The Cat-Jon-Ned Debacle (long)

[Pod The Impaler]

People have less problems calling Randall and Tywin abusive as it is obvious that their actions are abusive seems they are actually doing something more then being just distant and giving cold looks.

I think Cat did more than give Jon cold looks and the occaisional snippy tone. And yes, mental / emotional abuse can be very hard on a child, let's face it.

Still, Cat's negativity towards Jon cannot be counted in the same league as the utterly malignant parenting of Tywin, Cersei, Randyll Tarly, Balon Greyjoy, Roose Bolton, etc.

Cat is mean to Jon for reasons that are not Jon's fault. It's a personal fault of hers, yet as was said, society seems to justify it as standard treatment of bastards. It's partly for reasons of position and inheritance, partly for superstition, and partly for plain old misplaced jealousy - in Cat's case, the last one seems the most important of the three.

[David Selig]

I've said my piece on the other thread, but I will say that the extent to which the OP and others rush to defend Cat from charges of abuse is a bit alarming. We have no problem calling a spade an abusive spade where other characters are involved. I'm not sure what makes Cat special, other than her gender. Various "defenses" I've seen for Cat:

-abuse is a modern concept, so it wasn't abuse (I guess Tywin didn't abuse Tyrion either, then...good to know)

-Cat and Jon didn't have a relationship, so it wasn't abuse (even though she was his father's wife and cohabiting with the other Starks)

-Cat didn't have Jon beaten, so it wasn't abuse (so I guess physical abuse is the only kind that counts)

-she didn't have to treat him with any kindness whatsoever, since she wasn't his stepmother, so because she had no moral obligation to be nice to him, she didn't wrong him (so not even basic human decency or sympathy?)

-Jon doesn't seem traumatized, so he couldn't have been abused (I'd love to see someone argue that Sansa doesn't seem traumatized in the Vale by Joffrey's abuse of her--and honestly, she barely thinks about it--therefore she wasn't abused by him)

-icy stares and isolation are not abuse (not verbal abuse, certainly, but emotional?)

-Jon was physically well cared for, so he wasn't abused (completely false...physically secure people can still be abused)

In any other context, these arguments would be pure abuse apologia. Is it because the person committing it is female that posters try to defend her? Or do they not want to think of a character they like as an abuser?

Surely you've been on this board long enough to know this is a misrepresentation of the board and fandom in general. The same defense happens to a bigger extend with most male characters. People defend Tyrion's treatment of Shae (some even the murder), Ned's treatment of Theon, Jon and Gilly's baby, anything Stannis ever did.... Defending even extreme stuff like Tyrion and Robert's rapes, Jaime pushing Bran and murdering Ned's men and Randyl's treatment of Sam, Jorah the slaver isn't that uncommon either.

[Minsc]

I think Cat did more than give Jon cold looks and the occaisional snippy tone. And yes, mental / emotional abuse can be very hard on a child, let's face it.

Still, Cat's negativity towards Jon cannot be counted in the same league as the utterly malignant parenting of Tywin, Cersei, Randyll Tarly, Balon Greyjoy, Roose Bolton, etc.

Cat is mean to Jon for reasons that are not Jon's fault. It's a personal fault of hers, yet as was said, society seems to justify it as standard treatment of bastards. It's partly for reasons of position and inheritance, partly for superstition, and partly for plain old misplaced jealousy - in Cat's case, the last one seems the most important of the three.

That doesn't negate the factor that almost no one calls out Ned, Stannis, and Jaime for them all three neglecting their or a child under their care. Hell, I would argue that Theon was much more fucked up then Jon in regards to his place in society yet no one screams how Ned was abusive. Similarly, how Shireen seems to have been emotionally neglected so much by both her parents that Crassens considers her the saddest child he ever knew.

[butterbumps!]

To some extent, I wonder if subconsciously, the prejudices that are normally used against bastards, manifest in Cat with respect to Jon. I am NOT saying Cat is prejudiced towards all bastards. She seems to only think of all the harm bastards have caused when thinking about Jon or her situation, never about any of the good examples, Bloodraven etc.

