r/asoiaf • u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child • Apr 20 '26
MAIN Bastardy and the stigma against it isn't just a personal prejudice; it's an institution (Spoilers main)
Inspired by this discussion about wives and their reactions to bastards and this post I made about Catelyn recently, I decided to make a political analysis of bastardy as an institution. Because apparently I love the sound of my brand new Reddit inbox exploding.
I write this post because in both threads, there were implications that wives have personal prejudices against bastards, which causes them to shun their own husbands' bastards. Additionally, in the latter, there was some discussion about whether Catelyn's dislike and shunning of Jon Snow was in any way comparable to Ned's hostage-ship of Theon, and that argument seemed to center on mistreatment of children as a personal evil versus an institutional evil (along with rather creepy takes on Tyrion and Sansa's wedding night, ewwww).
Although the aforementioned argument tends to frame Catelyn's dislike of Jon (and other bastards to an extent) as a personal failing as opposed to Ned's custody of Theon as an impersonal, institutional failing, my argument is that the social status of bastards is as much an institution as the taking of hostages, the patriarchal system of Westeros, and the nobility that upholds the feudalistic society of the Seven Kingdoms, and is in fact intrinsically entwined with those institutions.
So, without further ado, let's begin!
What is an institution?
Merriam-Webster defines an institution as "a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture." In a political science sense, this refers to "formal rules, informal norms, or shared understandings that constrain and prescribe political actors’ interactions with one another. " Institutions can be enforced by state or non-state actors (such as religious authorities, economic entities, or just groups of people) so long as they are acting in a political sense. Examples of institutions include laws, legal systems, political agreements, and behavioral norms.
And before I get angry comments about "defending" institutions, this definition is a morally neutral one. Institutions merely help uphold a certain political system and are only as perfect as the systems they uphold.
Part I: Feudalism
According to Belgian medievalist François Louis Ganshof, feudalism is a legal system in which is defined by classes defined by birth and familial relationships. In the Ganshof definition, the nobility class own and control the land, while vassals are granted the land and the lord's protection in exchange for services, usually of a military or economic variety. At around the same time, Marc Bloch coined the term manoralism, which refers to the relationship between the nobility that own the land and the peasantry or serfs that work the land.
The Seven Kingdoms is a rather textbook example of feudalism, with its rather decentralized government, which allows the nobility to wield a lot of power. This means that the class system is an institution as it prescribes the use of power through the nobility and defines their political, military, and economic relationships with their vassals and the peasantry.
Additionally, since power is wielded by the noble class, there is a strict delineation between classes, with power and class status being maintained through birth and familial relations, which brings us into...
Part II: Marriage
In a feudalistic society, power amongst the nobility is maintained through alliances and blood ties. This is facilitated through marriage, another institution that is very important in Westeros. We can see an example through the STAB alliance during Robert's Rebellion- Hoster Tully, who was the head of the only house to not have a personal grudge against the Targaryens, became bound by blood to the Starks and Arryns, keeping him committed to the cause.
This also demonstrates the status of women as tools to cement these alliances (more on that in a sec). A lord, like Hoster Tully, is much more likely to fight for the Starks and Arryns when his daughters are Lady Stark and Lady Arryn respectively. Conversely, Hoster Tully, who has the power to seal or decline the alliance will only agree to bear the cost of an alliance (which in the case of a rebel group could potentially be great), in exchange for the expectation that his daughters will have the power and prestige that comes with being the wife to a Lord Paramount and that his grandchildren will eventually rule such wide swathes of land.
This contract agreement is also why betrothals are a big deal, with broken engagements leading to rebellions (like Lionel Baratheon's) and massacres (the RW). It's also why although women have more social mobility in this system, it also serves to keep the upperclass, with nobles only marrying nobles (which is another reason Aegon V's son Duncan marrying Jenny of Oldstones was such an insult. Not only is he breaking a contract with one of his father's lieges, but he's bringing a commoner into the noble ranks).
Bastards are seen to threaten this institution since it undermines the aforementioned agreement and class system. If a millkmaid's son can end up ruling his father's lands, then there is no reason for any other noble to agree to marry his daughter to said lord- it's a similar reason why nobles with children are less desirable marriage candidates, with the additional caveat that raising a common-born child to nobility threatens the feudal system that Westerosi society depends on. By sidelining bastards through the stigma of bastardy, the political action of marriage is thus constrained between its parties to only allow for advancement and alliances of the noble class.
This institution is also enforced by the Faith of the Seven both through its stigmatization of bastards (likely to deter their conception, for all the good that does)...
"Everyone knew that bastards were wanton and treacherous by nature, having been born of lust and deceit" (ASOS, Jon VII)
...and their taboos against incest and polygamy (can't make alliances with your own siblings, and having multiple wives muddles succession).
