Did Rhaegar and Lyanna truly love each other?

[OrangeStallion]

I believe they fell in love and I hope they did. I love this series because not everything is as it seems and the traditional fantasy we grew up with is constantly turned on its head, but in this instance when all is said and done, I think we will learn that Rhaegar and Lyanna did in fact fall in love.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

That's what I want to believe.

We might never even find out that truth. Maybe it'll just be revealed that Jon is their son, whether by rape or love or some stupid crush, we'll never know.

Please GRRM, don't let that happen.

I'm sure Howland Reed and Jon Connington will give us the answer.

[Ygrain]

The text hasn't given us any indication that Lyanna had no regard for her family, her honor, or Robert. In fact, if she was the Knight of the Laughing Tree then honor and decent behavior were extremely important to her. It does not tell us that she hated Robert, or that she loved Rhaegar. We're all doing a lot of guessing here. And I suspect we'll continue to do a lot of guessing until GRRM gives us some answers.

Where does Ned attribute her death to her wolf blood? I don't remember that.

Thank you for not throwing tomatoes. :D

“Ah, Arya. You have a wildness in you, child. ‘The wolf blood,’ my father used to call it. Lyanna had a touch of it, and my brother Brandon more than a touch. It brought them both to an early grave.” Arya heard sadness in his voice; he did not often speak of his father, or of the brother and sister who had died before she was born. “Lyanna might have carried a sword, if my lord father had allowed it. You remind me of her sometimes. You even look like her.”

“Lyanna was beautiful,” Arya said, startled. Everybody said so. It was not a thing that was ever said of Arya.

“She was,” Eddard Stark agreed, “beautiful, and willful, and dead before her time.”

Exactly. She was the teenager (for us, in her world, she's a woman) and the one who acted childish. Yet, it was the adults around who also acted like kids. Rhaegar for not turning her around or at least say "she¡s with me", Brandon for pointing his finger to the crazy old man and the crazy old man.

Thing is... we don't know what Rhaegar (or Lyanna) did or didn't tell, the information is not there. We don't even know what it was that Brandon learned that made him go to KL, we only know that Hoster Tully labelled him "gallant fool" for that, and that we have no account of any action on Rickard's part until his summoning to KL.

[corbon]

Yeah, I'm starting to accept that possibility. There go all my girlish dreams.

Now I know how Sansa felt.

Don't throw them away entirely. Try sticking to the text, instead of listening to the militant, irrational hate-spew that dominates around here, even from a few otherwise sane posters. Most people here assume that they have a full understanding of all the nuances and subtleties of the Westerosi political situation, especially with respect to the leading families, and make vast and vicious judgements based on hindsight and screwed up reasoning. Somehow though that leads them into deciding that every character that is presented to us as smart, cautious, respected or anything like that, is instead a raging lunatic. I tend to think that perhaps when a clear characterisation appears to fail the reader's analysis of the situation, its probably the reader's analysis that is at fault, not the characterisation.

If you stick to what is actually given in the text, and assume that the players generally understand what is going on politically etc better than we do, even taking into account their often limited knowledge of the facts, you end up with a very different picture from what the hate-spewers around here will sell you.

For example, Rhaegar is characterised as being very clever, and very dutiful. Brandon is characterised as being wild, and kind of arrogant or selfish. Yet somehow people analyse the largely unknow events and politics and social conventions around their actions (also largely unknown) and manage to create this picture of Rhaegar being stupid and irresponsible and Brandon being a good lad defending his sister (despite never mentioning her).

No doubt Rhaegar was a flawed person just like everyone else, so the most girlish of your dreams probably expect a little much. But not necessarily a lot.

[harry_dresden]

Most people here assume that they have a full understanding of all the nuances and subtleties of the Westerosi political situation, especially with respect to the leading families, and make vast and vicious judgements based on hindsight and screwed up reasoning. Somehow though that leads them into deciding that every character that is presented to us as smart, cautious, respected or anything like that, is instead a raging lunatic. I tend to think that perhaps when a clear characterisation appears to fail the reader's analysis of the situation, its probably the reader's analysis that is at fault, not the characterisation.

If you stick to what is actually given in the text, and assume that the players generally understand what is going on politically etc better than we do, even taking into account their often limited knowledge of the facts, you end up with a very different picture from what the hate-spewers around here will sell you.

Maybe we don't, but I think its better to judge characters by our modern standards. I mean, taking backwards Westerosi people's opinion on what a good man is pretty lulzworthy.

I don't recall anyone having a problem with the Lyanna-Rhaegar age difference in text.

Well guess what, there are people who have a problem with that in the readerbase.

inb4condescendingremarks

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Thing is... we don't know what Rhaegar (or Lyanna) did or didn't tell, the information is not there. We don't even know what it was that Brandon learned that made him go to KL, we only know that Hoster Tully labelled him "gallant fool" for that, and that we have no account of any action on Rickard's part until his summoning to KL.

