R+L=J v.160

[dreem24]

2 minutes ago, MtnLion said:

Yes, there is a higher authority than Lord Rickard Stark, since he is sworn to the Targaryen king.  The crown prince holds greater power than the Lord of Winterfell, and can indeed countermand any agreements that the Lord of Winterfell has made.  The same goes for House4 Baratheon, which is also sworn to the Targaryne king. 

Now, if Rhaegar and Lyanna marry, all the parties can do is say, "shame on you," if it was consummated.  Jon's existence confirms the consummation.   

A 300 years old dynasty pulling ranks on 8000 year old one. without their major power base(dragons which even if present are not immortal)

 

It was never going to end up without any consequences  even a smart king will see that it will not be easily taken from the other nobles.  And the mad ones would only laugh that the dragon takes whatever shit. Well the dragon's dead and if the dragon had a son he dead too and was raised a bastard... So good for the dragon...  (spam)Hehe a cadet branch of house Bolton would be the flayed dragon.

[Bael's Bastard]

2 minutes ago, Kal-L said:

Where did I ever imply, it wouldn't stand ? All I said is that Rhaegar didn't have the authority nor the power to break the betrotal made by Rickard and that whatever he'd pull off would have consequences.

Authority and power do not factor into the equation. If he married Lyanna then he successfully put the kibosh on the existing betrothal. Just as Jon helped Alys put the kibosh on any other plans by getting her married.  That there would be or were or will be consequences is a given.

[UnmaskedLurker]

1 hour ago, Ygrain said:

It's not just Duncan and Jenny - it's Maegor's second marriage, and the marriage of Rhaenyra and Daemon, Jaehaerys and his sister - the king could go ballistic about it as much as he wanted, throuw repercussions right and left, but once the marriage was consumed, it stood.

I know it was just an ordinary typo and you meant consummated rather than consumed -- but it make me laugh because it caused me to imagine the man's "you know what" being "consumed" into the woman's "you know where." Sorry for my puerile instincts, but I felt the need to share.  

[Kal-L]

5 minutes ago, MtnLion said:

Yes, there is a higher authority than Lord Rickard Stark, since he is sworn to the Targaryen king.  The crown prince holds greater power than the Lord of Winterfell, and can indeed countermand any agreements that the Lord of Winterfell has made.  The same goes for House4 Baratheon, which is also sworn to the Targaryne king. 

Now, if Rhaegar and Lyanna marry, all the parties can do is say, "shame on you," if it was consummated.  Jon's existence confirms the consummation.   

Yeah sure that's why Duncan was disinherited and Lyonel got a Targaryen's bride as a daughter in law.

I find it foolish to believe that a crown will give you power to takes Tywin's line... But anyway it's not as though it matters here as Rhaegar didn't have one.

1 minute ago, dreem24 said:

A 300 years old dynasty pulling ranks on 8000 year old one. without their major power base(dragons which even if present are not immortal)

 

It was never going to end up without any consequences  even a smart king will see that it will not be easily taken from the other nobles.  And the mad ones would only laugh that the dragon takes whatever shit. Well the dragon's dead and if the dragon had a son he dead too and was raised a bastard... So good for the dragon...  (spam)Hehe a cadet branch of house Bolton would be the flayed dragon.

Don't forget that it's not only a problem with the Starks but also with the Baratheons too.

2 minutes ago, Bael's Bastard said:

Authority and power do not factor into the equation. If he married Lyanna then he successfully put the kibosh on the existing betrothal. Just as Jon helped Alys put the kibosh on any other plans by getting her married.  That there would be or were or will be consequences is a given.

It comes into the equation because if Lyanna went to see the Prince it's because she believed he could do something. Getting her married is something anyone could pull, now dealing with the consequences is another matter. The history proved that princes were never above being punished for their foolishness.

[UnmaskedLurker]

13 minutes ago, Kal-L said:

Yeah sure that's why Duncan was disinherited and Lyonel got a Targaryen's bride as a daughter in law.

I find it foolish to believe that a crown will give you power to takes Tywin's line... But anyway it's not as though it matters here as Rhaegar didn't have one.

Don't forget that it's not only a problem with the Starks but also with the Baratheons too.