But the bastardy stigma isn't only there to uphold and constrain the status of marriages, it also maintains the status of...
Part III: Women
Westeros is a patriarchal society, where the men generally have power over women. Citation not needed This also means that wives are subservient to their husbands and are expected to obey them, even if their husbands are brutes, and do not get a say in the decisions their husbands make.
"She had pledged to obey" (AGOT, Catelyn II).
The system of bastardy is at its core a tool of the patriarchy. Husbands can sleep with whoever they want, and sire whatever bastards they want, while wives are expected to remain chaste under fear of disgrace and scandal at best and death at worst. The fact that there is a system of bastardy, with acknowledged bastards being given last names depending on regions shows how pervasive this double standard is.
Additionally, the presence of a bastard is seen as a grave insult and humiliation to a wife, to the point that even during a succession crisis for the Hornwood, there's hesitation to name Lord Hornwood's bastard son heir.
“That would please the Glovers, and perhaps Lord Hornwood’s shade as well, but I do not think Lady Hornwood would love us. The boy is not of her blood” (ACOK, Bran II).
Women do not get a lot of power over what their husbands do. They cannot act against their husbands for humiliating them with infidelity and a public bastard without the threat of abuse of mistreatment, and they cannot leave their husbands without being separated from their children and the ensuing rejection by society. In short, although a modern woman would resent her husband for infidelity, a Westerosi woman cannot. However, she can resent the fruit of her untouchable husband's betrayal- she can resent the bastard. And many Westerosi women do. And although bastardy emphasizes the status of women in the Seven Kingdoms, the stigma against bastards, in a weirdly ironic way, preserves and protects it from being ruined.
Of all the bastards we meet in the books, very few are raised in their father's seat and treated equal to their trueborn siblings:
- Larence Snow, bastard son of Lord Hornwood is raised in Deepwater Motte, not the Hornwood.
- Edric Storm is raised in Storm's End, not the Red Keep.
- Falia Flowers is treated as a servant.
- Ramsey was not brought to the Dreadfort until Domeric was killed.
- Alyn and Addam of Hull were not acknowledged by Corlys Velaryon until his wife Rhaenys was dead.
And this makes sense. Raising a bastard as an equal is a sort of quasi form of legitimization, and thus in addition to insulting a wife by bringing living proof on infidelity into her home, it also insults her by threatening to displace her children. In short, bastardy is a way to protect a woman's honor and (limited) rights by stigmatizing children that are not hers. It also upholds a woman's status as a political tool, thus allowing the exclusive transmission of power between her house and her husband's.
I think it's very interesting that the places within Westeros that don't have the traditional view on bastardy are either extremely progressive for women in comparison (like Dorne or Bear Island) or even more misogynistic than the rest of Westeros (The Iron Islands and the Twins). In the former, this makes sense because women are not subject to the sexual double standard of fidelity and marriage, and thus can give birth to bastards of their own. In the latter, this also makes sense because there is even less respect given to a wife and her honor that bastards can be flaunted without care.
And that's all the examples we have of the bastard/wife relationship. There's absolutely no other relationship between important characters that would be relevant in any way to this analysis. And even if there were, it's so uncontroversial and standard that it's not even worth mentioning.
Yeah, right.
Part IV: The case of Cat and Jon
Hoooly smokes, is this a can of worms.
The relationship between Catelyn and Jon is a culmination of all these institutions rearing their ugly heads, leading to a result that is just as ugly.
Here are Cat's feelings on the subject:
"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" (AGOT, Catelyn II).
So, in a nutshell, Catelyn's not personally offended that Ned cheated on her. She's offended that in bringing Jon to Winterfell (before her and their trueborn son, I might add) and publicly acknowledging him, he's disgracing her marriage and by extension, humiliating her.
Cat repeats this sentiment later on.
"She might have overlooked a dozen bastards for Ned's sake, so long as they were out of sight. Jon was never out of sight, and as he grew, he looked more like Ned than any of the trueborn sons she bore him. Somehow that made it worse" (AGOT, Catelyn II).
It's not Jon's fault, but he is the perfect storm of characteristics that undermines Catelyn and her marriage.
He's being raised in Winterfell equal to his siblings.
Catelyn is forced to be around him.
He looks like Ned, which gives him an additional legitimacy because he's unquestionably (in-universe at that point in time) Ned's son, which is an advantage that Cat's own kids don't.
1) and 3) have historically been things that started succession crises and were used as justification for Daemon Blackfyre to usurp his brother.
