House Stark: Winter Is Coming

[Maximum Taco]

5 minutes ago, SeanC said:

That's a myth about the North that ADWD really should have killed stone cold.

First off, this is a show thread. Lots of stuff (especially a lot of the politicking) in ADWD didn't happen in the show.

Secondly, I don't think a lot of that happened before all of the regime changes. the Boltons betrayal made the politicking necessary, there's no indication that it was going on while Ned was Lord of Winterfell.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Maximum Taco

[Lady S.]

13 minutes ago, Maximum Taco said:

First off, this is a show thread. Lots of stuff (especially a lot of the politicking) in ADWD didn't happen in the show.

And yet people keep bringing up Sansa's tattling to Cersei, which never happened on the show.

[Umbelina]

4 hours ago, Maximum Taco said:

Being a rular in the North doesn't really help him though. For the most part the Northern lords don't do a lot of politicking. They're too busy trying to stay alive and keep their subjects alive. They sometimes go years without seeing each other. He tells his banners what they need to do, and they do it. He's not used to giving an order and seeing it disobeyed. 

Not to say he isn't an idiot. He was definitely warned about the capitol and their backstabbing, but Ned's very much a fish out of water. A wolf out of the woods?

Well, keeping himself and his subjects (servants, children, etc.) alive in Kings Landing would have been a nice thing to do.  He commands men, he settles disputes, he executes wrong doers, he has relationships with some pretty nasty houses up there.  This wasn't his first time at the rodeo.

Edited May 21, 2016 by Umbelina

[RedheadZombie]

Regarding Cat's treatment of Jon - it was wrong, no question.  But I remember her telling that story to Talisa about when Jon almost died.  She nursed him round the clock, prayed for his recovery, and vowed she would treat him better.  This wasn't a woman wishing Jon dead or suffering.  She was aware, at least when Jon was sick and while telling the story, that she was wrong.  She was aware that when Jon recovered she couldn't keep that vow. 

I agree that her problem was Jon being raised alongside her children.  She wouldn't have wanted Ned to abandon Jon, because she knew it was Ned's duty to ensure Jon was cared for.  And while the majority of the blame falls on Cat, a certain degree of it falls on Ned.  He probably didn't know Cat well enough at that time to know if he could trust her with the truth.  But as the years went by, he should have set her straight. 

On the show, I wish we could have seen an indication that Robb, Arya, and Bran had an opinion on Jon's treatment.  I wish one of them would have confronted Cat.  But as the show presented it at least, everyone enabled Cat's behavior, which ensured that it would never change.  I also think Cat's treatment was possibly an insecurity regarding her relationship with Ned, perhaps because she knew she was never his intended. 

To the book readers - did any POV in the book address Cat and Jon's relationship?  Other than Cat and Jon, that is.

Edited May 22, 2016 by RedheadZombie
added sentence

[Lady S.]

On 5/22/2016 at 4:43 PM, RedheadZombie said:

To the book readers - did any POV in the book address Cat and Jon's relationship?  Other than Cat and Jon, that is.

Spoiler

Robb isn't a PoV in the books, but this does come up with him and Catelyn in her PoV. They find out Sansa's been married to Tyrion and Robb wants to use his kingly power to legitimize Jon so there will an adult male heir to thwart the Lannisters stealing Winterfell. Jon's NW vows are an obstacle, but Robb believed he could get them to release Jon if he sent them plenty more men. Catelyn first brings up that Arya is the spare female heir, but Robb reminds her they haven't heard any word of Arya since Ned's arrest, and that she's probably dead, just like Bran and Rickon. Cat then compares Jon to Theon, knowing Robb loved them both as his brothers, and Robb tells her that comparison is cruel and unfair. He decides to legitimize Jon despite Catelyn's objections, but of course they all die at the Red Wedding pretty soon after.

All the other Stark kids have clearly internalized Cat's resentment of Jon but they don't directly address it or analyze it because that's just the atmosphere they were raised in at Winterfell. They don't really understand it and they all love both of their parents.

