An analysis of Catelyn Stark

A guest essay by Mitchell Tweedie

Catelyn is probably one of the characters people are most partisan about. Whereas Joffrey is universally hated, Arya universally loved, and Samwell universally fat, Catelyn, like her daughter Sansa, divides people. Some people go so far as to say “Catelyn Stark is perhaps the most despicable character to have set foot in Westoros” (http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/69094-catelyn-stark-a-denouncement). These people, the Catelyn haters (like the Sansa haters), seem to lack empathy. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but the way they criticise some characters, Catelyn especially, only serves to emphasize that they cannot empathise. Furthermore, many of the haters (and lovers for that matter) commit cognitive bias and draw improbable assumptions and conclusions as they try to express why a particular character or action should be hated (or loved).

I would argue that while Catelyn made mistakes, it is important that we remember that so too does everyone else. She just had the gross misfortune to consistently get the worst results possible. Plus, not all mistakes were created equal. There is a big difference between an action that could only end badly, an action that could end badly or goodly, and an action that could only end goodly. For example, a Lord Paramount has more chance of a good end to a rebellion than does the lord/landed knight of a holdfast. Both could possibly see a good conclusion, but the possibilities are not equal.

Stefen’s recent revisionist essay on Edmure and the Battle of the Fords is a good example of this. Stefen correctly raises the point that Edmure’s decision was both cunning and based upon what he knew and what he could feasibly anticipate. He had to “hold Riverrun” it seems, and he and his lords thought what they did was the best way to do so. Seeing as the Lords of the Trident know the Trident and Riverrun better than anyone else, perhaps they are right. While the Battle of the Ford’s had bad consequences, besieging Tywin in Harrenhal, or being besieged by Tywin in Riverrun might have had worse consequences, and attacking the Vale in retaliation to their neutrality would probably have the worst consequences of all. In the game of probability, some people are just lucky. The Starks and Tullys are unlucky. That does not necessarily mean they are stupid or “despicable”, nor does it mean they are clever and chivalrous. Neither decisions, nor consequences, happen in the vacuum, and it is only be analysis that we can truly evaluate a character’s intelligence and morals.

In this essay I attempt such an analysis of Catelyn, who is Bad Luck Brian incarnate. This analysis suggests that not only did Catelyn’s decisions take the worst possible, and perhaps least possible, turns, they nearly always had complex consequences that relied upon a very certain sequence of axualitery characters making certain decisions. Considering this, the idea that Catelyn is stupid or despicable (or both), seem, to me, to be demonstrably fallacious.

The ‘questionable’ actions that I will be analysing are (chronological order):

1. Catelyn's mistreatment of Jon;
2. Catelyn's citizen arrest of Tyrion;
3. Catelyn and Roose;
4. Catelyn and Walder;
5. Catelyn and the Baratheons;
6. Catelyn's citizen release of Jamie.

Catelyn's mistreatment of Jon

This get’s thrown about a bit, and I am not quite sure why. Not only is Catelyn’s resentment of Jon entirely understandable, but there is very little evidence of mistreatment. I think Catelyn’s subsequent ‘questionable’ actions and Jon’s popularity contribute to this criticism’s persistence, despite the evidence for it being scant.

As I said, there is very little evidence of mistreatment. Catelyn and Jon only interact a single time IIRC, and elsewhere we only catch glimpses of the relationship they had.

Although Catelyn is undeniably cold in aGoT Jon 2, she is also undeniably not herself too, which is why I do not view it as evidence of mistreatment. Even Jon is quite unperturbed by Catelyn’s words, so why should we be?

The two most common of the subsidiary evidences do little to bolster the hater’s claims (aGoT Jon 1 and aGoT Catelyn 2).

Benjen: “Don’t you usually eat at table with your brothers?”

Jon: “Most times, but tonight Lady Stark thought it might give insult to the royal family to seat a bastard among them.”

Benjen: “I see.”

I do not see the issue here. To begin with, Jon’s exclusion is explicitly extraordinary, plus it coincides with the extraordinary royal visit. In addition, Jon says Catelyn “thought” it “might”, had he said Catelyn demanded he be excluded, perhaps I would be more inclined to read into this the way the haters seem to do. In addition, there is no evidence to suggest Catelyn’s grounds were invalid. Jon and Benjen are uncritical, nor is there mention of Eddard arguing with Catelyn. What is more, not only does aGoT Catelyn 2 work to unravel the hater’s web  as well, but it lends credence to the above interpretation of aGoT Jon 1.