Well, I'm even considering the fact that not even the people around them knew what exactly happened there. Those who knew Rhaegar don't seem to imply he forced the girl. Not even Cersei, as some have mentioned in previous discussions. And I do find odd that Jon Con mentions Elia but not Lyanna.

[Mladen]

I'm sure Howland Reed and Jon Connington will give us the answer.

How in God's name would Jon Connington know anything about Lyanna, given that he was never with her nor that he was around Rhaegar at the time?

[Waylin Stark]

I'm sure Howland Reed and Jon Connington will give us the answer.

I certainly hope so, though I'd say Howland Reed knows but Jon Con doesn't.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

How in God's name would Jon Connington know anything about Lyanna, given that he was never with her nor that he was around Rhaegar at the time?

Let me dream, ok? Let me.

[corbon]

Maybe we don't, but I think its better to judge characters by our modern standards. I mean, taking backwards Westerosi people's opinion on what a good man is pretty lulzworthy.

I don't recall anyone having a problem with the Lyanna-Rhaegar age difference in text.

Well guess what, there are people who have a problem with that in the readerbase.

inb4condescendingremarks

I'm not talking about that sort of judgment, at least not primarily. I'm talking about the sort of judgment that decides the judge knows and fully understands exactly what all the political and social ramifications of certain actions, which they do not, and decides they know the full details of said actions, which they do not.

And frequently go directly against the text in doing so.

Like, for example, Rhaegar and Lyanna apparently eloping together "is a definite cassus belli" (it did not itself lead to war in the text and there are many instances of worse social behaviour being excused, or even accepted, without war, both in the books and in analogous historical cultures) and they were "irresponsible for not telling anyone" (we don't even know if thats what they didn't do from the text since we have no way of knowing what the people they most likely would have told, if they told anyone, knew or did not know).

[Ygrain]

I'm not talking about that sort of judgment, at least not primarily. I'm talking about the sort of judgment that decides the judge knows and fully understands exactly what all the political and social ramifications of certain actions, which they do not, and decides they know the full details of said actions, which they do not.

And frequently go directly against the text in doing so.

Like, for example, Rhaegar and Lyanna apparently eloping together "is a definite cassus belli" (it did not itself lead to war in the text and there are many instances of worse social behaviour being excused, or even accepted, without war, both in the books and in analogous historical cultures) and they were "irresponsible for not telling anyone" (we don't even know if thats what they didn't do from the text since we have no way of knowing what the people they most likely would have told, if they told anyone, knew or did not know).

Amen.

Claiming that Rhaegar and Lyanna could have, or should have, anticipated a full-scale civil war as an outcome of their affair is the same like claiming that Robb could or should have anticipated the Red Wedding. Note please, that I am not claiming that they couldn't have anticipated ANY negative outcome, as the counterargumentation often goes. What I'm saying is that the actual outcome, the RR and RW, was totally out of proportion to the offence and could NOT be reasonably anticipated, hence the persons at the beginning of the chain of events really cannot be blamed for not seeing THIS PARTICULAR OUTCOME coming.

[The guy from the Vale]

Thank you corbon for bringing sanity back to this thread. I had stayed away so far because I really didn't want to get into another heated discussion after the dissipation debacle. It's not good for my mental health :P

Still... you are right. Our information is, both by necessity and by design, more limited than that of the Westerosi. Assuming that they come to their radically different judgement only because of their values instead of some information we don't have yet is one possibility - but only one of the two possible extremes on a continuum of possibilities. Add to that the fact that we see Rhaegar incorporating values that seem even good from our perspective when many Westerosi might not agree (like honoring Lyanna for her deeds as KotLT) and I see no reason to jump to the same conclusion as the Rhaegar haters. Was Rhaegar flawless? No. But he also wasn't a madman like his father or even Viserys was.

[corbon]

Still... you are right. Our information is, both by necessity and by design, more limited than that of the Westerosi. Assuming that they come to their radically different judgement only because of their values instead of some information we don't have yet is one possibility - but only one of the two possible extremes on a continuum of possibilities. Add to that the fact that we see Rhaegar incorporating values that seem even good from our perspective when many Westerosi might not agree (like honoring Lyanna for her deeds as KotLT) and I see no reason to jump to the same conclusion as the Rhaegar haters. Was Rhaegar flawless? No. But he also wasn't a madman like his father or even Viserys was.

I think even more so than our lack of information, its our understandings of social, political, religious and even economic implications of things that bother me. Its simply not our culture, yet so many readers seem to insist that they understand the ramifications completely, and that since the characters (whom one would expect to understand their own cultural implications a little better than the outsider readers) actions don't conform to the reader's cultural expectations, therefore the character is insane/irresponsible/whatever. Even when that judgment is clearly quite opposite to the characterisation created by GRRM.

I guess I could be acussed of doing something similar myself when describing Brandon's actions as moronic. Yet I'm backed there, in a way, by Hoster Tully, and I think Brandon's actions transcend social implications because the legal implications are much clearer, especially with a paranoaic like Aerys on the throne. And the fact that my judgement in that case is supported by GRRMs clear characterisation of Brandon instead of opposed to it.