It comes into the equation because if Lyanna went to see the Prince it's because she believed he could do something. Getting her married is something anyone could pull, now dealing with the consequences is another matter. The history proved that princes were never above being punished for their foolishness.

Duncan did not abdicate because his engagement was broken -- he abdicated because Jenny was a commoner (I think you realize that Lyanna was not a commoner). And I don't think that Rhaegar would really have to worry much about the Starks -- it would hurt Lyanna for the Starks to complain. Robert would be pissed -- but to what end? Is he going to declare himself the Storm King like his great-grandfather did? I doubt it. Given Aerys's personality -- he was not going to side with Robert over Rhaegar, so I am not sure any punishment would have been applied.

So while Rhaegar could have been punished -- only Aerys could do the punishing. And I think Rhaegar was prepared to go into exile if he had to -- and raise his three children as the three heads and prepare for WftD 2.0, if Aerys decided he had to take action against Rhaegar. In no event, however, would Aerys or anyone else be able to undo the marriage -- particularly with a baby to prove consummation.

[Ygrain]

7 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I know it was just an ordinary typo and you meant consummated rather than consumed -- but it make me laugh because it caused me to imagine the man's "you know what" being "consumed" into the woman's "you know where." Sorry for my puerile instincts, but I felt the need to share.  

Lol, thanks, I keep messing this up (especially because many other boarders do, which is rather confusing).

[MindBomb]

Going back to the political machinations which are strongly suggested as occurring at Harrenhal, I have a theory (or probably more like a strong intution) to propose that I haven't really seen yet. And, to be honest, given the "game of thrones" motif, makes much more sense than the love-bird hypothesis (that doesn't sound like melancholic, dutiful Rhaegar) or the prophesy hypothesis (Elia is not known to be unable to continue bearing more children).

Let's look at who's Team Rhaegar: Dorne (Martells and Daynes), Part-Riverlands (Whents, Mooten), Part-Stormlands (Connington, Lonmouth). I suspect that the Lannisters also support Rhaegar (which is why Tywin waits until after Rhaegar's fall to choose between STAB and Aerys).

That is not quite enough support for a Grand Council; Harrenhal is a trial balloon for the burgeoning alliance of the Stark, Arryn and Barratheon houses in gauging their support. In other words, if he can get the support of the North and the Vale, which will help persuade the Tullys and Barratheons to round out the Riverlands and Stormlands support, then Rhaegar will have the support of the majority of the kingdoms. 

My thought is that Lonmouth and Rhaegar figure out that Lyanna is the KotLT, a knight whom Aerys has called a traitor (and we know what Aerys will do with traitors--certainly, Lyanna could be held hostage until political concessions are made, ensuring Stark loyalty to the king). The awarding of Lyanna as the Queen of Love and Beauty was a point of pressure by Rhaegar on the Starks (i.e., he is letting them know that he knows that Lyanna is the KotLT). Perhaps, he was initially rebuffed in whatever quick conversations that he was able to have. In any event, that is why the smiles died that day. It wasn't because Elia was insulted--she's a part of the Martell political alliance with Rhaegar--and it wasn't because it offended Robert--he laughed it off. This was a subtle threat to get the Starks to the bargaining table. I do also believe that Rhaegar gained legitimate respect for Lyanna.

Now, do you think that this would escape the attention of someone like Varys? Lyanna is a marked woman from this point forward. And Varys/Aerys would know that a Stark alliance with Rhaegar would doom Aerys' rule. Whoever has Lyanna, then, has the leverage. Right now, I'm leaning toward the possibility that Rhaegar intervened in Aerys' abduction plans--mirroring Tyrion's abduction from the Inn at the Crossroads (spur of the moment decision and quick dash away to escape an incoming company of men). Indeed, I think that Rhaegar used the same trick as Catelyn and went in an unexpected direction--South. And I don't think that Lyanna wants to go west, rebelling against her betrothal to Robert. Regardless, west is an obvious choice of direction for Rhaegar and Lyanna to take anyway and they need to avoid the king's men. This conjecture is probably the least supported, but, we do have Tyrion's abduction as a reference point. The Inn is also a key geographic element in the story throughout, with Rhaegar eventually dying close to this spot.