The show did still have Robb address this relationship in a small way in his last scene with Jon. He asks how Catelyn was when Jon said goodbye to Bran and Jon lies about her being nice. Robb acts relieved by the lie, so he was aware enough of the tension to ask but still unaware enough to be fooled. That ignorance is probably just due to Robb not being a mind reader, and I doubt Jon ever wanted to come between his siblings and their mother.

IA that Ned deserves responsibility both for creating this situation and doing nothing to really alleviate it. It's interesting that Ned arrives at the tail end of that scene of Jon/Cat at Bran's bedside, right when she tells Jon she wants him to leave. Ned doesn't really show much reaction to this and basically ignores Jon as he walks past Ned to leave the room. And even if we hadn't seen that, there's no way Ned was unaware of her feelings. 

[Maximum Taco]

On 5/22/2016 at 5:43 PM, RedheadZombie said:

On the show, I wish we could have seen an indication that Robb, Arya, and Bran had an opinion on Jon's treatment.  I wish one of them would have confronted Cat.  But as the show presented it at least, everyone enabled Cat's behavior, which ensured that it would never change.  I also think Cat's treatment was possibly an insecurity regarding her relationship with Ned, perhaps because she knew she was never his intended. 

To the book readers - did any POV in the book address Cat and Jon's relationship?  Other than Cat and Jon, that is.

 

Mostly speculation and feelings, but to me it always seemed that the only one who was absolutely unequivocally accepting of Jon as her brother was Arya. Even Robb at certain points treated him like a bastard, although mostly in his younger days.

I kinda ascribe this to the fact that in the books Jon and Arya are said to be the most "Stark-like". Robb, and Sansa both trending more towards the Tully side, at least in their looks. Because of this, and the way Jon is treated by Ned, Robb especially has a little bit of resentment towards him, not enough to make him treat Jon with anything but love (especially once he's an adult), but enough to work it's way beneath the surface. Robb feels the need to assert himself as Ned's first trueborn son in the face of this kid who, while a bastard, looks and acts more like what people think a Stark should. So when his mother puts that distinction on Jon he's willing to allow it without too much resistance, letting her do the dirty work. 

IMO in the books all of them, except Arya, enable Cat's treatment of Jon, and remember in the books Arya is 9, so she's not really in the position to confront her mother about her behavior, all she can do is question it in private or to her siblings "Why do we treat Jon differently? Why can't he sit with us at the high table?" and she doesn't understand when Robb or Sansa say "Cause he's a bastard."

Note: I give Bran and Rickon a pass here, they're 7 and 3 respectively in the books, so they treat Jon just like anyone, and when their mom says he's a bastard they just accept it as true and a simple fact that he needs to be treated differently because of it, cause she's their mom and she says so.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Maximum Taco

[SeanC]

10 minutes ago, Maximum Taco said:

IMO in the books all of them, except Arya, enable Cat's treatment of Jon, and remember in the books Arya is 9, so she's not really in the position to confront her mother about her behavior, all she can do is question it in private or to her siblings "Why do we treat Jon differently? Why can't he sit with us at the high table?" and she doesn't understand when Robb or Sansa say "Cause he's a bastard."

Note: I give Bran and Rickon a pass here, they're 7 and 3 respectively in the books, so they treat Jon just like anyone, and when their mom says he's a bastard they just accept it as true and a simple fact that he needs to be treated differently because of it, cause she's their mom and she says so.

None of the kids are in a position to confront their mother, except Robb once he becomes lord/king, at which point Jon's not around anymore.

[Maximum Taco]

22 minutes ago, SeanC said:

None of the kids are in a position to confront their mother, except Robb once he becomes lord/king, at which point Jon's not around anymore.

Even so, Robb and Sansa don't even seem to question it, Arya at least seems to be like "Why are we treating him like this? He's our brother" Robb pretty much just ignores it when these questions come up, neither agreeing nor disagreeing, Sansa actually goes a step further and rebukes her with "Half-brother."

Just my opinion, obviously your mileage may vary.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Maximum Taco

[SeanC]

No, they don't question it.  They've been raised with it, and it's completely in line with Westeros' social structure (and, really, ours; nobody would expect a modern woman to agree to take her husband's lovechild into her household against her will).