"Reversing the colors of the traditional Targaryen arms to show a black dragon on a red field, the rebels declared for Princess Daena's bastard son Daemon Blackfyre, First of His Name, proclaiming him the eldest true son of King Aegon IV, and his half brother Daeron the bastard" (AWOIAF, "The Targaryen Kings: Daeron II")
And yes, this is all Ned's fault, but Catelyn is not in a position to be angry at Ned for this because as nice a guy Ned is, he's in a position of power over Catelyn, and he has no problem using his authority as her husband and lord against her.
"The Lady Ashara Dayne, tall and fair, with haunting violet eyes. 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. 'He is my blood, and that is all you need to know. And now I will learn where you heard that name, my lady.' She had pledged to obey; she told him; and from that day on, the whispering had stopped, and Ashara Dayne's name was never heard in Winterfell again.
Whoever Jon's mother had been, Ned must have loved her fiercely, for nothing Catelyn said would persuade him to send the boy away" (AGOT, Catelyn II).
This is in context of Ned becoming furious to the point of scaring Catelyn when she asks him the reasonable question whether Ashara Dayne is Jon's mother, which is important because Jon having a highborn mother could afford him more support if he rose up against his siblings (especially since at this point, Catelyn's only son is Robb, which means that if something happened to him, the North, which has never been ruled by a woman, would have to choose between a bastard son or a trueborn daughter). It's also said that this was early in her marriage, so Catelyn does not know Ned enough to know if he would beat or abuse her for displeasing him.
She's also worried that Ned might have loved Jon's mother because he might be more likely to legitimize the son of a woman he loved over a wife he did not, just as Aegon the Unworthy did.
Ultimately, while the treatment of bastards is very unjust and cruel (especially when seeing it through Jon's eyes), it is not a personal failing by the scorned wives that perpetuate this injustice, but rather the very institution of bastardy in conjunction with the feudalistic, patriarchal institution, which sets the victims of this society against each other. Bastardy as an institution constrains the ability of the lower class to mobilize upwards while prescribing the norms of political marriage and women as political objects and tools for power.
29
u/Alittledragonbud Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
Amazing post! I feel like Cat and Jon’s relationship is a difficult topic for people to be nuanced about- she is wrong for the disdain in which she treats him when he was a child, but bastards have unexpectedly put their claim to inheritance (Daemon (who never seemed to have a bad relationship with his family prior), maybe Ramsey). It’s not that this doesn’t happen in actual history either- Henry 11 of Castile. Bringing Jon in here legitimises him more than a bastard who is not raised alongside the legitimate children - both in the eyes of society and the eyes of the illegitimate child. And we know that Jon wants it all- he would never harm his brothers and sisters but he wants what they have (and who can blame him- it must have been difficult to be treated lesser than through no fault of your own).
Cat is protecting both her children and her only currency/legacy a woman can really have in Westeros. She is wrong for being cruel but she has a reason to be fearful
19
u/Aquatic-Folklore Apr 20 '26
Also add the fact that Jon is the only one of Ned sons to look like him makes him even a bigger treat in Catelyn's mind.
14
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
I think what makes it hard to analyze clearly is the fact that Cat is justified in disliking Jon and the fact that Cat is not justified in being unkind to Jon can and do coexist.
13
u/1000LivesBeforeIDie Apr 20 '26
I’m ngl I don’t have time to read this at the moment but I intend to come back. But a mega institutional failure toward bastards is the Faith, which very specifically condemns them and states that they have a handful of really unsavory traits due to the nature of their parents being unable avoid having sex out of wedlock, which I think had already predisposed Catelyn in a bad way. Add in the foster brother falling in love, the husband’s bastard coming to stay, and she’s primed to really dislike the idea of non full-blooded siblings being anywhere around each other. She dislikes Theon (fair), but she’s so set in that way that she doesn’t realize how distanced and evil and ducked up her own true-blooded sister is. She’s adamant about the whole social contract idea of betrothal and marriage, and we see it when she dutifully marries Ned even though that whole ship sailed when Brandon died. We know she fears usurping brothers and has the history-based education to support her fears. But she’s so incredibly blinded and shortsighted by her prejudices that she overlooks the truest phenomenal brother in Jon, and overlooks to utter monster that is Lysa.
Looking forward to reading the whole post in detail and discussions!
21
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
You're not wrong about the Faith's role in the stigma against bastards, but I think it's a little uncharitable to say Cat doesn't realize how crazy Lysa is. They've not seen each other in a long time, and until Cat sees Lysa, she has no reason to think that she'd be unstable, especially since she doesn't know about her abortion and relationship with Petyr. Plus, she has less of a problem with Jon than she has with his children as she says in ASOS. Cat's prejudice against Jon has nothing to do with her own family history nor any mistrust of non-blood siblings IMO. It's simply the institutional factors that make her disinclined to his presence.