The romantic feelings between Rhaegar and Lyanna happen after their escape. It's a hell of a long journey to Dorne from the Riverlands--enough time to establish a growing relationship. In fact, this is also why there are no communications with the Starks via ravens. By the time they reach their destination in Dorne, Brandon and Rickard are murdered by Aerys. Their grief brings them closer together, which results in Lyanna's pregnancy (like Robb Stark and Jeyne Westerling--also, like Robb, Rhaegar honors Lyanna by marrying her). Now, the whole thing has gone off the rails and the rebellion has begun before Rhaegar et. al. can do anything about it.

Why does Aerys murder Brandon and his companions? He rightly suspects a possible plot and is nipping it in the bud. Kill the SAB alliance before it can hook up with Rhaegar. Not crazy at all really. This is all about Aerys and Rhaegar.

Why does Rhaegar come back and lead the army? Elia, Rhaenys, and Aegon are held hostage. This keeps the Martells in line as well. Aerys is using the same tactic to neutralize the Lannisters. Rhaegar also cannot try to negotiate with Robert and the Ned because of the hostages. And I don't think Robert would negotiate anyway. Rhaegar's best option at this point is to defeat the rebellion at the Ruby Ford (specifically, Robert), easing Aerys' fear long enough to free Elia and his kids; then, starting all over with the Council, only this time he has Lyanna and Jon (nee Aemon the second Dragonknight).

Got to run, but I'm wondering if there are too many leaps with this political theory of the Harrenhall Tourney and Lyanna's abduction; but, I find it hard to believe that a "game of thrones" was not at the heart of all of this. Yes, we can weave in the themes of love and duty/honor and the choices we make, but we cannot forget that politics in Westeros is also a major driver of the series...

[Rippounet]

12 hours ago, MindBomb said:

Now, do you think that this would escape the attention of someone like Varys? Lyanna is a marked woman from this point forward. And Varys/Aerys would know that a Stark alliance with Rhaegar would doom Aerys' rule. Whoever has Lyanna, then, has the leverage.

There is definitely some truth in that, and this is precisely why you're unlikely to get many answers. Lyanna's political importance is so obvious that you'll find very few people to agree against it -though you'll always find people to say that Rhaegar didn't take it into account for... reasons.
Point is, yeah, something like that is credible enough, and you'll no doubt find many variations on this idea in the 160 threads on RLJ, but we lack textual evidence to establish any solid theory at present.

[IceFire125]

Another video to add to your bookmark list.

Benioff speaking at Goldman Sachs.

'Who is Jon Snow's real Mother?'

And it was kind of clear that it was the test question that was gonna decide (to run the show or not)... and oddly enough Dan and I have been talking about it the day before and we had a theory and we said our theory... and it turned out it was right and from that point on we were on board.

Begin at 5:30 into the video.

Benioff also said that they got it right back in a 2011 interview with the NYtimes.

“We had a whole conversation about it,” Mr. Benioff said, “and George was pleased that we got the answer right.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/10/arts/television/game-of-thrones-on-hbo-from-george-r-r-martin-novels.html?_r=3&

Remember that ADWD was not released yet back in 2006 when D&D had the lunch with GRRM.

 

 

 

[J. Stargaryen]

On 4/22/2016 at 3:55 AM, Rippounet said:

There is definitely some truth in that, and this is precisely why you're unlikely to get many answers. Lyanna's political importance is so obvious that you'll find very few people to agree against it -though you'll always find people to say that Rhaegar didn't take it into account for... reasons.
Point is, yeah, something like that is credible enough, and you'll no doubt find many variations on this idea in the 160 threads on RLJ, but we lack textual evidence to establish any solid theory at present.

Glad to see that some people are giving the political motivation angle a fair chance. And I think you've done a really great job at explaining it. It's clear you understand the idea.

On the other hand, I'm surprised that some people are still so opposed to what seems like arguably the most logical explanation for the kidnapping. Let's look at what we know, or at the very least, can be pretty damn sure of.

• Rhaegar was trying to play the game of thrones prior to HH. Evidenced by Varys's whispers, and later all but confirmed by Rhaegar to Jaime.
• Rhaegar was (still) trying to play the game of thrones prior to the Trident. Confirmed by Rhaegar to Jaime.