[Maximum Taco]

15 minutes ago, SeanC said:

No, they don't question it.  They've been raised with it, and it's completely in line with Westeros' social structure (and, really, ours; nobody would expect a modern woman to agree to take her husband's lovechild into her household against her will).

I don't know about that.

If a man had a lovechild, and the modern woman wanted to stay with the modern man, they'd be expected by conventional standards to take the boy in, especially if his mother was dead, or unable to care for him (which Jon's is no matter what theory you ascribe to.) The modern man definitely wouldn't be expected to abandon his son for the sake of his wife and new family, that'd be seen as barbaric in modern society. Maybe he could do a modern version of fostering him by sending him to boarding school or something, but I don't think this would be expected of him, just an option.

And of course Modern!Cat would have the option of leaving Modern!Ned, which she doesn't in Westerosi culture. But in modern culture Modern!Ned wouldn't be expected to send Modern!Jon away, if he wanted to keep and care for him.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Maximum Taco

[SeanC]

3 minutes ago, Maximum Taco said:

And of course Modern!Cat would have the option of leaving Modern!Ned, which she doesn't in Westerosi culture.

Yes, and that makes all the difference.  Cat is stuck with Ned for the rest of her life (or his), and it's not surprising that she tries to make the best of the situation he has forced on her; this is also not fair to Jon, but it's not fair to her either.  Modern!Cat would realistically be expected to either divorce Modern!Ned's cheating ass or accept Jon into the family, but Cat doesn't have that choice.

[armadillo1224]

Quote

I don't know about that.

If a man had a lovechild, and the modern woman wanted to stay with the modern man, they'd be expected by conventional standards to take the boy in, especially if his mother was dead, or unable to care for him (which Jon's is no matter what theory you ascribe to.) 

If he had a child from a previous marriage, sure but a child he had during an extramarital affair while they were married? You really think a typical woman would be okay raising the child of her husband's adulterous affair? I wouldn't be that confident of it.

[Umbelina]

I thought they were betrothed but not married when the affair supposedly happened?  Have I got that wrong?  He brought home a baby that had already been born. 

Quote

Eddard called his banners, and marched south to join Robert and Jon, arriving in time to turn the tide at the Battle of the Bells.[22] Afterward, he went to Riverrun to marry Catelyn Tully, who had been betrothed to his brother Brandon before his death.[13] Jon Arryn married Catelyn's sister Lysa in the same ceremony. The double wedding bound House Tully to the rebels' cause.

The whole Tower of Joy thing happened in 283, as did the Battle of the Bells, but that doesn't say much.  Anyway, I somehow always thought Jon was too old to have been conceived after he married Catelyn, but maybe I'm wrong.

Either way?  I know with absolute certainty I would never treat an innocent child like Catelyn did, frankly, even though she may have initially resented him, to continue on for years with nothing but hate, resentment, and contempt made her impossible for me to like.  Her later behavior made me dislike her even more.

[glowbug]

Cat and Ned were already married when she found out about his "affair" and Jon. They married before he went off to war and conceived Robb, who is older than Jon. Ned supposedly had his affair while off at war and brought back the child that resulted from it. 

[Umbelina]

Actually, they kind of married mid-war, and in the same year Jon was born, not conceived.  Catelyn was engaged to Brandon in 282, and Jon was born in 283, the same year Eddard married Catelyn, but after that.

I wish we had months instead of just years to go by, anyone know of an in-depth timeline?  Because with only years, it's entirely possibly Jon was conceived while Cate was engaged to Ned's brother. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Umbelina

[glowbug]

But Robb was conceived before Jon and he was not conceived or born out of wedlock so they were already married when Jon was conceived. 

ETA: It's been pointed out many times that GRRM's timeline for Robert's rebellion and all that led up to it has many inconsistencies. I don't know if this is one of them because I haven't looked up the dates but we do know that Robb was conceived after Ned and Cat were married. Ned left for war and then supposedly conceived Jon a few months later. 

Edited May 25, 2016 by glowbug

[Umbelina]

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/118927-who-is-older-jon-snow-or-robb-stark/

I decided to google.  No one on Westeros agrees.  They do agree Jon and Robb were born very close to the same time, and that GRRM has never said.