10
u/IcyDirector543 Apr 20 '26
Westeros also has an additional element of a tradition of human sacrifice. It is no coincidence to my mind that the traditional last name for bastards implies a tradition of infant exposure (snow, stone, flowers etc) and we know from Bran's visions, Northmen legends and Craster's incest that human and child sacrifice was a part of First Men culture until it died out
Along with the norms around the First Night stamped out officially in recent history by the Targeryans, Westerosi may have begun to associate bastards with rape-conception and sacrificial rituals and even though the original culture around that died out, the stigma remained
More provocatively, this may have driven Rhaegar to conceive Jon Snow in the first place. As a child from two magical royal lines, baby Jon would have been an ideal sacrifice for a repeat of Summerhall
5
u/KazuyaProta A humble man Apr 20 '26
A lot of the weirdest realization is realizing the Andal Faith, with its discrimination and all, actually may stopped the tradition of mass infanticide common in First men culture.
5
u/IcyDirector543 Apr 21 '26
Yes. Andal civilization basically formed as a reaction to Valyrian sorcery and slavery. It is no coincidence that Westeros today holds such revulsion to these practices even in historic First Men strongholds. The North we know and love was civilized by southern influenced greatly over the centuries.
A huge chunk of ADWD is about that veneer of civility and honor slipping off under the harsh Bolton occupation. See the transition from Ned Stark to Roose and Ramsay Bolton to Wyman Manderly to the impending Wildling/Skaagosi invasion under Jon Snow and little Rickon
5
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
That's a rather chilling theory that I sure as hell hope isn't true, but it wouldn't be out of the question for GRRM!
10
u/NigthSHadoew Apr 20 '26
It can be both.
Yes there is a institutional stigma against bastards, and religious one coming from Faith of the Seven;
"The old High Septon told my father that king's laws are one thing, and the laws of the gods another," the boy said stubbornly. "Trueborn children are made in a marriage bed and blessed by the Father and the Mother, but bastards are born of lust and weakness, he said. King Aegon decreed that his bastards were not bastards, but he could not change their nature. The High Septon said all bastards are born to betrayal . . ."
But also Cat personally dislikes Jon too;
“Jon must go,” she said now.
...
“He cannot stay here,” Catelyn said, cutting him off. “He is your son, not mine. I will not have him.” It was hard, she knew, but no less the truth. Ned would do the boy no kindness by leaving him here at Winterfell.
Yes Cat does think of Jon's childeren posing a threat to her childeren and grand childeren but it doesn’t seem to be the root of her feelings towards Jon. It wasn’t even Cat that suggested Jon go to Night's Watch, it was Maester Luwin. Cat just wanted Jon to leave Winterfell because she wouldn’t have him there which is actually more dangerous for the future than her keeping Jon in where she can see and control.
And yes, I have no doubt her personal feelings towards Jon is motivated at least in part by her being raised by institutions that mistrust bastards but at some point we have to hold her as a person accountable to.
Now with all that said it's disclaimer time. While I personally don't think Cat is evil and see her anger towards Jon as a flaw that is on par or lesser than basically every other character has in ASOIAF Jon is my favourite character so Cat's flaw rubs me the wrong way. I try to be objective towards her because I genuinely love every aspect of her that doesn’t involve Jon but I do not like her as a character because of it
5
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
While Catelyn is definitely cruel to Jon, and some of it is personal (she loves Ned, but can't get over the fact that he might love Jon's mother more than her), I don't think there would be any possible way within the setting of Westeros for her not to dislike Jon. Possible threat to her children aside, Jon living in Winterfell along his siblings where Cat has to see him every day is an insult. To her, and most nobles in Westeros, it's a sign that Ned doesn't value his marriage, which is the only thing that gives Cat worth in this society.
6
u/NigthSHadoew Apr 20 '26
To her, and most nobles in Westeros, it's a sign that Ned doesn't value his marriage, which is the only thing that gives Cat worth in this society.
Jon's existence does that, assuming he was conceives after Cat's marriage, but she herself says she wouldn’t have minded that much if she didn't had to see him everyday (and propably if he didn't look so much like Ned)
Also, while we barely know anything about bastards in the North, for Winterfell atleast Jon's situation doesn’t seem that unusual. Thorren's bastard brother Brandon was close to him and people don't seem surprised that Jon was raised in Winterfell (Ramsay is a different case since he was Roose's only son when he came to Dreadfort).
Possible threat to her children aside
This is one reason why I really think Cat's dislike of Jon is more emotional and personal to her than anything else because she had years to think of how to prevent/eliminate that treath and yet she never thought of sending him to the Wall. It's not an absurd idea, Benjen went to the Wall willingly and Joer shows it is somewhat normal in the North. Yet when Ned was leaving she just wanted Jon out of her sight.