So, why is it so hard for some to believe that the kidnapping of Lyanna Stark was politically motivated? Considering it happened in between the above two events, and is precisely what set the game of thrones known as Robert's Rebellion in motion.

Let's look at it another way. HH constitutes time period A. Just prior to the Trident constitutes time period C. In between is time period B. We can, at the very least, be pretty damn sure that Rhaegar was playing the game of thrones in time periods A and C. But not in between, in time period B, when he kidnapped Lyanna Stark, a move that would have obvious political repercussions? I mean, really?

Forgive me, but I don't see how this explanation is the one that is supposed to be far fetched. And btw, I'd like to point out that a political motivation for the kidnapping does not necessarily contradict a prophetic one. In fact, Rhaegar may have been motivated by prophecy to play the game of thrones in the first place.

[Ygrain]

If the kidnapping was indeed politically motivated, where does the romance come into it? Roses in Lyanna's hands, Rhaegar dying with her name on his lips...

[J. Stargaryen]

1 minute ago, Ygrain said:

If the kidnapping was indeed politically motivated, where does the romance come into it? Roses in Lyanna's hands, Rhaegar dying with her name on his lips...

Sometime after the kidnapping, I'd suspect. It's possible there was already a mutual attraction. It seemed like all the girls loved Rhaegar, and we suspect that he gained a great deal of respect for Lyanna after discovering she was the KotLT.

[Voice]

On April 20, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Sly Wren said:

Agreed.

If Rhaegar wanted to do anything with the Kingdoms, let alone save Westeros with prophecy, he needed devil daddy out of the way.

I'm not fully sold on it (more than a few problems), but there's an argument to be made (and one that @Voice did make) that Rhaegar wanted his dad assassinated.-

One way or another, the only way for Rhaegar to do whatever he ultimately wanted was to get Aerys out of the way.

And the only way to be sure a king is deposed is when said king is decomposing. Even if that king is daddy.

Seems like there's little chance that Rhaegar, friend of Tywin, would have missed this obvious point.

Mais oui, indeed I did. And thank you @Rippounet for being polite to @MtnLion even though he was plain wrong on that one. Nothing wrong with being courteously correct. Which you were. 100%. I do admire good sportsmanship in all forms. Salut! 

Rhaegar took away all the king's guard, except for one. The one most likely to kill him.

Prince Joffrey had the Lion's Tooth.

Prince Rhaegar had the Cat's Paw.

[UnmaskedLurker]

On 4/24/2016 at 0:48 AM, J. Stargaryen said:

Glad to see that some people are giving the political motivation angle a fair chance. And I think you've done a really great job at explaining it. It's clear you understand the idea.

On the other hand, I'm surprised that some people are still so opposed to what seems like arguably the most logical explanation for the kidnapping. Let's look at what we know, or at the very least, can be pretty damn sure of.

• Rhaegar was trying to play the game of thrones prior to HH. Evidenced by Varys's whispers, and later all but confirmed by Rhaegar to Jaime.
• Rhaegar was (still) trying to play the game of thrones prior to the Trident. Confirmed by Rhaegar to Jaime.

So, why is it so hard for some to believe that the kidnapping of Lyanna Stark was politically motivated? Considering it happened in between the above two events, and is precisely what set the game of thrones known as Robert's Rebellion in motion.

Let's look at it another way. HH constitutes time period A. Just prior to the Trident constitutes time period C. In between is time period B. We can, at the very least, be pretty damn sure that Rhaegar was playing the game of thrones in time periods A and C. But not in between, in time period B, when he kidnapped Lyanna Stark, a move that would have obvious political repercussions? I mean, really?

Forgive me, but I don't see how this explanation is the one that is supposed to be far fetched. And btw, I'd like to point out that a political motivation for the kidnapping does not necessarily contradict a prophetic one. In fact, Rhaegar may have been motivated by prophecy to play the game of thrones in the first place.

I am not resistant to it in the sense that I don't like the notion or that it would not work narratively or that it would not be consistent with Rhaegar's personality or any other overarching reason to object to a theory. From an overarching (i.e., "big picture") point of view, I can see how it might make sense (for the reasons that you and Rip have noted). But from a specific strategic point of view, I don't get it. I went back and forth with Rip a few times to try to see how it might possibly work, and I could not see any scenario that might make sense (especially as I see the idea of Rhaegar trying to start a war intentionally as a non-starter for multiple reasons I discussed above).

