywin, had fought a war together with the Lannisters when Balon Greyjoy rebelled. And a man whose daughter is to marry Tywin's grandchildren and become Queen, aka, be at the top of the female food chain. Why is the Honorable Ned Stark going to plot with Renly to set aside (kill?) Cersei and likely his daughter's fiancée and replace her with Margery Tyrell?

Even more, this idea that Tywin believed Ned would be a reluctant ally until either Pycelle's news or the Catnapping neatly explains a few things:

Why Tywin Lannister was doing nothing during the first 2/3s of AGOT

Why Tywin Lannister doesn't believe Lysa is an enemy

Why the Riverlands and the Westerlands mobilize at the same speed

Why he sends the Mountain to goad the Riverlands into attacking him after the Catnapping and after the Riverlords had time to mobilize

Why he never contacted Balon Greyjoy, his only possible ally, during AGOT

I'm not making assumptions any more than you are. I don't think you realize how many assumptions you're making here of your own. Trying to counter the points I raise by criticizing them as speculation doesn't work, because your counterpoints are equally speculative. Believing that Tywin had no reason to suspect a conspiracy until the Catnap is a major assumption, and an assumption that necessitates Tywin to be blind, moronic and a peace-loving hippe, none of which he is.

The issue isn't which of us is speculating more, because either way, this is all speculative since we don't have Tywin's POV, but rather which speculative scenario is most plausible in light of Tywin's character, what the characters would believe and be anticipating and so forth. And what you're suggesting doesn't work as well logically in terms of figuring out what Tywin's views are.

Butterbumps can you make it a little clearer to me what Catelyn's overall plan was? Was it to have a trial at the Vale, at King's landing, what?

It seems that in some of the most crucial of Ned and Catelyn decisions in GOT If Lysa and LF were to be trusted it might have gone better. Ultimately it seems both Ned and Catelyn took risks and those risks were made even more dangerous by them putting too many of their eggs on Littlefinger and Lysa's basket and acting, and taking those risks based on their trust on them.

Before being spotted, Cat was going to return to Winterfell. Once she's spotted, she decides to bring Tyrion to trial in KL, but chooses to go there via the Vale in order to get Lysa's testimony and any further proof of Lannister conspiracy that would bolster her case against them at this trial. She never intended for Tyrion to be tried at the Vale; she pleads with Lysa to question Tyrion privately, and pleads again to call off the trial in favor of private questioning. The goal was to bring him to KL and expose the Lannister conspiracy until Lysa prevented that possibility.

[SeanF]

That quote doesn't support the legal argument you were making.

If I were to accuse you of a serious crime, and you are proven innocent of that crime, then it makes me look like a discredited jackass with a petty bone to pick against you. Forcing a trial in front of Robert like that, with Tyrion knowing he's innocent and will be exonerated, will create an unbridgeable divide between Ned and Robert. They wouldn't be "finished" because Cat arrested him illegally. They'd be "finished" because they'd have accused him of a crime and been wrong about it. This actually supports the view that the arrest stands in a "legal" sense, but that the inevitable verdict would harm the Starks if a trial was called.

I wasn't suggesting that at all. Truly, the real issue I think Cat feared was that her exposure would hasten

what she assumed was Cersei's plan to have Ned killed. I provided this second option as just an alternative that would also work out poorly. If didn't capture Tyrion, but word of her exposure came back to KL, she could have been "invited" to court and informally questioned by Cersei and Robert about what she was up to incognito. This is a speculative suggestion, though, and very tangential. I was just giving another option.

Well, this was in the first Compendium thread, and I had nothing to do with it's being there. But if I had to guess why it's in there, it would be because it organizes all the arguments in one place as a reference for the most common "back and forths" on the subject. I don't know why you feel the need to continue disparaging

the quality of arguments and calling it "flimsy." It's an organized compilation of the most common objections and the counter-arguments. It's not meant to be a theory.

I'm not making assumptions any more than you are. I don't think you realize how many assumptions you're making here of your own. Trying to counter the points I raise by criticizing them as speculation does work, because your counterpoints are equally speculative. Believing that Tywin had no reason to suspect a conspiracy until the Catnap is a major assumption, and an assumption that necessitates Tywin to be blind, moronic and a peace-loving hippe, none of which he is.