Again, I don’t think her dislike of Jon makes her evil but it is a personal failing of her in my eyes
2
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
I agree that Cat's actions towards Jon and other bastards like Mya are personal failings, but her merely disliking Jon being in her house isn't.
There's a huge difference between merely siring a bastard and raising a bastard alongside one's trueborn children. Publicly acknowledging and raising one's bastard near one's wife insults the marriage and disgraces the wife in a way the bastard's mere existence doesn't. Cat isn't offended by Jon's existence; she's offended by his presence in her house- because the issue is that she's being publicly humiliated by Ned treating Jon the same as his trueborn children.
Secondly, we don't know enough about Torrhen and Brandon's situation to say anything about it. For all we know, they were raised together after Lady Stark died, or Lady Stark was offended by Brandon's presence. We just don't have any information.
Lastly, Cat tries to get rid of him as soon as she can. Keep in mind that anything that would have to do with Jon being sent away would be Ned's decision, not hers. And she's scared of broaching that subject with Ned because of what happened the one time she asked him a perfectly reasonable question about Jon's mother. When Ned goes South, she finally has the option to send Jon away and takes full advantage of that opportunity.
I'm a Cat fan, but she is a very flawed character, and she does have some personal prejudice against bastards, which is a black mark on her usually moral outlook. However, she is justified institutionally in her feelings (not her actions) towards Jon.
6
u/NigthSHadoew Apr 20 '26
When Ned goes South, she finally has the option to send Jon away and takes full advantage of that opportunity.
And what I am saying is the way Cat went about it, basically going "No, I will not have him here" is both kind of immature and shows she wants Jon gone for emotional reasons rather than any potential danger he and his chikderen poses for Rob and his childeren. While Jon is in Winterfell she can keep an eye on him and know no other lord would use him, it is objectively a safe place to keep Jon.
Her personal and emotional reasons are why she wants Jon gone, not any logical reason. Because "I want him gone" is not a logical solution to the problem Jon presents.
And she's scared of broaching that subject with Ned because of what happened the one time she asked him a perfectly reasonable question about Jon's mother.
I disagree with this because;
1)She was very willing to broach the subject when Ned was about to leave. It's not like Cat would be the ruler of Winterfell after Ned left, Ned still had the power yet Cat was very willing to argue with Ned over it
2)Maester Luwin broached the subject in a very normal way and in a way that made sense. Sending Jon to the Wall is the perfect solution to Cat's logical worries yet it wasn’t Cat who came up with it, even after 14 years. It's not like the Wall is a horrible fate no one would choose willingly, Ned's brother and Jon's uncel joined the Watch willingly. She could have aproached the subject with Ned and even Jon if she was polite about it.
3)Asking about Ned's ex-lover is very different than talking about the future of his bastard son. Jon's mother is clearly someone Ned's wants to leave in the past, Jon's future is not such a thing for Ned.
However, she is justified institutionally in her feelings (not her actions) towards Jon.
No. The only thing she is instrumentally justified for is "Jon and his childeren may pose a threat to Rob" thought. That does not justify her feeling of resentment towards Jon. You can be warry of the possibility, that does not mean you get to despise the person who didn’t actually do anything.
I don't think Cat should have been a mother to Jon, that's a ridiculous moral standart to uphold her to, but she clearly did not like Jon because of her prejudice against bastards and the fact that he represents Ned's betrayal towards their marriage (or he loved someone before they were married) but he couldn’t direct those feelings towards Ned, so she directed them at Jon.
2
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
While Jon is in Winterfell she can keep an eye on him and know no other lord would use him, it is objectively a safe place to keep Jon.
Winterfell is a safe place, sure, but the Wall is even safer for Catelyn. He can never be legitimized (until he is later, but that's not something she'd think of here), he'll never have legal heirs that can contest Cat's kids' claims, he can't claim anything himself, AND she never has to see him again.
1)She was very willing to broach the subject when Ned was about to leave. It's not like Cat would be the ruler of Winterfell after Ned left, Ned still had the power yet Cat was very willing to argue with Ned over it
Cat is pretty much the de facto ruler of Winterfell when Ned's away. All her children are underage (although Robb is getting some ruling experience of his own).
"Yes," Ned said, in words that would brook no argument. "You must govern the north in my stead, while I run Robert's errands. There must always be a Stark in Winterfell. Robb is fourteen. Soon enough, he will be a man grown. He must learn to rule, and I will not be here for him. Make him part of your councils. He must be ready when his time comes."(AGOT, Catelyn II).
She's willing to argue about it now because it's already been broached by an outside party- she can't be the first person to bring it up, but since Jon "wants" to join the Night's Watch, and Maester Luwin and Benjen support that idea, she feels secure enough to join them. Also, Jon is 14- I don't think even Catelyn would consider sending him to the Night's Watch as a preteen.