Admittedly, my lack of seeing a strategic advantage could be a limit on my imagination -- but no one else seemed able to suggest anything plausible either. And to be clear -- the suggestion does not need to be an accurate prediction -- it merely needs to demonstrate that such a plan might have been something that could have been Rhaegar's intent. Without any plausible suggestion of how kidnapping Lyanna could advance Rhaegar's goals, as I noted above, this theory -- for me -- becomes a variation of the Underpants Gnomes:

Step 1: Steal Underpants (i.e., Kidnap Lyanna)

Step 2: ? ? ?

Step 3: Profit (i.e., advance Rhaegar's position in the "Game of Thrones")

I still need to see some possible Step 2 that might in some reasonable circumstance have been the plan of Rhaegar -- assuming Brandon had not messed everything up -- to get from Step 1 to Step 3. I agree that Brandon's actions would have fouled up Rhaegar's plans, but a plan still needed to exist for this theory to work. If someone can come up with something that could have been the intended Step 2 that seems somewhat plausible to me, I will soften my view on the likelihood of this theory.

Now admittedly,  GRRM is more creative than I am - and probably more creative than any of us -- so maybe he has a Step 2 in mind that is arguably plausible (I certainly hope he does not suggest some implausible plan that never could have worked and makes Rhaegar look like an even bigger idiot), and if so then maybe this theory is correct. I don't discount it entirely. I just cannot see how upsetting the STAB alliance could be turned to Rhaegar's advantage politically -- when no matter how angry they might become at Aerys, Rhaegar would be the focal point of their anger as he would have been the one to take Lyanna.

[MtnLion]

When this battle's done I mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but... well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken.

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 0:09 PM, Rippounet said:

The quote is ambiguous, no doubt. But in the third sentence, Rhaegar says "do it" not " make them". So he's saying " I meant to [call a council] long ago, but... well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken."
For your reading to be unambiguously correct, Rhaegar would have had to say "I meant to make them long ago, but... well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken." Then you would be correct in saying that  the "roads not taken" must refer to any and all plans to depose his father. But as it is, the literal reading is that he's only talking about the council.

Let's think about this a little bit more.  "Changes will be made", certainly it seems that Rhaegar is unhappy with the way his father has been conducting business.  "I meant to do it long ago." Rhaegar meant to take the reigns of power away from Aerys, long ago.  "To do it." depose his father.  Makes sense to me, no need to go grammar Nazi.  "It does no good to speak of roads not taken." Sure seems to be quite clear that Rhaegar had made plans, but had not followed through on ANY of them. 

There is nothing whatsoever there to suggest that Lyanna was part of any plan.  Again, if the motive is to gather the an alliance against his father, it makes absolutely no sense for him to offend the alliance.  This is suggestive that Rhaegar went against his better judgment when he "abducted" Lyanna, as there is nothing there to be gained, politically. 

[Bael's Bastard]

I tend to agree in general, ML. IMO, Rhaegar's political plans were all aimed at Harrenhal and they were thwarted by Aerys' attendance and perhaps some other things. I always interpreted his comment to Jaime to be saying that he hadn't followed through on his intentions before, but that he intended to follow through with changes when he returned. I tend to view the whole Lyanna thing as unrelated to his political plans, even a distraction when all his plans had gone to hell. If the Lyanna thing was at all political I think it was unintentional on Rhaegar's part. What I mean by that is, I think Rhaegar may have put Lyanna in the scope of his opponents or enemies, but I don't think it was on purpose. Not that he didn't know that naming her QOLAB would put her in the spotlight at the tourny, I just don't think he expected it to implicate her and her family in his plots in the eyes of Aerys' advisers as it seems to have done.

[J. Stargaryen]

3 hours ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

Step 1: Steal Underpants (i.e., Kidnap Lyanna)

Step 2: ? ? ?

Step 3: Profit (i.e., advance Rhaegar's position in the "Game of Thrones")

 

No offense, but it's almost like you're trying not to use your imagination.

1: Kidnap Lyanna.

2: Create conflict between Aerys and STAB.

3: Return once things have been sufficiently fouled up and save the day.