Another thread on it here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/116538-analysis-who-is-older-robb-or-jon/

[arjumand]

On 20/05/2016 at 1:53 AM, Maximum Taco said:

Really everything stems from Bran spying on Cersei and Jaime.

If Bran doesn't find out their secret, Jaime doesn't push him out the window. If Jaime doesn't push him out the window, likely Ned, Arya and Sansa are accompanied by Bran and possibly Cat and Rickon. With Bran along Arya can play with him and doesn't need to play with Mycah, and Joff wouldn't get nearly as tough with the true born son of Ned as he does with Mycah and he'd play the gentleman, at least until they get to King's Landing. With Bran not hurt, Cat doesn't investigate the dagger or go down the capture Tyrion route. With Cat in the capital Littlefinger is probably a lot less likely to betray Ned. Even if the betrayal does go down and Ned ends up in the black cells, he probably is allowed to take the black because if Joff is not embarrassed at the Ruby Ford, he wouldn't feel any animosity towards Sansa (for witnessing said humiliation) and he would still want her to see him as her gallant Prince.

The thing is, and this is totally my opinion, I'm not a GoT expert by any means, Bran had to fall or be pushed from that window, war or not. Because ultimately the war is irrelevant, the Game is irrelevant - what's important is that Bran becomes the Bloodraven, and he can't do that if he becomes a knight and gets caught up in the warring and politicking. We know now that Bran can affect the past, because of Wyllis, who had to become Hodor because otherwise Bran would have died many times over. So I'm fully expecting a future visit to the past, in which Bran sees himself planning to go climbing, and he has to let it happen, and let hundreds (thousands?) of people die as a result. Because otherwise everyone dies.

Which takes me to my next point.

On 21/05/2016 at 2:22 AM, Umbelina said:

Nah, it was a really sloppy plot move to get the war started by making Ned act like some stupid and naive novice.  He's been in wars!  He's been in the capitol before, and he was warned several times of treachery there.  He's been a ruler in the North for years!  Yet, he finds out all this stuff, does he tell the King?  No, he lets him and himself get killed, his daughters flung into hell, his oldest son killed, his youngest goes off to live with cannibals, etc. etc.  For so-called "honor?"  To save a treacherous Queen and her bastard children that are conning his so-called best friend?

THEN, he TELLS the Queen?

I mean really, come on now...no that has lived his life is that stupid.  GRRM was really sloppy there.  I didn't believe it when I was reading it, and I still don't.  If I must believe it so that the story plays out?  That makes Ned an idiot who frankly, would have probably died from that long before our story begins.

Yes, Ned was kinda bad at politics - too good and honest to be a real backstabber (he reminds me of Banquo, in a way). But again, the Starks are being messed about by Destiny, and the only mistake they make is forgetting the real meaning of the sayings that they parrot so blithely - though you can't really blame them - it's been thousands of years, and the real fault lies with the original Starks who didn't set up an official remembrancer to remind the family the 'why' of everything:

Why there must always be a Stark at Winterfell (I agree with the poster upthread who posited that Winterfell is key in some way involving the first time they managed to control the White Walkers*), why and what 'the North remembers', and what Winter is coming really means.

So you end up with a situation at the beginning of the series, that Ned dismisses the tale of the boogeyman coming to get them, instead of maybe sending out a whole troop of armed men to check the story out. Again, I don't blame him, at all. Because the meaning behind the sayings had faded away. Also, this is another one of them things which had to happen, because Bran had to leave Winterfell and find the Bloodraven. Because the higher purpose directing everything (which might be future Bran or not) is prepared to sacrifice everyone and everything to fight the Night's King and the White Walkers. Even the entire Stark family, except maybe Jon Snow and Bran Stark.