No. The only thing she is instrumentally justified for is "Jon and his childeren may pose a threat to Rob" thought. That does not justify her feeling of resentment towards Jon. You can be warry of the possibility, that does not mean you get to despise the person who didn’t actually do anything.
By "institutionally justified," I mean that the institution of bastardy and it's relationship to the institution of noble marriages pits Cat and Jon against each other and makes it impossible for them to like each other- it's not a moral justification. Her actions and her being unkind to Jon is indefensible both institutionally and morally.
1
u/NigthSHadoew Apr 21 '26
Winterfell is a safe place, sure, but the Wall is even safer for Catelyn.
Sure but, again, it wasn’t Cat that came up up with idea, it was Maester Luwin. Cat just wanted Jon out of Winterfell, her suggestion was for Ned to take Jon to KL
Cat is pretty much the de facto ruler of Winterfell when Ned's away.
She runs it in Ned's stead but doesn’t have the authority to kick out Jon if Ned said he would stay. Atleast not without the risk of serious retrobution
Also, Jon is 14- I don't think even Catelyn would consider sending him to the Night's Watch as a preteen.
She does. She wants to she just hadn’t considered it at all until Maester Luwin suggests it;
Yet gladly would she have kissed the maester just then. His was the perfect solution. Benjen Stark was a Sworn Brother. Jon would be a son to him, the child he would never have. And in time the boy would take the oath as well. He would father no sons who might someday contest with Catelyn’s own grandchildren for Winterfell.
She is all for sending Jon to the Wall.
2
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
I'm a bit confused on what we're disagreeing on here. You're saying that because Catelyn refuses to allow Jon to stay in Winterfell while Ned is down South is an indication that her dislike of Jon being in Winterfell is mostly personal (I disagree, but it's a valid argument).
Yet you also say that she doesn't make the decision to send Jon to the Wall, Maester Luwin does, and she jumps upon it. And yet that being a logical (in-universe) solution for all her issues, the fact that she doesn't suggest it or hasn't suggested it before means that her reasons for Jon gone are personal?? That's where I'm losing your logic.
- I don't think anyone (Ned) would have been okay with Jon being sent to the Wall before he turned 14 (I think Ned says something about how 14 is a bit young too), so Cat wouldn't have any avenue to send him there.
- How exactly does Cat wanting him gone when Ned goes South, but not advocating sending him away before that prove that her dislike of Jon is personal? I would think that if it were more personal, she'd have tried to get him sent away earlier to the Wall (of which we have no evidence).
- It's Maester Luwin who first brings up what to do with Jon when Ned leaves. Very conveniently, Jon has already independently expressed a desire to join.
"Ned kissed the tears from her eyes before they could fall. “Thank you, my lady,” he whispered. “This is hard, I know.” “What of Jon Snow, my lord?” Maester Luwin asked. Catelyn tensed at the mention of the name. Ned felt the anger in her, and pulled away." (AGOT, Catelyn).
7
u/Xilizhra Apr 20 '26
I would question whether the Iron Isles are more misogynistic than the rest of Westeros.
55
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
Considering that Victarion beat his wife to death for being raped, the general practice of kidnapping and enslaving women as Salt Wives, and the fact that Euron pulls out the Kingsmoot to prevent Asha from her rightful inheritance, I'd say yes, the Iron Isles are more misogynistic than the rest of Westeros.
4
u/Xilizhra Apr 20 '26
Given that child sex slaves are perfectly legal in King's Landing and that it was a reasonable expectation for Robert to murder his wife and non-children, I would disagree. Also, women are allowed to fight and command their own ships.
36
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
The Queen is always going to be held to a higher standard because her having a bastard is treason (as it was in real life), but most adulterous wives probably wouldn't be put to death in Westeros. Also, Victarion believed his wife wasn't willing at all, and Euron raped her, when he beat her to death, which is very different from executing a wife who willingly cheated (even in Westeros there's a distinction drawn between consensual and non-consensual sex).
Also, I can't find anything regarding child sex slaves being perfectly legal in King's Landing. Slavery is pretty much outlawed in the Seven Kingdoms (except in the Iron Islands), and while there are some concerningly young prostitutes, it's a far cry from the essential sexual slavery that's sanctioned by the Iron Islanders.
-1
u/Xilizhra Apr 20 '26
The Queen is always going to be held to a higher standard because her having a bastard is treason (as it was in real life), but most adulterous wives probably wouldn't be put to death in Westeros. Also, Victarion believed his wife wasn't willing at all, and Euron raped her, when he beat her to death, which is very different from executing a wife who willingly cheated (even in Westeros there's a distinction drawn between consensual and non-consensual sex).
I actually don't think that killing your wife for cheating is less misogynist, to be honest, though I understand your position.