This scene is longer and more complex, so I will paraphrase. But first, as promised, this exchange suggests that Jon’s exclusion at the feast was justifiable.

Catelyn: “They say your friend Robert has fathered a dozen bastards himself.”

Eddard: “And none of them has ever been seen at court! The Lannister woman has seen to that.”

But I digress, basically, Eddard has agreed to be Robert’s Hand, and so, he is finalising arrangements with Catelyn and Maester Luwin.

Luwin: “What of Jon Snow, my lord?”

This comment prompts Catelyn to have an internal monologue about Jon. In it she acknowledges that “many men fathered bastards”, especially while on campaign. She even admits that “she might have overlooked a dozen bastards for Ned’s sake, so long as they were out of sight.” But alas, not only is Jon in sight, but he has the Stark look, is treated like a son, and is called son. To add insult to injury, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence by the time Catelyn came to Winterfell. It is no wonder that Catelyn dislikes Jon, and she is perfectly justified to dislike him--he is walking talking evidence of her husband’s infidelity. Perhaps you could say she should blame Eddard, not Jon, but that is logical, and since when have emotions been logical?

This monologue also shows that Catelyn did ask “the truth of it” (Jon’s parentage), and she was dismissed. Eddard supposedly said, “he is my blood, and that is all you need to know.” This answer is important, not only because it is a part of the R+L=J puzzle, which is relevant to any discussion of Catelyn and Jon, but also because it shows that Eddard was guarded about the issue. His guard prevented it from being discussed, and thus resolved. On a side note, assuming R+L=J is true, admitting that Jon was actually his nephew would have resolved the issue quite easily. Considering Eddard’s character and how defensive he is of Jon, it is difficult to believe that he would not tell Catelyn solely on the grounds of mistrust. More likely is the assumption that he did not tell her because there was no need, which gives pause to the whole mistreatment theory.

I do not think there is enough evidence to suggest that Catelyn mistreated Jon. While Catelyn’s dislike of Jon is certainly not chivalrous, it is somewhat justifiable, and hardly “despicable”.

For these reasons, I think Catelyn is unfairly hated by the ASoIaF community. While not necessarily clever and/or chivalrous, she is certainly not stupid and/or despicable.

Catelyn's citizen arrest of Tyrion

Undoubtedly, this, along with her citizen release of Jamie, is Catelyn's most questionable action. I would argue, however, that it was actually quite cunning. Considering the context (Tyrion should not have been within Catelyn’s power, and yet, he was) it is surprising that most discussions of this is so negative. The reason why the above is the case is a mystery to me, but it is probably due in large part to Tyrion’s innocence, Tywin’s actions, and Lysa’s actions.

For a start, Catelyn arrested an innocent person (and popular character), however, she did not do it on a whim. She had evidence, inaccurate evidence perhaps, but evidence nethertheless. Both her sister (Lysa) and childhood friend (Petyr) had, ostensibly independently, given her grounds to suspect the Lannisters, and Tyrion in particular. In addition, Bran’s fall and Eddard’s opinion of the Lannister’s could have only exacerbated her suspicions. It should be noted that Catelyn’s most important piece of evidence, Petyr’s lie, was a lie uttered with Varys present. If anyone could have exposed Petyr, it is Varys, and yet, Varys did nothing. Nor did Eddard or Ser Rodrik (who had spoken to the master-at-arms for peat’s sake) make any attempt to challenge Petyr’s claims. Catelyn had more reason to trust Petyr than any one of these three, and less counter-arguments and/or counterfactuals to to boot, so why should we expected her to not take it to heart when they do too? Considering the speed in which Petyr weaved his oh so elegant lie, it is no wonder that honourable people such as Catelyn, Eddard, and Ser Rodrik were fooled, but Varys too, really? All of the evidence pointed to the Lannisters, and, ironically, this much was true. Both Jamie and Joffrey had attempted to murder Bran, and Cersei was an accomplice to Jamie’s attempt at least. The Lannisters (and their allies) had also murdered Jon Arryn and were plotting to murder Robert, they were hardly an innocent bunch, save Tyrion that is, and it was Tyrion Catelyn seized, awkward.