As for the brief comment from your first paragraph about Rhaegar intentionally starting a war, I don't think he was. Especially the more I think about it. I mean, look at how far Aerys was able to push STAB before they officially rebelled. I'm thinking that Rhaegar probably expected a little sabre rattling from STAB, and possibly some minor skirmishes, but nothing more. As I said before, I think looking at the way the war actually played out, STAB's victory was improbable.

I also noticed that you didn't bother to address my time periods A, B and C argument. Wherein Rhaegar was almost 100% surely playing the game of thrones in A and C. But then, according to people who disagree with the political explanation, was not playing the game in B, while simultaneously making the biggest, most committed political move of his life. He couldn't hide behind the "it was just a tournament excuse" like he could with HH. It looks to me like he never quit playing.

I suppose it's possible that he quit after he failed in A. Then he kidnapped Lyanna in B and was required to keep playing through C. However, unless kidnapping Lyanna was a spur of the moment decision, we come back to the same problem: Rhaegar would have factored in the political implications of kidnapping her.

[UnmaskedLurker]

1 hour ago, J. Stargaryen said:

No offense, but it's almost like you're trying not to use your imagination.

1: Kidnap Lyanna.

2: Create conflict between Aerys and STAB.

3: Return once things have been sufficiently fouled up and save the day.

As for the brief comment from your first paragraph about Rhaegar intentionally starting a war, I don't think he was. Especially the more I think about it. I mean, look at how far Aerys was able to push STAB before they officially rebelled. I'm thinking that Rhaegar probably expected a little sabre rattling from STAB, and possibly some minor skirmishes, but nothing more. As I said before, I think looking at the way the war actually played out, STAB's victory was improbable.

I also noticed that you didn't bother to address my time periods A, B and C argument. Wherein Rhaegar was almost 100% surely playing the game of thrones in A and C. But then, according to people who disagree with the political explanation, was not playing the game in B, while simultaneously making the biggest, most committed political move of his life. He couldn't hide behind the "it was just a tournament excuse" like he could with HH. It looks to me like he never quit playing.

I suppose it's possible that he quit after he failed in A. Then he kidnapped Lyanna in B and was required to keep playing through C. However, unless kidnapping Lyanna was a spur of the moment decision, we come back to the same problem: Rhaegar would have factored in the political implications of kidnapping her.

I did not go into detail in this particular post, but above I answered why your version of 2. makes NO sense to me -- and I think I did it in a bit of detail. No matter how much conflict Rhaegar creates between Aerys and STAB -- Rhaegar is still the one that took Lyanna and started the conflict. I find it implausible that Rhaegar could believe he could be the obvious initiator of the conflict and expect to be able to benefit from the conflict. It is not like Rhaegar is trying to keep his involvement a secret -- everyone knew he ran off with Lyanna. No matter what conflict then happens between STAB and Aerys, STAB will be at least if not more upset with Rhaegar (Rhaegar could not anticipate Aerys killing Brandon and Rickard).

As to your A, B, C analysis -- I did not ignore it. In fact, I acknowledged that from a "big picture" point of view (which your A, B C really is part of as it addresses overall story arcs), the theory had some value. I will try to be a bit more specific here as to why ultimately, I did not find that argument persuasive.. People are not just doing one thing at all times. Sure he started the GoT at point A. And he probably never stopped. But that fact does not mean that the only thing Rhaegar ever did was play the GoT. Aegon is born during B -- and we know he was not talking GoT with Elia -- Rhaegar talked prophecy instead. Rhaegar almost certainly put GoT on the "back-burner" while he re-grouped. We don't know for sure why he took Lyanna. As I have stated before, maybe it was a plan between them to "run off" together or maybe it was a last-minute decision when Rhaegar finds out Lyanna is about to be arrested as KotLT. Either way, other considerations would have trumped GoT -- even if Rhaegar still had plans at some point to return to unseating his father as King. But unless there is a plausible argument for how this move could help Rhaegar's play regarding GoT, I have to assume that he took Lyanna in spite of his desire to play the GoT and not because of it.