The issue isn't which of us is speculating more, because either way, this is all speculative since we don't have Tywin's POV, but rather which speculative scenario is most plausible in light of Tywin's character, what the characters would believe and be anticipating and so forth. And what you're suggesting doesn't work as well logically in terms of figuring out what Tywin's views are

Before being spotted, Cat was going to return to Winterfell. Once she's spotted, she decides to bring Tyrion to trial in KL, but chooses to go there via the Vale in order to get Lysa's testimony and any further proof of Lannister conspiracy that would bolster her case against them at this trial. She never intended for Tyrion to be tried at the Vale; she pleads with Lysa to question Tyrion privately, and pleads again to call off the trial in favor of private questioning. The goal was to bring him to KL and expose the Lannister conspiracy until Lysa prevented that possibility.

What do you think Lysa was doing? She was willing to kill Tyrion, but insisted on remaining neutral. Was she just completely irrational, or was LF just pulling all the strings?

[juanml82]

I'm not making assumptions any more than you are. I don't think you realize how many assumptions you're making here of your own. Trying to counter the points I raise by criticizing them as speculation does work, because your counterpoints are equally speculative. Believing that Tywin had no reason to suspect a conspiracy until the Catnap is a major assumption, and an assumption that necessitates Tywin to be blind, moronic and a peace-loving hippe, none of which he is.

The issue isn't which of us is speculating more, because either way, this is all speculative since we don't have Tywin's POV, but rather which speculative scenario is most plausible in light of Tywin's character, what the characters would believe and be anticipating and so forth. And what you're suggesting doesn't work as well logically in terms of figuring out what Tywin's views are.

Well, since we aren't GRRM, all this is speculation. Now, there is a difference between jumping to conclusions and, well, merely concluding something. You claim Tywin Lannister was planning a preemptive strike anyways because he believed Stannis, Renly, Lysa, Edmure, Ned and Mace Tyrell were all plotting together. Well, you need to prove it.

What I'm writing is the information available to Tywin and how that information leads us to believe he couldn't think Ned, Lysa, Stannis, Renly and Edmure were all plotting together. Absent that information and seeing how Tywin was quiet until the Catnapping means an alternative explanation (such as "Ned is on my side, even if he doesn't like it") it's far more likely that "Ned wants to kill Cersei, his best friend children and is working to make sure Margery Tyrell, instead of his own daughter, becomes Queen".

This is not jumping to conclusions. This is pointing out the information Tywin did have and how it doesn't point to this huge conspiracy which didn't exist nor Tywin had reasons to believe it existed.

[butterbumps!]

What do you think Lysa was doing? She was willing to kill Tyrion, but insisted on remaining neutral. Was she just completely irrational, or was LF just pulling all the strings?

I go back and forth on this. It's a really good question and I'm not sure. Would Tyrion's death bring ire on the Vale, or would it have been spun to intensify Stark-Lannister divisions? Would she have had enough presence of mind to kill Tyrion, arrest Cat, appeal to KL that Cat was responsible for Tyrion's death, and that as a gesture of good faith, she'll deliver Cat to justice in KL or something like that? Maybe she wouldn't have come up with that on her own, but I'd guess that she'd detain Cat and wait for LF's instruction on how to proceed in the event Tyrion died there. Do you have thoughts?

[butterbumps!]

Well, since we aren't GRRM, all this is speculation. Now, there is a difference between jumping to conclusions and, well, merely concluding something. You claim Tywin Lannister was planning a preemptive strike anyways because he believed Stannis, Renly, Lysa, Edmure, Ned and Mace Tyrell were all plotting together. Well, you need to prove it.

What I'm writing is the information available to Tywin and how that information leads us to believe he couldn't think Ned, Lysa, Stannis, Renly and Edmure were all plotting together. Absent that information and seeing how Tywin was quiet until the Catnapping means an alternative explanation (such as "Ned is on my side, even if he doesn't like it") it's far more likely that "Ned wants to kill Cersei, his best friend children and is working to make sure Margery Tyrell, instead of his own daughter, becomes Queen".

This is not jumping to conclusions. This is pointing out the information Tywin did have and how it doesn't point to this huge conspiracy which didn't exist nor Tywin had reasons to believe it existed.

Yea, that's the point I just made to you. And since you reiterate that "all this is speculation," it's ludicrous that you simultaneously impose the requirement that I "prove" my stance.

Tywin knows that the Starks are no friends of his since the Rebellion. The Starks-Tullys-Arryns are ostensibly a bloc due to marriage. If he has a problem with one of them, the others become his enemies too. This is the whole point behind political marriage in the series. So this distrust and need for wariness on his part is already a precondition.