Even so, Catelyn’s actions were not so bad. Had it not been for Tywin’s actions, the consequences would be manageable, and had it not been for Lysa’s actions, Tywin’s actions could be made good. As it happens, essentially everything that could go wrong for House Stark, and Catelyn in particular, did. It is important to remember that Tywin’s and Lysa’s actions dramatically impacted the consequences of Catelyn’s. This waters down Catelyn’s share of agency, and leaves open the reading that Catelyn’s actions simply lead to a series of unfortunate, improbable, and utterly unpredictable events.

Tywin’s response to Catelyn's citizen arrest of Tyrion is incredible, and, IMHO, so much more stupid and “despicable” than Catelyn’s that they are incomparable. Just so we are all on the same page, Tywin wanted Tyrion released, and his plan to accomplish this was, and let me get this right, to raid the Riverlands. Yes Catelyn was born there, as were the majority of those who answered her call, but that is poor justification still, especially since she was ostensibly taking Tyrion to Winterfell and actually taking him to the Eyrie. This reaction only makes sense at a glance, and is so at odds with Tywin’s character and interests that it annoys me. Despite the raid being colourless, it was lead by Ser Gregor, and so the Lords of the Trident had reasonable grounds to suspect Tywin of violating of the king’s peace, hardly a cunning act of subterfuge to say the least. While it is possible that Robert would not be sitting the Iron Throne when news arrived, it is impossible that Tywin could have anticipated this. Furthermore, considering that this was not the only variable that Tywin to ‘take into consideration’, the risk he took is all the more amplified.

What if Robert had sat the Iron Throne, or at the very least had been in the city when the news arrived? What if Robert did not die on his hunt? What if Eddard lead the investigation personally, or appointed Ser Loras instead of Lord Beric. What if Eddard did not send 100 men, but 100 ravens instead. Even the slightest change in variables could have altered the sequence of events significantly.

The Robert what-ifs are the most important. As far as we know, Robert missed the news by a day or so, and considering this is the first (known) time since he and Eddard arrived in King’s Landing (months) that he had been absent from the city, Tywin is Lord Lucky of Luckyton. An alive Robert would almost certainly have every Lord Paramount’s backing bar Tywin’s and perhaps Balon’s and Dorans’ (but who knows, besides, these two are not like to support Tywin anyway). Tywin was lucky, and that makes Catelyn stupid? I am sorry, but that does not convince me.

Before moving on, I just want to say one more thing about Tywin and his embarrassing attempts at wisdom.

Tywin: “You have the right of it about Stark. Alive, we might have used Lord Eddard to forge a peace with Winterfell and Riverrun, a peace that would have given us the time we need to deal with Robert’s brothers.”

Lulwut? Unless Robert’s brothers were of Greatjon loyalty to Joffrey until Robert’s death when they suddenly became Roosey Gooseys with thick black hair (which is not the case), this makes no sense. Tywin started this war, it was not forced upon him. He raided the Riverlands, then invaded in the Riverlands, what did he expect to happen? Did the think the Tully’s and their probable allies Starks and Arryns would call their banners to stop that tyrannical usurper Renly from taking the Iron Throne from the lawful claimant? What is more is that peace with Winterfell and Riverrun was possible, but he had no interest in it. Perhaps Robb’s terms are harsh, but a watered down counter offer was not even attempted, nor were any confidence building measures. So I am not sure what the purpose of this passage is. Tywin is a stupid and dispicable gambler up until he dies, and yet, everyone praises him. No idea why. I guess he just got lucky one last time.

Another of Stefen’s essays, this time on the topic of the Blackfish and Tywin, though right in saying both have scummy morals, neglects to point out that both made some pretty odd decisions that probably should have ended badly (and in the Blackfish’s case, they did).

Now onto Lysa. Lysa’s actions are what turned an improbable series of unfortunate events into the shit-storm that they become. Had Lysa been what Catelyn remembered her to be, or even what she ought to have been (you know, not crazy), Catelyn might have ended up catching a boat to White Harbor with her hostage. Upon reaching White Harbor she might have heard of Robb’s calling of the banners, and so on, so forth. Basically, after the Battle of the Whispering Wood, Robb would have had both of Tywin’s sons, which might have made him seek terms. And so, innocent or no, war or no, taking Tyrion had its possible merits. In addition, no Tyrion means no clansmen, no chain, no wildfire trick, and so on. It might also mean there is no sally attempt. Overall, taking Tyrion might have meant starting a war, but it might also mean starting a won war, which is not such a bad thing.