Thanks, and I think these are really good points. I agree that when it comes to Jon, she tends to focus on the more nefarious precedents even though she doesn't seem generally concerned that this would always be the case.

I think there's a few fairly rational reasons for why her concern is stronger with Jon. First, Jon is not only recognized by Ned, but raised as Ned's own in his political seat (so very different from nearly all other bastards). Secondly, that Jon's mother is rumored to be Ashara, another high noblewoman, would make Jon's claim a bit stronger. As a final reason the threat seems to consume her, I think she sees Ned's highly secretive and fiercely protective nature as cause for alarm-- given this fierce protection and her belief that Ned loved Jon's mother more than she, would Ned change the succession order? We know he wouldn't, but I think his odd behavior toward Jon raises this possibility in Cat's eyes-- I think that's why the fact that Jon looks more like Ned (and hence, Ned's physical heir) is so troubling to her. On a less "rational" basis, I think the fact that it's her kids in question adds a bit more urgency to this situation-- it hits close to home. I think these are main factors that fuel Cat to focus on the bad precedents rather than the good ones.

I read the OP! Despite the frightfully misleading first paragraph still.

Without getting too much into what was what (I agree her main fault was transfering from Ned to Jon), I have a problem with the use of the word "forgivable", especially in conclusion. It is purely subjective and not a factual statement. Also, definitions of "forgivable" might wary wildely from person to person.

Is the idea of this "forgivable" that it is "no big deal" or that "Cat should apologise, if she had such an option"?

Also, whoever mentioned Jon/Arya being left alone to become close, it is a nice point.

Yes, yes, misleading, lol. I was trying to point out that I hadn't written this thread as an attempt at exoneration the way I did with the Catnap. With the Catnap, I think reconstruction of all those pieces makes a strong argument for justifying Cat's actions, and that's what was attempted. I wanted to be clear since I was arguing toward justification in that thread, that I wasn't trying to perform the same sort of exoneration or justification here-- that's all.

But you are right about the term "forgivable." I just edited the OP to modify it with "arguably" because I agree that this is subjective and I have no intention to impose a reading of "forgiveness" on Cat's actions. I'm trying to draw a line between actions that are "justified," as in, morally right or correct, versus actions that are not, objectively speaking, moral, but that have a sympathetic context and explanation. I refer to the latter as "forgivable," but don't mean to imply that all readers must forgive or sympathize.

So when I say "forgivable" I mean an action that is wrong, yet done in a circumstance that renders simultaneous sympathy to the wrong doer.

[Jory Cassel]

(...)

Now, I see no reason why she must love Jon; this in and of itself is not a moral failing in my view. I see a failing here in that she is able to love the person who wronged her but transfers her shame and frustration to Jon’s presence instead. Cat seems to believe that this is a failing of sorts too; she thinks on how she never “found it in her to love Jon,” which means that being a mother to him was something she had considered and simply couldn’t. While I think part of her inability to “love” or nurture Jon stems from Ned’s usurpation of all parental rights, I think the fact that Cat doesn’t focus her anger at Ned is where Cat’s failing lies. That Jon, or more specifically, Jon’s presence is the object her emotion, especially when seen adjacently to her love of Ned, is problematic.

5. Is this abuse?

To summarize, this is the reality: Cat tells Jon’s siblings that he is a bastard and will not inherit, but doesn’t interfere with their relationships otherwise, gives Jon icy looks but doesn’t interact with him otherwise, and tries to avoid him.

I think the problem is not the fact that Cat avoided Jon or drawing the legal distinctions of status. Cat’s not being a stepmother and Ned’s full assumption of all parenting removes the question of her avoidance being called “neglect.” The question really boils down to the extent to which icy looks are “abusive” and thus, morally reprehensible. In the full context, I actually do think that these icy looks, and the message behind them of “you do not belong here,” are, in fact, moral failings. While these looks are less detrimental to physical or verbal abuse, I think they can fall under “abusive” by virtue of the fact that it was a tacit and insidious way to make her negative feelings known to an innocent party.