Just before the start of aGoT, a few things happen: Jon Arryn and Stannis make plans to foster SR (so add Baratheon to the Stark-Tully-Arryn power bloc); Tywin finds out, and attempts to intervene by publicly offering to foster SR (if clarification is needed, this move is intended to break up the power bloc by putting an Arryn hostage into his control to keep them from making a move); Jon Arryn dies suddenly, Robert declares Ned as Hand (the guy Tywin knows hates him is now the second most powerful guy in the kingdom), and most alarming, Stannis disappears to Dragonstone, apparently rallying in order to make a move.

With this alone, do you really believe that Tywin's position was not looking a bit precarious at this point in time? That Tywin, being the sort of man Tywin is, knew that something was brewing, would have read this as the formation of a power-bloc that appeared to be anti-Lannister, and that a challenge to Lannister influence in KL was coming?

Fold in that a few months later (but before the Catnap), Renly tries to entice Robert to put Cersei aside and take Marg. Pycelle knows about this (he tells us as much when Tyrion later questions him). We also know that both Pycelle and Cersei keep Tywin updated with reports via raven. It stands to reason that news of that little plot reached Tywin along with everything else. Which, yes, would imply that the Tyrells might be capitalizing on this looming power bloc as well.

Keep in mind as well that all this while, Cersei is shitting bricks about the fact that her incest was discovered by Stannis and Jon Arryn, and that it was only a matter of time before Ned figured it out. Do you truly think that Cersei, knowing how vulnerable she is about this, was not sending Tywin reports, telling him that she believed the Starks-Baratheons-Arryns and whoever else were conspiring against them, telling him to get ready for an inevitable conflict and challenge to Lannister power? These reports were undoubtedly hilarious given that she'd have to side-step the fact that the conspiracy against them exists because of her incest. But that point aside, we know she was warning Tywin about the need for preparations. Something he'd be aware of anyway by virtue of the fact that Stannis is out on Dragonstone ostensibly raising an army.

The sum of Tywin's actions do not suggest that he went to war solely as a response to the Catnap. There is no way that Tywin would have gone to war over this issue alone while he appeared to be so outnumbered by enemies that ostensibly sought to challenge his grandson's claim to the throne. He isn't stupid. It's more in line with Tywin's style to understand his actions as part of a larger strategy to break up the enemy power-block and neutralize these ostensible threats to his grandson's claim pre-emptively.

[SeanF]

I go back and forth on this. It's a really good question and I'm not sure. Would Tyrion's death bring ire on the Vale, or would it have been spun to intensify Stark-Lannister divisions? Would she have had enough presence of mind to kill Tyrion, arrest Cat, appeal to KL that Cat was responsible for Tyrion's death, and that as a gesture of good faith, she'll deliver Cat to justice in KL or something like that? Maybe she wouldn't have come up with that on her own, but I'd guess that she'd detain Cat and wait for LF's instruction on how to proceed in the event Tyrion died there. Do you have thoughts?

Your reply provokes further questioning. Was *Catelyn* being set up as the scapegoat? We'll eventually learn that Lysa hated her sister. Maybe she thought Tyrion's death was the means to bring her down. If so, it's just another layer of tragedy. Catelyn was a mostly good and kind person, surrounded by people who wanted to destroy her.

Even worse, death didn't bring an end to her suffering.

[Ygritte]

Butterbumps can you make it a little clearer to me what Catelyn's overall plan was? Was it to have a trial at the Vale, at King's landing, what?

It seems that in some of the most crucial of Ned and Catelyn decisions in GOT If Lysa and LF were to be trusted it might have gone better. Ultimately it seems both Ned and Catelyn took risks and those risks were made even more dangerous by them putting too many of their eggs on Littlefinger and Lysa's basket and acting, and taking those risks based on their trust on them.

I think Catelyn took a lot of risks based on assuming people were exactly as she remembered them from childhood. Petyr was the sweet boy who'd fought for her; Lysa was her dear sister she'd giggled with. There was a question way upthread about why she went to the inn instead of a holdfast; I was struck when rereading this scene recently that it's, in part, childhood sentiment that makes her decide on the inn, IMO:

"There is an inn at the crossroads up ahead," Catelyn told him. She had slept many a night there in her youth, traveling with her father....She still remembered the innkeep, a fat woman named Masha Heddle who chewed sourleaf night and day and seemed to have an endless supply of smiles and sweet cakes for the children.