If Tyrion’s innocence is not the sole reason why Catelyn’s decision was bad. If subsequent, and I would argue improbable and unpredictable, decisions by Tywin and Lysa were necessary to create the consequences that were created, how is Catelyn to blame? Everything that could go wrong, went wrong; she was very unlucky.

For these reasons, I think Catelyn is unfairly hated by the ASoIaF community. While not necessarily clever and/or chivalrous, she is certainly not stupid and/or despicable.

Catelyn and Roose

Why this (and Catelyn and Walder) is sometimes, although admittedly seldom, cited as evidence that Catelyn is a stupid and “despicable” character that we should hate is beyond me. Simply, the accusation is that Catelyn is the reason Roose was appointed to lead the ‘foot’, and because Roose later betrayed Robb, Catelyn is to blame. Since the relevant text is reasonably short, I will reproduce it so that everyone is on the same page.

Robb: “Once we’re below the Neck, I’d split our host in two. The foot can continue down the kingsroad, while our horsemen cross the Green Fork at the Twins.”

Catelyn: “Which force would you command?”

Robb: “The horse.”

Catelyn: “And the other?”

Robb: “The Greatjon is always saying that we should smash Lord Tywin. I thought I’d give him the honor.”

As we can see, Robb had initially thought to appoint the Greatjon to lead his ‘foot’. The parallel is stark, the Greatjon is loyal whereas Roose is disloyal. But no one knew this at the time, so why does it matter? Besides, it is poor logic to appoint someone to a position based on loyalty alone anyway. Similarly, it is poor logic to appoint someone such as the Greatjon to the task Robb had set the commander of the ‘foot’.

Catelyn: “Your father once told me that the Greatjon was as fearless as any man he had ever known.”

Robb: “Grey Wind ate two of his fingers, and he laughed about it. So you agree, then?”

Catelyn: “Your father is not fearless. He is brave, but that is very different.”

Robb: “The eastern host will be all that stands between Lord Tywin and Winterfell. Well, them and whatever few bowmen I leave here at Moat Cailin. So I don’t want someone fearless, do I.”

Catelyn: “No. You want cold cunning, I should think, not courage.”

It is important to note that Catelyn does not mention Roose’s name, she merely argues that “cunning” is more important than “courage”; this is sound council. All of Robb’s victories were the result of cunning, not courage. The Whispering Wood, cunning; The Battle of the Camps, cunning; Oxcross, cunning; even Edmure’s victory was due to cunning and not courage. Considering how the Greatjon speaks and thinks throughout the series, it is probable that his host would have been routed and perhaps destroyed by Tywin’s. Catelyn not only correctly identifies the error in Robb’s thinking, but tells him subtly: “It was his first misstep, but how to make him see it without wounding his fledgling confidence?”

As I mentioned above, Catelyn does not mention Roose’s name, it is actually Robb: ““Roose Bolton,” Robb said at once. “That man scares me.”” Perhaps Roose was Catelyn’s choice, but the wording of her response does not suggest that is the case: ““Then let us pray he will scare Tywin Lannister as well.”” Unless you are willing to argue that she would have shot down all of Robb’s suggestions until he suggested Roose, she can hardly be blamed for the appointment, which a better one considering the knowns (though perhaps not considering the unknowns).

I will now make two quick notes. Firstly, the idea that Catelyn should have known Roose was disloyal is preposterous. House Bolton bent the knee a thousand years ago, and rebelled only once, 700 years ago. Unless there are more recent rebellions that are not known to readers, there are no grounds upon which to suspect House Bolton of disloyalty. As for Roose, perhaps she should have suspected him, but no one else seems to, including his rival lords and Robb, so why would she? And secondly, some people suggest that Roose starting betraying Robb from the get go, but this assertion, while possible, is not plausible, as his council is sound, and the Battle of the Greek Fork was anticipated by Robb.

Whereas the “The Greatjon began to curse and swear as soon as he saw [The Twins]”, Roose simply said “That cannot be assaulted, my lords.” Which is true. In addition, it is Roose who points out to Robb: “Go in there alone and you’re his. He can sell you to the Lannisters, throw you in a dungeon, or slit your throat, as he likes.” This not poor council, nor was his assessment of Tywin’s strategy--to have Jamie besiege Riverrun whilst he slowly burned out the Riverlords--wrong. What is more are his sly comments about Tyrion: “My lady, a question, as it please you.” Roose Bolton, Lord of the Dreadfort, had a small voice, yet when he spoke larger men quieted to listen. His eyes were curiously pale, almost without color, and his look disturbing. “It is said that you hold Lord Tywin’s dwarf son as captive. Have you brought him to us? I vow, we should make good use of such a hostage.”