6. Sympathy, bastards as a political threat, was Cat’s coldness “smart?”

(...)

I would, however, offer a different sort of criticism. In much the same way I would argue that offering warmth to Theon might have been more lucrative for the Starks, I’m not sure that Cat’s strategy was entirely smart here. That is, if preventing Jon from challenging her kids was a concern, her methods could have easily rendered Jon resentful and more determined to make such a challenge.

6. Objectively wrong, subjectively forgivable: “It should have been you”

Terrible thing to say, and not justifiable, because, objectively speaking, it’s wrong to tell someone that they should have died regardless of the relationship. Although this passage strongly colors our perception of the Jon-Cat dynamic, it stands alone in the series as one-time incident, and the previously cited SSM confirms this.

It should be pointed out that in Cat’s following chapter, she lashes out at Luwin, so this is not simply a Jon-centric breakdown, or an indication of some residual hatred for Jon particularly (and from Cat II we see that she doesn’t actually hate Jon).

Though objectively wrong, I personally find it forgivable in the context of Cat’s extreme grief.

Great op, I concur with most points, I'd just like to add a few:

The thing that bothers me concerning Cat's behaviour is the following; her strongest attributes are her compassion, her rationality and her kindness, but in case of Jon she is unable to apply any of these, because she projects Ned's infidelity on him. No one (at least I don't) expects her to become a foster mother, but I think she could've looked beyond Jon being the reflection of Ned's affair, and actual neutrality and possibly occasional kindness wouldn't have been out of place given what we know of her, she feels empathy towards the Bastard Mya Stone, behaves kindly towards her and even makes sure the oarsmen who brought her to KL get their pay, and furthermore she treats Tyrion in a completely humane manner after capturing him - the latter still astonishes me, I wouldn't/couldn't have blamed her in any way for having him beaten up, after all, she had strong suspicion to certainty that he was behind an attack behind her son.

But in the particular case of Jon, she is completely unable to see beyond Ned's infidelity; and the seemingly rational choice of subtly trying to alienate her children from Jon does not generally pass scrutiny, as you pointed out.

In this context, I always wondered why she never seems bothered by the fact that Theon, a war hostage five years older than Robb, befriends him, one would think that he could pose potential danger or bad influence. Furthermore, she herself grew up with a foster-sibling whom she came to love like a brother, while she now is set on pointing out to child Robb that his half-brother is bastard born.

For me, it is not so much the behaviour towards Jon on its own, but the harsh contrast with her overall personality that bothers, she fails to see Jon's pain as he grew up without a mother but instead focusses on him displaying Ned's adultery and a possible future threat (which, again, might be counterproductive).

And while I think that her comment after Bran's fall was indeed fucked up, I can't really blame her given her situation/condition. What I do find striking in this context, however, is that Jon takes days before visiting Brandon, despite wanting to, simply because of Catelyn's presence.

eta:

Maybe. He was the first one that came to mind. He is also a famous example of a bastard who stuck by his true born siblings side.

nice, I can use this in my Jon, Visenya, Aemon & Bloodraven thread, completely forgot about that, ty.

[butterbumps!]

I think Cat did more than give Jon cold looks and the occaisional snippy tone. And yes, mental / emotional abuse can be very hard on a child, let's face it.

Do we have any reason to believe that Cat's direct actions to Jon involved more than cold stares? I can agree the cold stares are a form of abuse, but I've never found anything that elaborates on anything "more." That final chapter of aSoS-- when Jon thinks over taking Winterfell at Stannis' command-- is when all the dirty laundry comes out in terms of Jon's feelings about belonging in Winterfell. That it only goes so far as stares is really noteworthy, I think, because this would be the time it makes sense to reveal further abuses in terms of the story, and at that point Jon has strong incentive to recall such interactions.

I don't want to downplay the effect of the stares-- this passage, and the one in DwD, shows us that these stares did affect Jon. I just want to be very precise about what the text tells us about the behavior, because I think there's often a lot of assumption of "more" that isn't really supported.