She then goes on to muse about how Masha's smiles were scary as hell because the sourleaf made her teeth look bloody. It's an affectionate memory, though. But when Masha encounters Cat this time, she gives her a brusque lecture about muddy boots, and:

There were no smiles, and no mention of sweet cakes.

Now, it's possible that Masha is just grouchy because she's so busy with the tournament crowd, but I got the distinct impression she'd been sweet before because Cat was traveling as the lord's daughter in the past, and later when Cat was incognito, Masha didn't bother with courtesy. She certainly seemed to start paying attention really fast when the name Lady Stark was finally dropped.

Anyway, I'm not completely sure where I'm going with this, other than that it struck me in the last few days, and that it's part of an ongoing theme of Catelyn thinking situations will be safe because of the way she remembers people from her childhood--memories that are sometimes obsolete, or inaccurate.

[juanml82]

Yea, that's the point I just made to you. And since you reiterate that "all this is speculation," it's ludicrous that you simultaneously impose the requirement that I "prove" my stance.

Tywin knows that the Starks are no friends of his since the Rebellion. The Starks-Tullys-Arryns are ostensibly a bloc due to marriage. If he has a problem with one of them, the others become his enemies too. This is the whole point behind political marriage in the series. So this distrust and need for wariness on his part is already a precondition.

Just before the start of aGoT, a few things happen: Jon Arryn and Stannis make plans to foster SR (so add Baratheon to the Stark-Tully-Arryn power bloc); Tywin finds out, and attempts to intervene by publicly offering to foster SR (if clarification is needed, this move is intended to break up the power bloc by putting an Arryn hostage into his control to keep them from making a move); Jon Arryn dies suddenly, Robert declares Ned as Hand (the guy Tywin knows hates him is now the second most powerful guy in the kingdom), and most alarming, Stannis disappears to Dragonstone, apparently rallying in order to make a move.

With this alone, do you really believe that Tywin's position was not looking a bit precarious at this point in time? That Tywin, being the sort of man Tywin is, knew that something was brewing, would have read this as the formation of a power-bloc that appeared to be anti-Lannister, and that a challenge to Lannister influence in KL was coming?

Fold in that a few months later (but before the Catnap), Renly tries to entice Robert to put Cersei aside and take Marg. Pycelle knows about this (he tells us as much when Tyrion later questions him). We also know that both Pycelle and Cersei keep Tywin updated with reports via raven. It stands to reason that news of that little plot reached Tywin along with everything else. Which, yes, would imply that the Tyrells might be capitalizing on this looming power bloc as well.

Keep in mind as well that all this while, Cersei is shitting bricks about the fact that her incest was discovered by Stannis and Jon Arryn, and that it was only a matter of time before Ned figured it out. Do you truly think that Cersei, knowing how vulnerable she is about this, was not sending Tywin reports, telling him that she believed the Starks-Baratheons-Arryns and whoever else were conspiring against them, telling him to get ready for an inevitable conflict and challenge to Lannister power? These reports were undoubtedly hilarious given that she'd have to side-step the fact that the conspiracy against them exists because of her incest. But that point aside, we know she was warning Tywin about the need for preparations. Something he'd be aware of anyway by virtue of the fact that Stannis is out on Dragonstone ostensibly raising an army.

The sum of Tywin's actions do not suggest that he went to war solely as a response to the Catnap. There is no way that Tywin would have gone to war over this issue alone while he appeared to be so outnumbered by enemies that ostensibly sought to challenge his grandson's claim to the throne. He isn't stupid. It's more in line with Tywin's style to understand his actions as part of a larger strategy to break up the enemy power-block and neutralize these ostensible threats to his grandson's claim pre-emptively.

There are several things to note here. First, SR was supposed to be fostered with Stannis until Jon died. It's after Jon's death that Tywin offers to foster him. And we have no indication, on Tywin's part, that he fears Lysa is continuing Jon's alliance with Stannis. We also know that Tywin ignored the incest. So, whatever was going on between Stannis and Jon, died with Jon and might not be a power plot against the Lannisters either. Yes, Tywin is concerned about Stannis (not Lysa) but he doesn't know what he's up to.

You also pose the Lannisters and Starks as natural enemies due Ned's reaction to dragonspawn. Yet, when Balon Greyjoy attacked Lannisport, the Starks came to aid the Lannisters (and, of course, to obey Robert and keep the 7K together) - and they fought together with the Lannisters against the Ironborn. So, while not friendly to each other, they can still be allied to each other. War and politics breed stranger bedfellows that Ned and Tywin.