I'm also starting to think that Sansa might even be superfluous to proceedings. Because Daenerys. And her dragons. I recently watched Hardhome, and Tyrion's description of her origin struck me: born during the coldest winter in recent memory, and ends up as the Mother of Dragons. Because dragons can defeat White Walkers, just like dragonglass does? Which is why it worries me when she's going on about using the dragons to subdue the populace and so on; after reading about Aegon 'Egg' Targaryen and how he

Spoiler

managed to get himself and many of his loyal courtiers killed while trying to hatch dragon eggs

it struck me that the dragons only emerge when they're needed, and someone who can kind of control them will emerge at the same time - winter was coming, Daenerys was born and dragon eggs hatched for her. But they're not there to make her powerful, or break the wheel, or whatever - they exist for one reason only. It's not inconceivable that after the Children of the Trees realized their WMD had its own agenda, that they went for a literal scorched earth policy. Just like the Starks forgot their purpose, people forgot what dragons were for. And now it's apocalypse o'clock and too many of the main players don't even know it.

 

*that's the only reason I'm not driving myself crazy yelling at Jon "What the hell are you doing, man? Maybe you're traumatized by your recent death, or you haven't been keeping up with current events, but you just got your asses kicked!" (hey, if the show can crib from Aliens, so can I!) On the one hand, why is he wandering around the countryside with his sister? OTOH, if he manages to retake Winterfell, they might be saved. On the other, other hand, if there's nothing there, they might be fucked. Game over, man.

[glowbug]

2 hours ago, Umbelina said:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/118927-who-is-older-jon-snow-or-robb-stark/

I decided to google.  No one on Westeros agrees.  They do agree Jon and Robb were born very close to the same time, and that GRRM has never said.

Another thread on it here:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?/topic/116538-analysis-who-is-older-robb-or-jon/

Looks like this is a case of another inconsistency. Either that or Ned lied about Jon's age because I distinctly remember Robb being slightly older in AGoT. In any case, Catelyn still didn't know about the affair or Jon until after they were married. 

I'm not trying to defend her treatment of Jon. It's one of the reasons I never really warmed up to her character. I could understand her being distant towards him and not ever treating him like a son (that would be a lot to ask) but to be outright cruel to him was wrong and indefensible. 

[Umbelina]

Well, they quote just about every passage that could possibly relate to things said in the books.  Lots of things conflict or were perhaps lies, but either way, either of them could be older.  For it to all happen in 283 is the weird thing. 

[Lady S.]

20 hours ago, glowbug said:

Cat and Ned were already married when she found out about his "affair" and Jon. They married before he went off to war and conceived Robb, who is older than Jon. Ned supposedly had his affair while off at war and brought back the child that resulted from it. 

Here's the relevant book passage:
 

Spoiler

 

Many men fathered bastards. Catelyn had grown up with that knowledge. It came as no surprise to her, in the first year of her marriage, to learn that Ned had fathered a child on some girl chance met on campaign. He had a man’s needs, after all, and they had spent that year apart, Ned off at war in the south while she remained safe in her father’s castle at Riverrun. Her thoughts were more of Robb, the infant at her breast, than of the husband she scarcely knew. He was welcome to whatever solace he might find between battles. And if his seed quickened, she expected he would see to the child’s needs.

He did more than that. The Starks were not like other men. Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him “son” for all the north to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.

That cut deep. Ned would not speak of the mother, not so much as a word, but a castle has no secrets, and Catelyn heard her maids repeating tales they heard from the lips of her husband’s soldiers .... It had taken her a fortnight to marshal her courage, but finally, in bed one night, Catelyn had asked her husband the truth of it, asked him to his face.

That was the only time in all their years that Ned had ever frightened her. “Never ask me about Jon,” he said, cold as ice. 

 

 

20 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Actually, they kind of married mid-war, and in the same year Jon was born, not conceived.  Catelyn was engaged to Brandon in 282, and Jon was born in 283, the same year Eddard married Catelyn, but after that.

Catelyn and Ned were never really betrothed, they just had a quickie wedding before Ned rode off to war. The assumption of Ned being Jon's father is that he was conceived and born during the war, a war which Ned did not fight in until after his wedding. 

Here are the relevant show quotes from 1.02:
 

Quote

 

Catelyn Stark: 17 years ago you rode off with Robert Baratheon. You came back a year later with another woman's son. And now you're leaving again. (As in, a year from wedding day to war's end.)