[Minsc]

In this context, I always wondered why she never seems bothered by the fact that Theon, a war hostage five years older than Robb, befriends him, one would think that he could pose potential danger or bad influence. Furthermore, she herself grew up with a foster-sibling whom she came to love like a brother, while she now is set on pointing out to child Robb that his half-brother is bastard born.

Theon remembers her being suspicious and distrustful of him similar to how she was to Jon.

[Twookus Stark]

I dont think Ned wouldnt let Catelyn raise Jon if she had asked he simply didnt want her asking about his mother

[jenerationx]

Thanks for writing this. I think it's an interesting topic, though I find myself a lot more critical of her behavior than you are. My friends have always been more lenient about her actions, so I'm trying to see the other side as best I can. I have some comments on things from the text that I don't think you addressed specifically, or perhaps I just need it to be more explicit.

Jon represents the single, significant void between Cat and the man she loves

Is that "fair" though, in the sense that Ned was not a man she loved when Jon was conceived? Her and Ned's love developed over time, and it happened despite the fact that Jon existed and the "void" had already happened. She's able to forgive Ned, but she's never able to forgive Jon the same way. You say that Jon is projecting when he blames Catelyn instead of Ned for how he's at times treated (and I completely agree with this; I am singularly unimpressed with Ned as a "father" despite the fact that his parenting skills are so vaunted, when he allowed his own son/nephew to be treated like an outsider by his wife), but isn't Catelyn guilty of doing the very same thing? She blames Jon for Ned's transgressions.

As to the scene between Jon and Catelyn at Bran's bedside being a "one time special event," which I suppose I must accept given that this is apparently what GRRM believes (though I do wonder if that SSM came after Catelyn had gotten a lot of criticism for her treatment of Jon), the text itself implies more. Both in the novel and on the show, there's an undercurrent of concern in Robb's voice when he meets up with Jon after that scene and he asks how his mother treated him/reacted. He's visibly relieved when Jon lies that she was kind. There is a very clear indication, at least to me, that there was a very real possibility that she was not going to be kind, and therefore also an implication that she's been unkind in the past. Otherwise why would Robb even worry about it? It wouldn't even have crossed his mind.

“For me too,” Robb said. He had snow in his hair, melting from the heat of his body. “Did you see him?”

Jon nodded, not trusting himself to speak.

“He’s not going to die,” Robb said. “I know it.”

“You Starks are hard to kill,” Jon agreed. His voice was flat and tired. The visit had taken all the strength from him.

Robb knew something was wrong. “My mother …”

“She was … very kind,” Jon told him.

Robb looked relieved. “Good.” He smiled.

There's also the exchange just before the "it should have been you" moment:

“I came to see Bran,” Jon said. “To say good-bye.”

Her face did not change. Her long auburn hair was dull and tangled. She looked as though she had aged twenty years. “You’ve said it. Now go away.”

Part of him wanted only to flee, but he knew that if he did he might never see Bran again. He took a nervous step into the room. “Please,” he said.

Something cold moved in her eyes. “I told you to leave,” she said. “We don’t want you here.”

Once that would have sent him running. Once that might even have made him cry.

The last line, in particular, implies to me that she's done and said similar cold things to him before. He's not surprised by the words, and even knows how he might have once reacted. I will allow, though, that it's possible he's speaking more generally.

Finally there's this:

He was at the door when she called out to him. “Jon,” she said. He should have kept going, but she had never called him by his name before. He turned to find her looking at his face, as if she were seeing it for the first time.

“Yes?” he said.

“It should have been you,” she told him.

The "it should have been you," has been discussed, so I'll note the bolded part. In 14 years, she's never called him by name. Not one single time. To me, that speaks to a resentment far deeper than the one Catelyn apologists try to whitewash (not necessarily you). When falling in love with Ned, while Jon was around, there wasn't a single moment in which her heart thawed enough to even address him by name, a small enough thing.