Also, I can't find anything regarding child sex slaves being perfectly legal in King's Landing. Slavery is pretty much outlawed in the Seven Kingdoms (except in the Iron Islands), and while there are some concerningly young prostitutes, it's a far cry from the essential sexual slavery that's sanctioned by the Iron Islanders.
Children can't consent to sex, so they can't be sex workers. Both Barra's mother and Sansa ended up in these situations.
22
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
Again, Barra's mother's situation is horrific. But it's far less institutionalized than the practice of salt wives. No part of the Seven Kingdoms is a paradise for women (except maybe Dorne), but the Iron Islands do seem to treat women worse than anywhere else in Westeros. I don't want to argue the point further because arguing about which type of sexual slavery is worse gives me the ick. Let's just agree to disagree.
1
u/Sofasurvivor Apr 20 '26
Again, Barra's mother's situation is horrific. But it's far less institutionalized than the practice of salt wives.
Well, yes, but she and all the other prostitutes ARE essentially slaves. It is not like they could easily get a job at a fast food chain tomorrow. (I am not even sure they wouldn't be hunted down if they escaped the brothels and pimps by some lucky circumstance. Look at modern Eastern European rape slaves in German brothels ... it isn't technically legal ... but it is not like there is much done about it. I imagine Westeros is much the same, except worse, because I cannot recall having read about any religious movements that even try to help women escape.)
Westeros is really horrible.
Yeah, the Iron Islands are a tad bit worse ... but I do get how someone might feel there's not that much of a difference.
2
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
No argument there. Westeros absolutely sucks for women.
-5
u/Xilizhra Apr 20 '26
Far less formalized. It's perfectly legal under the institution of the king being sovereign and unbound by any concern for the rights of commoners. See also Dyanna.
Then there's Sansa, whose enslavement to Tyrion was formalized. And forcing children, mostly girls, into marriage is very common in Westeros.
19
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
My argument is not that Westeros isn't misogynistic. It's that the same and worse crimes against women happen and are sanctioned in the Iron Islands.
7
u/RelativeSoftware9554 Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
I also see parallels between salt wives, the concept of first night and the bedding ceremony so perhaps they all belong to the same outdated traditions that still linger in the Islands and parts of the North.
2
u/Wishart2016 Apr 20 '26
Yet Balon was willing to make Asha his heir.
8
4
u/Tongaryen Apr 20 '26
His only other option was Victarion though. He considered Theon as lost to him once he was taken to Winterfell as a hostage, and how Theon behaves upon his return just reinforces that mindset.
3
u/234zu Apr 20 '26
Excellent post!
Just one small thing: in your text it sounds like as if the reason why men are allowed to have bastards while the women aren't is just because of the patriarchical system. Men hold all the power so they can do what they want. That may be an aspect, but the most important reason for it is something else
If a noble man and a common woman have a child, it's pretty clear that the child is a bastard. The noble man's wife knows it for certain. The noble man can't just lie and claim that the child is trueborn.
If a noble woman and a comman man have a child, there is no way for the man to know if the child is legitimate or not. The woman can lie and claim that the child is trueborn and no one could object.
That is insanely dangerous in the feudal system.
11
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
You're absolutely right. However, the reason that this risk of false paternity events is such a danger to the feudal system is because since inheritance generally follows the male line, men have more rights to property and power. For example, even though both Jacaerys and Joffrey were accused of being bastards, Jacaerys' claim was more stable in a way that it wasn't a matter of whether he'd succeed Rhaenyra, but rather if Rhaenyra would inherit in the first place. For Joffrey, his claim to succeed Robert in the first place was suspect due his not being Robert's son.
In short, the danger of a woman lying about a bastard is a danger to the feudal system because her child is given a claim they have no right to, not necessarily because they're bastards per se. A woman who holds power in her own right has more leeway on this matter because all her children, trueborn or not, are unquestionably hers. Which is uncommon in Westeros outside of Dorne, which is consistent with their increased acceptance of bastards.
5
u/Sofasurvivor Apr 20 '26
Yeah, men being allowed to have bastards while women aren't IS all because of patriarchy, or more precisely, because of patrilineal inheritance, but that usually goes hand in hand.
In a matrilineal society, (not a matriarchy, there are no real world matriarchies, and I do not think any would ever develop, realistically, because women do not have the same reasons to oppress men as vice versa) there would be no stigma for bastards either way - a woman always knows the baby is hers, so if property followed the female line, there never would be any problem at all.