Robert Baratheon: Bessie! Thank the gods for Bessie and her tits. Yours was... Aleena ? No. You told me once. Meryl? Your bastard's mother?
Eddard Stark: Wylla.
Robert Baratheon: That's it. She must have been a rare wench to make Lord Eddard Stark forget his honor. You never told me what she looked like.
Eddard Stark: Nor will I.
Robert Baratheon: We were at war. None of us knew if we were gonna go back home again. (I should think Ned not actually being married yet would have come up here too were that the case.) You're too hard on yourself. You always have been. I swear if I weren't your King, you'd have hit me already.

 

 

On 5/25/2016 at 9:42 AM, Maximum Taco said:

I don't know about that.

If a man had a lovechild, and the modern woman wanted to stay with the modern man, they'd be expected by conventional standards to take the boy in, especially if his mother was dead, or unable to care for him (which Jon's is no matter what theory you ascribe to.)

How many modern women or modern men, for that matter, would want to stay with their cheating spouse and the spouse's love child? Most blended families involve children from previous relationships, not children born from infidelity. The lovechild's adulterous parent would be expected to raise the kid, yes, but that's not really the person we're talking about here.

I wouldn't treat an innocent child the way Catelyn did either, I doubt any of us here would, but I also doubt many of us would choose to be in that kind of rare, atypical blended family. I grew up in a blended family, as did many people I know, but outside of characters on soap operas, I don't know of any families that involve the adoption of a spouse's orphaned love child.

On 5/25/2016 at 9:24 AM, Maximum Taco said:

Even so, Robb and Sansa don't even seem to question it, Arya at least seems to be like "Why are we treating him like this? He's our brother" Robb pretty much just ignores it when these questions come up, neither agreeing nor disagreeing, Sansa actually goes a step further and rebukes her with "Half-brother."

And when did any of this happen on the show? I don't recall Arya questioning Jon's mistreatment by her mother or thinking badly of her mother in any way in either book or show. Arya loves Jon, but she also loved Ned, who enabled Catelyn's treatment of Jon. Both Ned and Cat normalized this atmosphere for their children. Of course the kids aren't going to be more critical and progressive than Ned, or Jon himself, for that matter. People in dysfunctional families don't always recognize the extent of the dysfunction and the Starklings grew up in a pretty insulated world at Winterfell. And imo Jon's lie to Robb after the last time he ever saw Cat indicates he probably tried not to share all of this pain with his siblings.

Spoiler

Arya questions Sansa's description of Jon, but never her mother's treatment of him. It was Rickon who asked Bran why Jon wasn't sitting with them. Arya at one point had to be reassured by Jon that their resemblance didn't mean she was a bastard too. And when she meets Edric Dayne she gets very insulted at the idea that Ned ever loved a woman besides Catelyn, even though Gendry points out to her that bastards don't just grow in cabbage patches.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Lady S.

[Maximum Taco]

8 hours ago, Lady S. said:

And when did any of this happen on the show?

  Reveal hidden contents

Arya questions Sansa's description of Jon, but never her mother's treatment of him. It was Rickon who asked Bran why Jon wasn't sitting with them. Arya at one point had to be reassured by Jon that their resemblance didn't mean she was a bastard too. And when she meets Edric Dayne she gets very insulted at the idea that Ned ever loved a woman besides Catelyn, even though Gendry points out to her that bastards don't just grow in cabbage patches.

It didn't. It was in response to a question which asked whether any book POV addressed the children's feelings for Cat and her treatment of Jon.

[Lady S.]

2 hours ago, Maximum Taco said:

It didn't. It was in response to a question which asked whether any book POV addressed the children's feelings for Cat and her treatment of Jon.

My confusion was more the lack of spoiler tags, but okey-dokey, let's move on.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Lady S.

[Umbelina]

The thread is marked "spoilers" though.  ?

[GrailKing]

1 hour ago, Umbelina said:

The thread is marked "spoilers" though.  ?

I get the tags mixed up all the time, hence my not being here a few days this month, for this thread:

If Tagged "Spoilers": Explicit TV spoiler talk, open air TV spoilers inside. Always put book stuff in spoiler tags in these topics.
 