Lastly, there's her counsel to Robb against naming Jon his heir. I guess I just don't agree that she approached from a place of logic and nothing else. Her words to Robb might have used that approach, but I suspect this is because she knew Robb would reject the emotional appeal that she truly felt at the prospect of Jon inheriting Winterfell. Her words to him, as her words to all the men in his retinue, are chosen carefully, with the highest chance of swaying him, because as a woman, she has to use such tactics to be heard at all. We've seen her do it when suggesting war strategy as well.

It's fairly obvious to me though that her actual reasons do not stem from logic.

“Mother.” There was a sharpness in Robb’s tone. “You forget. My father had four sons.”

She had not forgotten; she had not wanted to look at it, yet there it was. “A Snow is not a Stark.”

“I cannot,” she said. “In all else, Robb. In everything. But not in this . . . this folly. Do not ask it.”

Her logical excuses, one after another, come so quickly they speak of desperation. (I didn't copy the entire passage.)

There's the fact that she would rather the North pass out of Stark hands (and name) than for it to go to Jon. Robb's will would only come to pass if he dies and if he dies without issue, which at this point she can't know would happen. Her other children are most likely dead, other than Sansa who is married to Tyrion, and anyway she agrees with Robb that the North cannot be allowed to be passed onto the Imp. So the argument that she's being "logical" in protecting her trueborn children is reaching imho. If she harbored doubts, she could have logically suggested to Robb to word his will in a way that allowed for his trueborn siblings to inherit before Jon. The fact that she brings up bastards fighting their trueborn brethren for inheritance rights, implying that Jon could do the same, just drives home the fact of how much she does not know him or care to know him, when she has been around him for 14 years. If all her kids are dead and/or out of reasonable ability to inherit, you'd think (or I would) that she'd at least want it to go to her beloved husband's actual blood, a person who her own son clearly loves and respects. But instead, she advocates for it passing to non-Starks some generations removed.

So while yes, I do see the point that she could have been a lot worse in her treatment of Jon, it's still a long, long way from being forgivable or sympathetic (for me). And I truly don't believe, given some of what I cited above, that "icy stares" are all she's guilty of. What she's done might not be explicitly in the text, so I can't say with certainty what exactly she's done, but as careful readers imho the implications are just as important.

[David Selig]

If you've missed the discussion in the most recent Cat thread before this one, Maia had an awesome post (mostly) on this topic which I just have to provide a link to - http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/95550-a-different-discussion-about-catelyn/page__st__180#entry4880903

[Minsc]

There is a very clear indication, at least to me, that there was a very real possibility that she was not going to be kind, and therefore also an implication that she's been unkind in the past. Otherwise why would Robb even worry about it? It wouldn't even have crossed his mind.

Because she has been snapping at anyone that bothers her when she was with Bran as seen in her interaction with Luwin. Thus, Robb isn't dense enough to not know that she might snap at Jon.

[butterbumps!]

Jon represents the single, significant void between Cat and the man she loves

.... but isn't Catelyn guilty of doing the very same thing? She blames Jon for Ned's transgressions.

Yea, I think this is Cat's first moral transgression-- she definitely transfers her negative feelings from Ned toward Jon.

There is a very clear indication, at least to me, that there was a very real possibility that she was not going to be kind, and therefore also an implication that she's been unkind in the past. Otherwise why would Robb even worry about it? It wouldn't even have crossed his mind.

There's also the exchange just before the "it should have been you" moment:

The last line, in particular, implies to me that she's done and said similar cold things to him before. He's not surprised by the words, and even knows how he might have once reacted. I will allow, though, that it's possible he's speaking more generally.

I agree, and these are totally fair points. I'd never argue that Cat was kind to Jon, or that her iciness was not palpable. I'm only concerned about speculating about "more" given the lack of textual reference. Like I wrote up here, Jon's last aSoS chapter is when his ugliest feelings surface about the way Cat treated him and the way he felt. The only thing he mentions is the fact that she told his siblings of his legal status and gave him to looks. I don't think it's fair to make vague speculations about additional abuses, as the stares alone easily explain Robb's reaction here.