Now we do have a real plot which Tywin should have know: Renly-Tyrell. Question is, why this plot should be linked to Ned Stark? And even more, since this plot goes against Ned's interests and honor, why would Ned be a part of it?

Now, we can say "It doesn't matter, Tywin will believe Ned wants Margery instead of Sansa as a Queen". Contrived as this may be, it doesn't explain why Tywin doesn't move a finger until he hears of the Catnapping.

Believing, on the other hand, that Tywin didn't think Ned was a threat to his daughter and grandchildren explains Tywin's inaction very neatly. He didn't do anything during the first 2/3 of AGOT because he believed Ned would impede the Renly-Tyrell plot. Which, for any outside observer not privy to Ned's thoughts and secrets, it's the reasonable thing to expect.

We know Cersei was afraid of Ned as soon as they were at Winterfell, and probably even before. That had (initially) nothing to do with the incest investigation but with the fact that Robert would choose Ned over her. We don't know if she relayed these fears to Tywin, as they actually sound childish. And, even if she did, if Tywin, who doesn't hold Cersei in great esteem, considered them well grounded or not.

Now, we do have Ned's incest investigation, which Cersei can't really report to Tywin. But, as you say, she can tell Tywin of her fears, without being too specific. And without being too specific, why would Tywin think Ned wants Cersei dead? The only answer is, if Pycelle told him, Ned's belief of Cersei's involvement in Jon Arryn's death.

The problem is, it's possible that the Catnapping had already happened when Tywin hears about this. Remember the timeline

9/2: Ned arrives to KL, meets Catelyn, believes Tyrion Lannister wanted Bran killed. Only LF and Varys are privy to this.

9/12: Cat leaves.

10/10: Catnapping

10/12: Eddard VI: inquires about Jon's death, meeting Gendry, etc

10/21: Cat and Tyrion reach the Eyre

10/26: Second day of the Tournament. Ser Hugh has been killed the day before (that's how advanced Ned investigation is after the Catnapping), Cersei fails to have Robert killed at the melee

10/27: News of the Catnapping reach KL

Now, we're missing the exact dates for when Ned talks to Pycelle, but it seems likely that it was after 10/10, and the date the news of the Catnapping reached Casterly Rock, but since distances between CR and the Crossroads Inn are roughly the same as with KL, it's more or less about the same date. Ravens between KL and CR should take 5-7 days. So, if Ned talked to Pycelle by 10/12, ravens to CR should have reached Tywin some 5-7 days after the Catnapping.

So, how early can Ned's investigation prompt Cersei to write her father so Tywin's hand isn't forced due the Catnapping anyways?

[butterbumps!]

1. There are several things to note here. First, SR was supposed to be fostered with Stannis until Jon died. It's after Jon's death that Tywin offers to foster him. And we have no indication, on Tywin's part, that he fears Lysa is continuing Jon's alliance with Stannis. We also know that Tywin ignored the incest. So, whatever was going on between Stannis and Jon, died with Jon and might not be a power plot against the Lannisters either. Yes, Tywin is concerned about Stannis (not Lysa) but he doesn't know what he's up to.

2. You also pose the Lannisters and Starks as natural enemies due Ned's reaction to dragonspawn. Yet, when Balon Greyjoy attacked Lannisport, the Starks came to aid the Lannisters (and, of course, to obey Robert and keep the 7K together) - and they fought together with the Lannisters against the Ironborn. So, while not friendly to each other, they can still be allied to each other. War and politics breed stranger bedfellows that Ned and Tywin.

3. Now we do have a real plot which Tywin should have know: Renly-Tyrell. Question is, why this plot should be linked to Ned Stark? And even more, since this plot goes against Ned's interests and honor, why would Ned be a part of it?

Now, we can say "It doesn't matter, Tywin will believe Ned wants Margery instead of Sansa as a Queen". Contrived as this may be, it doesn't explain why Tywin doesn't move a finger until he hears of the Catnapping.

Believing, on the other hand, that Tywin didn't think Ned was a threat to his daughter and grandchildren explains Tywin's inaction very neatly. He didn't do anything during the first 2/3 of AGOT because he believed Ned would impede the Renly-Tyrell plot. Which, for any outside observer not privy to Ned's thoughts and secrets, it's the reasonable thing to expect.

4. We know Cersei was afraid of Ned as soon as they were at Winterfell, and probably even before. That had (initially) nothing to do with the incest investigation but with the fact that Robert would choose Ned over her. We don't know if she relayed these fears to Tywin, as they actually sound childish. And, even if she did, if Tywin, who doesn't hold Cersei in great esteem, considered them well grounded or not.