All of the above suggests sound service, and what is more, the Battle of the Green Fork was Robb’s idea. Only the way that it played out was Roose’s idea--the attempted surprise attack, the caution, and the retreat--and these were cunning attempts to mitigate the North’s inherent disadvantage versus Tywin. Yes, they failed, but it could have been quite worse quite easily. It might have been possible to keep Tywin distracted and avoid battle, but no one seems to think so. Perhaps the Northerners are stupid, but since everyone (readers included) seems to think Robb and the Blackfish are badass tacticians, though perhaps not strategists, neither of them seem to think of this alternative. So perhaps we (or GRRM) are missing something.

Overall, not only was Roose not necessarily Catelyn’s choice, but there is no evidence that he was anything but loyal prior to the Battle of the Blackwater (a year after his appointment). This begs the question, in what way could Catelyn, who did not even appoint him in the first place, possibly be to blame for actions that took place one year later?

For these reasons, I think Catelyn is unfairly hated by the ASoIaF community. While not necessarily clever and/or chivalrous, she is certainly not stupid and/or despicable.

Catelyn and Walder

Why this (and Catelyn and Roose) is sometimes, although admittedly seldom, cited as evidence that Catelyn is a stupid and “despicable” character that we should hate is beyond me. Since the relevant text is short, I will reproduce it so that everyone is on the same page.

Catelyn: “We want to cross.”

Walder: “Oh, do you? That’s blunt. Why should I let you?”

Catelyn: “If you were strong enough to climb your own battlements, Lord Frey, you would see that my son has twenty thousand men outside your walls.”

Walder: “They’ll be twenty thousand fresh corpses when Lord Tywin gets here. Don’t you try and frighten me, my lady. Your husband’s in some traitor’s cell under the Red Keep, your father’s sick, might be dying, and Jaime Lannister’s got your brother in chains. What do you have that I should fear? That son of yours? I’ll match you son for son, and I’ll still have eighteen when yours are all dead.”

To those who think Catelyn got a bad deal, reread that second point by Walder. Based on the circumstances, it is quite obvious Robb needs Walder a lot more than Walder needs Robb. Furthermore, since Robb can neither siege nor storm The Twins, he has no easy way to extort Walder. Conversely, Walder can extort Robb quite easily since he could always just join Tywin, or at least threaten to do so. That said, there is always the risk that Tywin’s terms would be poorer, that is why “the rest [is] haggling.” Both sides want an agreement today, and both sides want it as one sided as possible. Both have several cards to play, as seen above, Catelyn started with the threat card, which Walder countered quite easily, and so Catelyn appealed to Walder’s honour.

Catelyn: “You swore an oath to my father.”

Walder: “Oh, yes, I said some words, but I swore oaths to the crown too, it seems to me. Joffrey’s the king now, and that makes you and your boy and all those fools out there no better than rebels. If I had the sense the gods gave a fish, I’d help the Lannisters boil you all.”

Again Walder counters Catelyn’s argument quite easily. Although he does not bring it up, had Catelyn pushed him he might have pointed out that Hoster is the Lord of Riverrun. Walder owes Catelyn little, and Robb less. His easy countering of Catelyn’s arguments show that the only available alternative was concessions, and his. That said, it is important to note that Catelyn is not the only one to make concessions (Walder not only agrees to their passage, but joins them with all of his force as well), however, that said, she does agree to take two grandsons as wards, a son as a squire, another son for Arya, and a daughter for Robb. At a glance, these terms might seem one sided, however, they are not that bad in actuality. Personally, I have no idea why so many Houses shun the Frey’s, not only are they apparently able to raise 4k levies singlehandedly, but they have what is perhaps the greatest seats in Westeros (expecting the seats of the Lord Paramounts of course). They are almost certainly able to raise more levies than any of Robb’s bannermen, save perhaps House Bolton. (Remember: House Manderly and House Karstark raised less than 600 horse between them, and only just more than 3k foot, and they are among Robb’s more powerful bannermen.) In short, these marriage alliances are not that bad. Yes Robb does not get to choose which his bride, but big deal, with the obvious exception of Margaery Tyrell, is there a more suitable bride? As for the wards and squire, they are double edged sweeteners. Catelyn gets two hostages and Robb one. Plus real friendships might develop (Eddard and Robert). In the end, this deal is actually not as bad as it might sound. Had every Stark been forced to marry a Frey, then perhaps we could question it, but as it stands, the Lord to be and a girl assumed dead were the ones bethroned, not that bad considering the Stark’s still had three more possible matches. Furthermore, one of the most important castles in the riverlands, its notoriously cautious Lord, and 4k levies joined Robb, damn, Catelyn did well.