If there was some way to explain how creating conflict between Aerys and STAB as a result of STAB protesting Rhaegar running off with Lyanna could possibly end up being expected by Rhaegar to benefit Rhaegar over Aerys, I will revise my view. But your answer to Step 2 is really just another big ??? -- i.e., how is creating conflict between Aerys and STAB stemming from STAB complaining about Rhaegar's behavior possibly going to make STAB willing to side with Rhaegar over Aerys. I just don't see the logic.

[J. Stargaryen]

5 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

I did not go into detail in this particular post, but above I answered why your version of 2. makes NO sense to me -- and I think I did it in a bit of detail. No matter how much conflict Rhaegar creates between Aerys and STAB -- Rhaegar is still the one that took Lyanna and started the conflict. I find it implausible that Rhaegar could believe he could be the obvious initiator of the conflict and expect to be able to benefit from the conflict. It is not like Rhaegar is trying to keep his involvement a secret -- everyone knew he ran off with Lyanna. No matter what conflict then happens between STAB and Aerys, STAB will be at least if not more upset with Rhaegar (Rhaegar could not anticipate Aerys killing Brandon and Rickard).

Once STAB confronts Aerys, and he doesn't side with them, which he won't, the conflict is no longer simply between Rhaegar and STAB, but the latter and House Targeryen. And Aerys is the head of House Targaryen.

For example, imagine that I have a kid who steals something from you. When you come to confront me about it, I take my kid's side. Are you only mad at my kid now? Or, imagine you tried appealing to an authority like the police, but were rebuffed. I think that many reasonable people would be upset with the police, even though they weren't the ones who stole things.

STAB would go to Aerys seeking some sort of justice, and would be rebuffed. Regardless of who started it, they would justifiably be pissed at Aerys. Not only is Aerys responsible for the actions of members of his house, but he is the ultimate authority in the 7K. Meaning that STAB could not expect any sort of justice for Lyanna's kidnapping.

5 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

As to your A, B, C analysis -- I did not ignore it. In fact, I acknowledged that from a "big picture" point of view (which your A, B C really is part of as it addresses overall story arcs), the theory had some value. I will try to be a bit more specific here as to why ultimately, I did not find that argument persuasive.. People are not just doing one thing at all times. Sure he started the GoT at point A. And he probably never stopped. But that fact does not mean that the only thing Rhaegar ever did was play the GoT. Aegon is born during B -- and we know he was not talking GoT with Elia -- Rhaegar talked prophecy instead. Rhaegar almost certainly put GoT on the "back-burner" while he re-grouped. We don't know for sure why he took Lyanna. As I have stated before, maybe it was a plan between them to "run off" together or maybe it was a last-minute decision when Rhaegar finds out Lyanna is about to be arrested as KotLT. Either way, other considerations would have trumped GoT -- even if Rhaegar still had plans at some point to return to unseating his father as King. But unless there is a plausible argument for how this move could help Rhaegar's play regarding GoT, I have to assume that he took Lyanna in spite of his desire to play the GoT and not because of it.

I never claimed that Rhaegar was only doing one thing at a time, re: politics, prophecy or love. I simply showed that he was playing the game before and after the kidnapping. And since the kidnapping is, objectively speaking, necessarily political in nature, it makes sense that Rhaegar's motivation was political. That he was still playing the game. It's not conclusive proof, but it makes sense.

5 minutes ago, UnmaskedLurker said:

If there was some way to explain how creating conflict between Aerys and STAB as a result of STAB protesting Rhaegar running off with Lyanna could possibly end up being expected by Rhaegar to benefit Rhaegar over Aerys, I will revise my view. But your answer to Step 2 is really just another big ??? -- i.e., how is creating conflict between Aerys and STAB stemming from STAB complaining about Rhaegar's behavior possibly going to make STAB willing to side with Rhaegar over Aerys. I just don't see the logic.

You're asking for speculation here, which you've already been given, and which you've already rejected. There are gaps in every explanation. However, I've addressed this a bit in answer to your first paragraph, and maybe you'll find this answer more persuasive. Or you won't. Either way, I think the underlying logic of the political motivation explanation is fairly solid. I'm not out to convince anyone that this is the right answer. Only that it might be, and that it's a plausible explanation.

[John Courage]

2 hours ago, J. Stargaryen said:

No offense, but it's almost like you're trying not to use your imagination.

No offense, but I think you're using WAY TOO MUCH imagination.