Now, we do have Ned's incest investigation, which Cersei can't really report to Tywin. But, as you say, she can tell Tywin of her fears, without being too specific. And without being too specific, why would Tywin think Ned wants Cersei dead? The only answer is, if Pycelle told him, Ned's belief of Cersei's involvement in Jon Arryn's death.

The problem is, it's possible that the Catnapping had already happened when Tywin hears about this. Remember the timeline

9/2: Ned arrives to KL, meets Catelyn, believes Tyrion Lannister wanted Bran killed. Only LF and Varys are privy to this.

9/12: Cat leaves.

10/10: Catnapping

10/12: Eddard VI: inquires about Jon's death, meeting Gendry, etc

10/21: Cat and Tyrion reach the Eyre

10/26: Second day of the Tournament. Ser Hugh has been killed the day before (that's how advanced Ned investigation is after the Catnapping), Cersei fails to have Robert killed at the melee

10/27: News of the Catnapping reach KL

Now, we're missing the exact dates for when Ned talks to Pycelle, but it seems likely that it was after 10/10, and the date the news of the Catnapping reached Casterly Rock, but since distances between CR and the Crossroads Inn are roughly the same as with KL, it's more or less about the same date. Ravens between KL and CR should take 5-7 days. So, if Ned talked to Pycelle by 10/12, ravens to CR should have reached Tywin some 5-7 days after the Catnapping.

So, how early can Ned's investigation prompt Cersei to write her father so Tywin's hand isn't forced due the Catnapping anyways?

1. Why are you of the opinion that Tywin only thought to foster SR after Jon died? Are you suggesting that Tywin was totally unaware of the Baratheon-Arryn fostering alliance? Also, the bolded contradicts your position on this. If you believe that Tywin only considered fostering SR after Jon's death, and that there's no indication that Lysa would ally with the Baratheons or move against him, why make the offer to foster SR at all? The mere fact that he's making an offer to foster SR means that he's trying to pre-emptively neutralize the Vale as a threat.

2. I think you might be missing the larger point I'm making. I'm not claiming that Tywin believes Ned would go rogue and attack the Lannisters out of sheer hate or something. The issue is that Ned would never side with the Lannisters if any combination of Tully, Arryn and Baratheon were involved in a conflict. Ned is guaranteed to fight against his House should there be a conflict, and Stannis' movements indicate that there's to be a conflict.

3. It links to Ned in that it involves 2 Baratheons, of whom is Ned's BFF. But I have to ask-- what do you think the purpose of alliances are? Power blocs mean that others will stand with you in the event you are attacked, but it also means "the enemy of my friend is my enemy." So if one of these Houses appear to be positioning themselves to move against the Lannisters, then the likelihood is that the others are in on it too, and if not already in on it, will align as soon as conflict begins.

The reason Tywin doesn't lift a finger until the Catnapping is very simple: Robert is literally the only thing standing between 5 Houses going against his House (and it's not like Dorne would stand with him). He knows that some combination of these 5 Houses are cooking something up, and he's grossly outnumbered. Plain and simple. His response to the Catnap is to openly call his banners. This is the move he makes.

He needs a more subtle way to break up the blocs. Offering to foster SR is one case. That Gregor Riverlands campaign is another. I know that by the time Gregor gets out there, the Catnap has already occurred. But I'm saying the plan for that campaign was in place before Tywin knew of the arrest.

4. We need to address something major, here. You're answering these points as though Tywin was ignorant of the incest. This is kind of a major issue that influences whether or not he'd take Cersei's concerns seriously. Tywin would definitely know of the incest. If he hadn't figured it out already (and I really think he had), then the fact that Stannis suddenly left to raise an army on Dragonstone confirms it. Stannis is Mr. Rules. There is no way that Stannis would leave and raise an army unless A. it was at Robert's explicit request, which would mean Tywin is really fucked, or B. Stannis has reason to believe Robert's rule has been compromised.

I am quite sure Tywin has a pretty good idea about the incest, knows that the incest is why Stannis left, knows that his grandkids rule will be called into question, and that they and Cersei will be executed, that no one will be on his side once this comes to light, and therefore, whatever side-stepping language Cersei may have used in those reports, Tywin's knowledge of the incest is a pretty good indication he took the gist of her warning seriously. As though the incest itself and Stannis' departure weren't enough of a warning as it is.

5. The precision of an event timeline doesn't really mean much. News of events reaching various parties is what matters.