The "it should have been you," has been discussed, so I'll note the bolded part. In 14 years, she's never called him by name. Not one single time. To me, that speaks to a resentment far deeper than the one Catelyn apologists try to whitewash (not necessarily you). When falling in love with Ned, while Jon was around, there wasn't a single moment in which her heart thawed enough to even address him by name, a small enough thing.

This is another reason why I don't actually think these two ever had verbal contact. It's never mentioned by anyone that she referred to him directly as something other than Jon. I'm not really sure that not calling him by name-- when there isn't verbal interaction in the first place-- is problematic.

Lastly, there's her counsel to Robb against naming Jon his heir. I guess I just don't agree that she approached from a place of logic and nothing else. Her words to Robb might have used that approach, but I suspect this is because she knew Robb would reject the emotional appeal that she truly felt at the prospect of Jon inheriting Winterfell. Her words to him, as her words to all the men in his retinue, are chosen carefully, with the highest chance of swaying him, because as a woman, she has to use such tactics to be heard at all. We've seen her do it when suggesting war strategy as well.

It's fairly obvious to me though that her actual reasons do not stem from logic.

But we know from her thoughts that she actually doesn't hate Jon or think poorly of him. I honestly do think that the issue wrt the will is about the challenge Jon's son's might pose to Robb's sons. While I agree that Cat's fear of Jon's potential usurpation of her own kids' rights is not entirely logical, I do think that Cat's concern here is overwhelmingly pragmatic and sound wrt the contest of heirs.

[Jory Cassel]

Theon remembers her being suspicious and distrustful of him similar to how she was to Jon.

Yes, but opposed to Jon, we don't have Cat resenting him first hand from her POV, when she advises against sending him as an envoy, she brings up his father's loyalty (IIRC). And Theon is a war hostage five years major to Robb, seemingly he should be perceived as the greater "danger" than a half-brother who grew up with Robb since they were toddlers.

[David Selig]

There's the fact that she would rather the North pass out of Stark hands (and name) than for it to go to Jon.

How is Jon more of a Stark than the Vale cousin Cat wanted to be named heir (who BTW would've surely adopted the Stark name if he had inherit the North)?

Fact is that rationally speaking the Vale cousin seems a better choice than Jon (unless they check on him and he turns out to be totally incompetent). The NW oath, despite Robb's delusions, is a big problem for Jon and so is his bastard status.

[WeirwoodTreeHugger]

I think Cat's mistreatment of Jon was her only available coping strategy. The situation is Ned's responsibility, it isn't Jon's fault. Yet, were she to hang on to anger and resentment towards Ned, she would've been in for a miserable marriage and unhappy life. She couldn't let go of the anger so she projected it onto Jon.

It's completely unfair to Jon and he didn't deserve it, but I can see how it happened.

[Minsc]

Yes, but opposed to Jon, we don't have Cat resenting him first hand from her POV, when she advises against sending him as an envoy, she brings up his father's loyalty (IIRC). And Theon is a war hostage five years major to Robb, seemingly he should be perceived as the greater "danger" than a half-brother who grew up with Robb since they were toddlers.

Why Theon doesn't have even an hint of a claim to Winterfell or the North? Moreover, it is obvious that Ned doesn't hold any emotional attachment to Theon that might damage his relationship with her children.

[Colonel Green]

I think Cat's mistreatment of Jon was her only available coping strategy. The situation is Ned's responsibility, it isn't Jon's fault. Yet, were she to hang on to anger and resentment towards Ned, she would've been in for a miserable marriage and unhappy life. She couldn't let go of the anger so she projected it onto Jon.

It's completely unfair to Jon and he didn't deserve it, but I can see how it happened.

Thing is, from a modern perspective, we would expect a wife confronted with a situation like this to either (a) divorce Ned's cheating ass or (b try to accept the kid. Option A isn't available to Catelyn.

[Father of Hosts]

Thanks, and I think these are really good points. I agree that when it comes to Jon, she tends to focus on the more nefarious precedents even though she doesn't seem generally concerned that this would always be the case.