For these reasons, I think Catelyn is unfairly hated by the ASoIaF community. While not necessarily clever and/or chivalrous, she is certainly not stupid and/or despicable.

Catelyn and the Baratheons

Catelyn made a doozy of a mistake while down south treating with the Baratheons, however, is am not sure how this mistakes shows her to be anything but the opposite of “despicable”. This will be quick so I will just jump straight in. Basically, Catelyn saved Brienne instead of treating with Loras. The Tyrell’s needed a king to follow, perhaps King Mace/Willas/Garlan/Loras/Robb, anyone of these could have worked, especially since the Starks and the Tyrells both had unwed boys and girls of age and could have easily secured an alliance. And yet, Catelyn made no effort to explore these options. Though her haste might have saved Brienne, it did not remove the doubts of the role she might have played in Renly’s death, nor did it secure Highgarden for Robb/Robb for Highgarden.

In short, she gained one sword when she might have gained many tens of thousands. Perhaps an alliance with Highgarden was impossible, but her lack of trying was a mistake IMHO, but a mistake that highlights her humanity, not lack thereof.

For these reasons, I think Catelyn is unfairly hated by the ASoIaF community. While not necessarily clever and/or chivalrous, she is certainly not stupid and/or despicable.

Catelyn's citizen release of Jamie

Undoubtedly, this, along with her citizen arrest of Tyrion, is Catelyn's most questionable action. I would argue, however, that while a mistake some people blow it out to ridiculous proportions.

This is perhaps the most tricky of her decisions to dissect, because while treasonous, it was done with good intentions, and while risky, was done when all hope was lost, and while ‘potentially’ the cause of several problems (including the Karstarks, the Westerlings, and the Red Wedding), it was not the reason why these were problems.

No release of Jamie might mean no angry Karstarks, but no beheading of Rickard might have the same result.

No release of Jamie might mean Catelyn can talk Robb out of his marriage with Jeyne, but that is a big might.

No release of Jamie might mean Tywin does not risk the Red Wedding, but this is also big might seeing as the plot could have been adapted so that it was the Chain Wedding instead of the Red Wedding. Perhaps the Blackfish would kill Jamie, but with a bazillion lords and ladies, including his liege, niece, and nephew, captured, I doubt he would, and I doubt I am the alone in thinking this.

While Catelyn’s actions were ill done, the purpose of them is quite commendable, and highlights the greyness of ASoIaF and her character in particular. Why is Sansa worth less than Jamie... you sexist patriarch! It is an idea that everyone, characters and readers both, support, and yet, it is not that chivalrous, nor is it necessarily that smart. Perhaps Sansa could be married once freed, and perhaps the pros of this would outweigh the cons of releasing Jamie, especially a hand-less and on the path of redemption Jamie. People who belittle ethical questions like these misunderstand. Maybe Catelyn is doing wrong by Robb, but maybe Sansa was done wrong by Robb and Catelyn is saving Sansa. I think this is probably her worst decision, because it had the least chance of success, but stupid and “despicable” are strong words, and I am not sure if they can be fairly applied. I have not lost a father, husband, two sons, and possibly a daughter within a year or so before, so her circumstances are unknown to me, and to most of her critics for that matter.

Ironically, while in the short and mid term this decision pretty much could not have had positive consequences, in the lord term, it might become the best decision she ever made. Jamie 2.0 and Brienne are not done yet I think (I doubt Lady Stoneheart will be the death of either of them). Indeed, perhaps Jamie will save the Starks and Tullys in the end. It is hard to know when to draw the line. Does a decision need to have good consequence by a certain date? Also, is the wrong she did minimised by the fact that it probably did not change anything, bad things were incoming regardless? And is the right she did undone by the wrong? This is not simple, but some seem to think it is.

For these reasons, I think Catelyn is unfairly hated by the ASoIaF community. While not necessarily clever and/or chivalrous, she is certainly not stupid and/or despicable.