[Umbelina]

Yup, very confusing.  When it's obviously stuff where the show has obviously left the books behind, for example, Robb's already dead.  Anyway, apologies.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Umbelina

[GrailKing]

1 minute ago, Umbelina said:

Yup, very confusing. 

Yes it is.

[Hecate7]

On 5/25/2016 at 2:01 PM, armadillo1224 said:

If he had a child from a previous marriage, sure but a child he had during an extramarital affair while they were married? You really think a typical woman would be okay raising the child of her husband's adulterous affair? I wouldn't be that confident of it.

A child is a child. A woman would have the option to leave, but most do not make a distinction between a child he had by a wife and a child he had by his mistress. A child he had with someone else while married usually prompts a divorce nowadays, but the woman who chooses to stay doesn't get to decide which of her husband's children she'll accept, based on their mothers. The important thing is that they are his kids. If she's his wife, that makes them hers, too.

 

Compare Sams's reaction to Little Sam, with Cat's reaction to Jon Snow.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Hecate7

[FemmyV]

54 minutes ago, Hecate7 said:

Compare Sams's reaction to Little Sam, with Cat's reaction to Jon Snow.

Yes, Sam is wonderful, but in all fairness, Gilly didn't have much choice about her baby daddy, the way Cat perceives Ned had a choice about his baby mama.

[Hecate7]

Just now, FemmyV said:

Yes, Sam is wonderful, but in all fairness, Gilly didn't have much choice about her baby daddy, the way Cat perceives Ned had a choice about his baby mama.

Shouldn't matter, really, though.

[FemmyV]

Yes, Cat was still a bitch :)

[SeanC]

3 hours ago, Hecate7 said:

Compare Sams's reaction to Little Sam, with Cat's reaction to Jon Snow.

What's there to compare, exactly?  Baby Sam was conceived before Sam even met Gilly, and Sam chose to become involved with the two of them.  That's comparable (except for the whole incestuous harem part) to a guy who decides to date a single mother.  That has nothing in common with Catelyn and Jon.

[Funzlerks]

Also, for Catelyn's world she was on the kind end of the spectrum of  treating your husband's bastards you were forced to live with.  It seemed like most bastards became straight up servants.  I don't see much of a point in bringing modernity into it.  It isn't like divorcing or even questioning Ned's behavior was an option for her.  Women had it beyond horrible in the pseudo-middle ages and I think that's why her kids and Jon cut her more slack than readers do.  

Edited May 27, 2016 by Funzlerks

[Lady S.]

16 hours ago, FemmyV said:

Yes, Cat was still a bitch :)

Yeah, basic human decency means not being shitty to an innocent child, that's not the same as loving your husband's lovechild as your own even though you had no choice about marrying said husband or staying in the marriage and living with his lovechild. Also, if we're going to bring modern standards into it, a modern parent who stands idly by while his or her partner is an abusive stepparent would not be judged as an innocent party or a great parent.

Who is this Brady Bunch-like happy blended family with bastard equality and a stepmother making no distinction between their own children and those born from their husband's adultery proving that that is expected practice in Westerosi society? The only other houses with bastards we've seen are the Freys and Boltons. Walder Frey treats his wives as disposable and can't even be bothered to keep track of his descendants' names, to the point that he calls one of his bastards "Bastard". Roose had Ramsay years and years before meeting Walda and she probably knew about him before they met. Besides the Starks, the most loving family is probably the Tyrells, but I really, really doubt Olenna would love and nurture another woman's son if her husband had cheated on her.

[FemmyV]

I'd say the Tyrell's are definitely the most adjusted and loving, on the surface, but they're just as treacherous as anyone else when you consider Joff's murder and how they pinned it on someone else. The difference between Olenna -> Joff and Jaime -> Bran is Jaime had about 6 seconds to decide what to do.

We've all said so much about which characters we look forward to seeing reunite; for me, as of now, Bran and Jamie are who I most want to see come face to face, and with a Bran who has his memory back. Once he can control his flashbacks, I wonder how long it will take him to get around to that one ... or will he avoid it?

[Constantinople]

49 minutes ago, Lady S. said:

Besides the Starks, the most loving family is probably the Tyrells, but I really, really doubt Olenna would love and nurture another woman's son if her husband had cheated on her.