I think there's a few fairly rational reasons for why her concern is stronger with Jon. First, Jon is not only recognized by Ned, but raised as Ned's own in his political seat (so very different from nearly all other bastards). Secondly, that Jon's mother is rumored to be Ashara, another high noblewoman, would make Jon's claim a bit stronger. As a final reason the threat seems to consume her, I think she sees Ned's highly secretive and fiercely protective nature as cause for alarm-- given this fierce protection and her belief that Ned loved Jon's mother more than she, would Ned change the succession order? We know he wouldn't, but I think his odd behavior toward Jon raises this possibility in Cat's eyes-- I think that's why the fact that Jon looks more like Ned (and hence, Ned's physical heir) is so troubling to her. On a less "rational" basis, I think the fact that it's her kids in question adds a bit more urgency to this situation-- it hits close to home. I think these are main factors that fuel Cat to focus on the bad precedents rather than the good ones.

This makes a lot of sense. I do wonder however, do you, or anyone for that matter, think that there may have come a time where Cat relaxed in regards to this aspect of the Jon situation? His strong emotional bond with Robb and Arya, with definite potential for developing strong bonds with Sansa, Bran and Rickon, to me, makes it seem as though Cat should have or should have about to have been relaxing wrt this particular aspect of the situation. Yet her fear only seems to grow stronger (naming Jon the heir).

Essentially, it would continue to be troublesome if Jon only had a strong connection with Robb. Potentially, something irreconcilable occurs between the two and Jon seeks revenge by claiming his right to Winterfell. However, that he developed strong with relationships with his other half-siblings, Arya in particular,would make this less of a problem. By forming these relationships with his other siblings, even if a situation were to occur between him and Robb, he seems less likely to retaliate against Winterfell as a whole since he would have to destroy all of these relationships as opposed to only destroying the one with Robb.

This is honestly, why I have never understood Cat's protest of naming Jon the heir to Winterfell and KITN. At some point, Cat being the intelligent and politically savvy person that she is, should have understood that Jon was not a threat. Or, is it the culmination of 15 years of fear and anxiety that when the moment comes that she should embrace Jon as at least a strategic part of her "family" she simply can not let go of old prejudices?

eta:

nice, I can use this in my Jon, Visenya, Aemon & Bloodraven thread, completely forgot about that, ty.

Glad I could help!

[jenerationx]

How is Jon more of a Stark than the Vale cousin Cat wanted to be named heir (who BTW would've surely adopted the Stark name if he had inherit the North)?

...because Robb was suggesting legitimizing Jon, making him literally a Stark. That's what he and Catelyn were arguing about. That's a fact. Your certainty that some other family would have adopted the Stark name is pure conjecture.

I'll just agree to disagree with you on whether the Vale cousins were a more "rational choice."

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

I generally agree with Bumps's position, especially insofar as both Catelyn and Jon seem to bounce their grievances off of Ned and onto each other. An interesting analysis and I think it's spot on.

But I feel like this this needs to be addressed:

How is Jon more of a Stark than the Vale cousin Cat wanted to be named heir (who BTW would've surely adopted the Stark name if he had inherit the North)?

Surely you can see that there's a significant difference between a son of the late Lord Stark and some random cousin out in the Vale who's at least a couple generations removed and not even culturally a northerner.

Fact is that rationally speaking the Vale cousin seems a better choice than Jon. The NW oath, despite Robb's delusions, is a big problem and so is his bastard status.

I'll give you the Night's Watch oath, but at least Robb had attempted to take steps to rectify that. As for Jon's bastard status, there's that whole issue of, uh, Robb, you know, legitimizing him. Ask the northern lords whom they'd prefer: A legitimized Jon, Ned's actual son with whom they have already had interactions and dealings and who shares their culture and religion, or some Vale cousin whom they've never met, and has probably never set foot in the North, much less Winterfell. If any of them picked the Vale cousin, I'd eat my shoe.

Fact? Hardly. If anything it's the exact opposite.