[The guy from the Vale]

That's a very good point actually. I see lots of posts arguing how polygamy is evil when we see no such statement ever coming from any Westerosi. Do I think it is problematic? Absolutely. Do the Westerosi think so? Apparently not... and the cultural dissonance only starts there.

[Mladen]

I'm not talking about that sort of judgment, at least not primarily. I'm talking about the sort of judgment that decides the judge knows and fully understands exactly what all the political and social ramifications of certain actions, which they do not, and decides they know the full details of said actions, which they do not.

And frequently go directly against the text in doing so.

And the reason trumps everything again... Nicely said...

Amen.

Claiming that Rhaegar and Lyanna could have, or should have, anticipated a full-scale civil war as an outcome of their affair is the same like claiming that Robb could or should have anticipated the Red Wedding. Note please, that I am not claiming that they couldn't have anticipated ANY negative outcome, as the counterargumentation often goes. What I'm saying is that the actual outcome, the RR and RW, was totally out of proportion to the offence and could NOT be reasonably anticipated, hence the persons at the beginning of the chain of events really cannot be blamed for not seeing THIS PARTICULAR OUTCOME coming.

I agree. The same thing goes for Sansa's running to Cersei, or GreatJon naming Robb as the KIng in the North. Simply, sometimes, things we do have rather huge consequences that in the moment we are not able to see. Lyanna probably knew that Robert would be dissatisfied and that her family would be dishonored, but she certainly couldn't have foreseen the war.

Thank you corbon for bringing sanity back to this thread. I had stayed away so far because I really didn't want to get into another heated discussion after the dissipation debacle. It's not good for my mental health :P

Hey, I like to believe that I am sane :). BTW, when we are on Lyanna topic, have you read the latest piece of mine regarding her and Stark girls. I know you would be interested in it.

[The guy from the Vale]

You are 99% sane ;) And 1% insanity is a good thing.

You mean the one from about 2 weeks back? Yep, read that one even though I was too busy to write a reply. But certainly a very good analysis once again. :)

[GallantGambler]

Amen.

Claiming that Rhaegar and Lyanna could have, or should have, anticipated a full-scale civil war as an outcome of their affair is the same like claiming that Robb could or should have anticipated the Red Wedding. Note please, that I am not claiming that they couldn't have anticipated ANY negative outcome, as the counterargumentation often goes. What I'm saying is that the actual outcome, the RR and RW, was totally out of proportion to the offence and could NOT be reasonably anticipated, hence the persons at the beginning of the chain of events really cannot be blamed for not seeing THIS PARTICULAR OUTCOME coming.

I doubt any rational person would say that Lyanna and Rhaegar knowingly caused a war. But to hear you and Corbon constantly absolve them of any blame whatsoever gets rather tiresome.

[Mladen]

I doubt any rational person would say that Lyanna and Rhaegar knowingly caused a war. But to hear you and Corbon constantly absolve them of any blame whatsoever gets rather tiresome.

Well, I imagine if there would be no need, they would stop. But until the happy moment, some of us would have to step in and clear the way by explaining what must be explained. I know it can be tiresome reading all of that, but the solution is rather simple - you don't have to read... And if you got tired after three months, well, let me assure you that this topic is rehashed on weekly basis and that you can expect many people arguing what some of us argued here.

[Ygrain]

Amen.

Claiming that Rhaegar and Lyanna could have, or should have, anticipated a full-scale civil war as an outcome of their affair is the same like claiming that Robb could or should have anticipated the Red Wedding. Note please, that I am not claiming that they couldn't have anticipated ANY negative outcome, as the counterargumentation often goes. What I'm saying is that the actual outcome, the RR and RW, was totally out of proportion to the offence and could NOT be reasonably anticipated, hence the persons at the beginning of the chain of events really cannot be blamed for not seeing THIS PARTICULAR OUTCOME coming.

I doubt any rational person would say that Lyanna and Rhaegar knowingly caused a war. But to hear you and Corbon constantly absolve them of any blame whatsoever gets rather tiresome.

Now, what exactly are you arguing here?

[Ygrain]

Amen.

Claiming that Rhaegar and Lyanna could have, or should have, anticipated a full-scale civil war as an outcome of their affair is the same like claiming that Robb could or should have anticipated the Red Wedding. Note please, that I am not claiming that they couldn't have anticipated ANY negative outcome, as the counterargumentation often goes. What I'm saying is that the actual outcome, the RR and RW, was totally out of proportion to the offence and could NOT be reasonably anticipated, hence the persons at the beginning of the chain of events really cannot be blamed for not seeing THIS PARTICULAR OUTCOME coming.

I doubt any rational person would say that Lyanna and Rhaegar knowingly caused a war. But to hear you and Corbon constantly absolve them of any blame whatsoever gets rather tiresome.

Now, what exactly are you arguing here?