I thought the Martells were gaga over their family's love children

[Umbelina]

I really don't see the huge difference in times being relevant for being a hard assed bitch to a baby.  I mean, they are babies!  They cry, they smile when fed or cuddled, they fall when they take their first steps, and really, to anyone who loves kids (which Cate did with her own) how can you help but be kind to a little baby, and once that happens, they grow and the love continues.

So yeah, I still think she's horrible.

[SeanC]

Because the baby's presence is a huge, ongoing insult to her.

And per the author, Catelyn mainly ignored Jon.  She wasn't looking to make his life miserable every day.

[Umbelina]

Jon wasn't even allowed to dine with the family.

Anyway, anyone remember photos of Sansa pre-season where people thought they saw a larger belly?

[Lady S.]

Just now, Constantinople said:

I thought the Martells were gaga over their family's love children

You're right, we have seen other bastards, my mind must be blocking out that part of the series. In any case, Oberyn didn't have a wife to cheat on, he had an open relationship involving regular bisexual orgies. I'm not sure Ellaria had much of a relationship with his other daughters before bloodlust brought them together, as Obara recited her first meeting with Oberyn as if they were strangers, but it's not like we can really discern logic in that storyline.

[Alayne Stone]

Anyone else think Bran will be the reason the wall falls now that the Night's King has marked him and can get to anywhere he goes now?

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, Alayne Stone said:

Anyone else think Bran will be the reason the wall falls now that the Night's King has marked him and can get to anywhere he goes now?

Couldn't Bran just take off his shirt?

The Night King didn't actually touch Bran, he touched Bran's shirt when he held on to Bran's arm between the wrist and the elbow

[Umbelina]

Nope, there was a mark on his arm.

[Funzlerks]

Jon usually dined with the family, which is why it stung him when he was delegated to the back tables for the King's visit.  And it would have been poor form to make Cersei dine with a bastard, heh.  The book made it clear that Jon was basically raised with the same benefits as Bran and Rickon, save Catelyn's affection.  And that it was really strange that he was even at Winterfell at all, because usually the Ned Starks didn't make their wives deal with that heartache daily.

 

Jon's real tragedy is not having a mother and feeling alienated from his siblings' mother.  I don't see why just because she was a mom, she should be expected to be his mom.  She had nothing to do with anything that left him motherless.

 

The Martells are completely different culturally.  Was Catelyn cold because she didn't encourage Ned to take male lovers?

Edited May 27, 2016 by Funzlerks

[Constantinople]

6 hours ago, Umbelina said:

Nope, there was a mark on his arm.

Totally psychosomatic.  The Night King never touched Bran's uncovered arm.

[GrailKing]

you can get frost bite with out the cold directly hitting your skin, so with the intense cold the walkers bring and how quickly they showed a puddle of water freeze, Bran being marked is not unbelievable.

[Alayne Stone]

The show throws logic out the door all the time. Bran's arm was marked despite the Night's King only touching his sleeve.

I guess we'll see one way or another soon. I'm more curious to find out who is going to come to Bran's rescue now because he and Meera aren't getting very far on their own.

[GrailKing]

16 minutes ago, Alayne Stone said:

The show throws logic out the door all the time. Bran's arm was marked despite the Night's King only touching his sleeve.

I guess we'll see one way or another soon. I'm more curious to find out who is going to come to Bran's rescue now because he and Meera aren't getting very far on their own.

well from the promos:

you can choose any name you like thats been banter around for the dude on a horse swinging a ball of fire

you can see Meera huddling over the sleigh and a VO of her saying she's sorry.

[Alayne Stone]

I'd imagine she's just saying she's sorry for the fact that, you know, everyone died in that cave. What's more, the IMDB page for episode 6 and several other sources suggest ...

 

Benjen Stark will be back.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Alayne Stone

[Constantinople]

23 hours ago, GrailKing said:

you can get frost bite with out the cold directly hitting your skin, so with the intense cold the walkers bring and how quickly they showed a puddle of water freeze, Bran being marked is not unbelievable.

Then Bran better be prepared to amputate his arm for the good of the realm.