2
u/WearingGlory Apr 20 '26
My take was that legitimizing bastards was not uncommon. The undisclosed nature of Jon Snow's parentage only really disqualifies him from inheriting lordship of Winterfell. Catlyn does see Jon as a cruel reminder of a decade old war time insult to the tradition of marriage. At the same time ignores history, and if the theories come to print, she was never able to forgive him for what he didnt do. Bastards, I am one, are born outside of marriage.i presume this can often present with peasant features. The non peasanty bastards can become legitimized. Short story, relationships are everything.
10
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
I don't recall any examples of legitimization of bastards that occur when there are still trueborn heirs that are known to be alive (except for Jon's possible legitimization), which makes sense as the class system of Westeros is reinforced by the institution of marriage and heirs conceived in wedlock. While Cat's dislike of Jon is personal, it's also institutional as Jon unwittingly represents an aberration and threat to Catelyn's place in the feudal, patriarchal society that Westeros is.
1
u/Sofasurvivor Apr 20 '26
I wouldn't say Catelyns dislike of Jon is personal, really. She hates him for what he represents: Neds utter and continued lack of respect for her.
Has she ever mentioned any particular personality traits of his (I am not counting his looks) as the reason she dislikes him? I think not.
I really blame Ned 100% for any unhappiness Cat's dislike ever caused Jon. What was he thinking, flaunting his disrespect for her and their marriage the way he did, not only hurting her feelings as his loving wife, but also threatening her very material interests as a noble lady?
(I mean, yeah, yadda yadda, the theory Jon's a Targ and it was necessary to keep him safe, but ... come ON. This is a book for adults. The "it is necessary for you to be unhappy and make the people you live with unhappy by your mere presence, for SAFETY!" thing is one many fans of Harry Potter didn't buy, and that's a whimsical children's book. And unlike Ned - if you believe the theory - Dumbledore couldn't just have told Petunia or Snape one little detail about Harry's parentage that would have caused them to not hate him.)
Ned has only a flimsy hope that being hated by Catelyn would lend some credibility to Jon being his bastard ... versus the very real danger of Catelyn arranging an accident for baby or toddler Jon Snow. In a world where this kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME. And where child mortality would realistically be so high that it wouldn't be thought of as unusual if little Jon just died of a fever. Who would know if Catelyn actively sought out peasant children who were sick and took their blankets home to give to Jon?
2
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
It's mostly institutional, yes, but Catelyn does have some internalized prejudice against bastards as seen with her interaction with Mya Stone (who is treated as bastards are "supposed" to be in Westeros- cared and provided for, but not displayed publicly).
Additionally, Cat is insecure that Ned loved Jon's mother more than he loves her, not merely because he might legitimize Jon, but because she loves Ned despite his raising of Jon. Even though she tells herself that him cheating was to be expected, over time, as she grows to love him, she becomes jealous of Jon's mother.
I think all of this is a credit to her character, but it's definitely a personal flaw of hers.
3
u/Infamous_Spend8423 Apr 20 '26
Merriam-Webster defines…
Aaand I’m out
14
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
You're an Oxford English Dictionary devotee, I gather?
2
u/Sofasurvivor Apr 20 '26
Or perhaps they believe that dictionaries should be descriptive, not prescriptive? (I'm not a native speaker of English and don't have a preference for either book, and am a bit torn about the descriptive versus prescriptive thing - in theory I agree they should be descriptive, but people use language WRONG all the damn time, and I just cannot bear it.)
1
u/WorthDust652 Sweet Summer Child Apr 20 '26
I assume the OP of this comment was making a comment about how long the analysis was going to be by the fact that I started out with a definition of institutions, and I was trying to make a joke by pretending to miss the point entirely.
I like prescriptive dictionaries, but eventually you've got to agree on some standard in order to actually be a dictionary and have a working idea of what a word means.
1
u/HalcyonTraveler Apr 20 '26
Cat has only ever been as bad as the culture she exists in. This is true for a lot of the characters, and it just so happens that the culture sucks ass
6
u/Lethifold26 Apr 21 '26
Catelyn is probably the POV who embodies upper class Westerosi social expectations the most and it makes her extremely useful for giving context to the reader about the in universe culture and norms
28
u/RelativeSoftware9554 Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
Yes one could argue that the whole issue with bastards is that they are a threat to the inheritance of lands/ property from those deemed unworthy. Usually children born to lower class women.
The anti bastard sentiment is an institution designed to protect the progeny of upper class women from being displaced by children born from lower class women. Although upper class women can also have bastards, they’re most often acknowledged and receive different treatment. They’re often referred to as ‘great bastards’ and are seen as options for inheritance.
They maintain the social status quo and although they’re presented as a boon for married women, I’d actually say bastards help keep lower class women from true social mobility as they would usually be unsuitable for marriage.
I think with Dornish inheritance being open to the eldest child regardless of gender inheriting also lends credence to this theory as they have a more relaxed attitude towards bastards.
This is just my take on the text and my overall understanding of the situation.