purple-eyes

Can we officially call Rhaegar a jerk now?

258 posts in this topic

On 8/15/2017 at 9:30 PM, purple-eyes said:

Well, I am not that familiar with quality of writing or presentation of story, but I remember this in the book:

Elia died when she was around 25-26 years old and Arianne was only a few years old when Elia died. 

Yet a 20-year old  Arianne told Arys and us "she (paramour of Lewyn) is an old woman now. "

I would say people should check the "important detail" slightly more careful before they can make up a new incest relationship. 

 

 

No I don't have to check. I have a life, a very busy one a career, and a family. This is entertainment and fiction and hopefully a discussion where people share information for the pure enjoyment of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 2017-08-14 at 7:20 AM, Dawn of Fyre said:

Sorry about that, didn't notice :P

Maybe you could both edit your posts...;)

Edited by I prefer summer
Typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering Rhaegar pretty much states that he needs a third child right in front of his bed ridden wife, makes one wonder if Elia was completely on board with the prophecy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Stark_in_Winterfell said:

No I don't have to check. I have a life, a very busy one a career, and a family. This is entertainment and fiction and hopefully a discussion where people share information for the pure enjoyment of it.

Then share information for the pure enjoyment of it instead of insulting people with this implied "you don't have a life" type comment.  

We're all in the minority that comes to a forum to discuss a tv show and/or book series.  None of us have the moral high ground to cast shade on each other by claiming that we don't have time to do X because we aren't a loser.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nic. said:

Considering Rhaegar pretty much states that he needs a third child right in front of his bed ridden wife, makes one wonder if Elia was completely on board with the prophecy. 

If she wasn't on board with the prophecy, she was probably sick to death of him by that point anyway. (Actually, almost true literally as well as figuratively…)

Imagine what it's like to live with a spouse who's obsessed with something you think is nonsense to the point where he's twice decided he had to change his entire life around, won't talk about anything else, can't make joint decisions with you because his motivations are all based on his mad prophecy you don't believe in, only wants to have sex with you to fulfill part of that prophecy… No matter how much you'd loved him before he went crazy, how long could you put up with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lurid Jester said:

Then share information for the pure enjoyment of it instead of insulting people with this implied "you don't have a life" type comment.  

We're all in the minority that comes to a forum to discuss a tv show and/or book series.  None of us have the moral high ground to cast shade on each other by claiming that we don't have time to do X because we aren't a loser.  

Well put. Some people get very angry when they lose a point in a discussion, and go right for personal attacks - usually of the kind we see here. Not sure why really, if their life truly is that amazing and busy, but eh. People will be people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the annulment is just there to make the plot less complicated the importance is Jon is the rightful king.

AND - the annulment puts lie to the stark's version of Lyanna-Rhaeghar where he supposedly rapes her. You don't get an annulment to rape a woman. Evidence of Rhaeghar's love and respect for Lyanna. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ValrianSunni said:

the annulment is just there to make the plot less complicated the importance is Jon is the rightful king.

Which sort of ruins his character story, because he worked exactly because he lacked this entitled 'it's my ancestors inheritance' crap.

1 hour ago, ValrianSunni said:

AND - the annulment puts lie to the stark's version of Lyanna-Rhaeghar where he supposedly rapes her. You don't get an annulment to rape a woman. Evidence of Rhaeghar's love and respect for Lyanna. 

Was it the Starks' version? I recall Ned (or the readers/audience) didn't really buy it, it was Robert who believed it. But OK, Rhaegar: not a rapist, but still an asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

it was Robert who believed it

It was the official version of events, and as I recall even Ned's kids believe it to be true. Ned probably knew better, but his promise to protect Jon precluded him disputing the official version.

But yes, Rhaegar was not a rapist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that the marriage of Rhaegar and Elia was an arranged one between the families, so yeah there was no love between them. Still, Rhaegar sacrificed his whole family to be with Lyanna.

Unless there was a good reason for Rhaegar to annul his marriage to Elia, I do think it was a really dick move of him to bastardize his other 2 children because of it.

The whole realm became in an uproar because of their romance, i hope it was worth all the lives it costed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-08-15 at 8:34 PM, Stark_in_Winterfell said:

Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I were made illegitimate when King Henry VIII annulled his marriages to their mothers, yet out of necessity they were later made legitimate due to the death of his only son without issue. 

Henry didn't annul his marriage to Anne Boleyn - he accused her of treason (adultery) and beheaded her. Mary was re-legitimized, and Elizabeth made a bastard, by the return of the country to the Roman Catholic Church. And the return again to the Church of England after Mary's death paved the way for Elizabeth to be considered legitimate, because the end of Henry's marriage to Anne's mother, Catherine of Aragon, was recognized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mikkel said:

It was the official version of events, and as I recall even Ned's kids believe it to be true. Ned probably knew better, but his promise to protect Jon precluded him disputing the official version.

But yes, Rhaegar was not a rapist.

OK, my mistake, but then again

a. it was probably 'better' for Lyanna's 'honour' to be raped than involved in an extramarital affair

b. good luck with discussing this with Robert, AKA the king, AKA the person, who decides what's the 'right' version.

48 minutes ago, DireKiwi said:

I suspect that the marriage of Rhaegar and Elia was an arranged one between the families

Like almost any other. So unless one spouse turns out to be a Cersei Lannister, a Robert Baratheon, a Lysa Arryn or a Ramsay Bolton to the other, it's really no excuse to throw the other one and your children under the bus.

Also the 'Targaryens can take two wives' theory is at least in line with how the Westerosi society worked, but introducing a 'a person can annul his marriage just because, in a complete secret' rule is just ridiculous. OK, maybe you can do it to Tysha, but Elia Martell was a princess (not only as Rhaegar's wife, but also on her own right), and so was her daughter, and her son was a prince.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

OK, my mistake, but then again

a. it was probably 'better' for Lyanna's 'honour' to be raped than involved in an extramarital affair

b. good luck with discussing this with Robert, AKA the king, AKA the person, who decides what's the 'right' version.

Re: A - possibly, and it makes a certain amount of sense as far as "honour" is concerned: a rape victim is blameless, while an adultress bears some part of the blame - Westerosi ideas about women are messed up by modern standards, to say the least, but this at least makes sense.

Re: B - yeah, even without allowing for Jon, it would be a hard sell, but with Jon in the picture, Ned has no real incentive to dispute official events - he does his best to not join in on Robert's "Rhaegar bashing" because he knows better, but he is practical enough to not take it any further than that. Robert's acceptance of Tywin's actions re: Rhaegar's kids did lead to a major falling out between Robert and Ned, but Lyanna's death made them reconcile - Ned's newfound reasons not to rock the boat probably played a role here.

40 minutes ago, Tianzi said:

Like almost any other. So unless one spouse turns out to be a Cersei Lannister, a Robert Baratheon, a Lysa Arryn or a Ramsay Bolton to the other, it's really no excuse to throw the other one and your children under the bus.

Also the 'Targaryens can take two wives' theory is at least in line with how the Westerosi society worked, but introducing a 'a person can annul his marriage just because, in a complete secret' rule is just ridiculous. OK, maybe you can do it to Tysha, but Elia Martell was a princess (not only as Rhaegar's wife, but also on her own right), and so was her daughter, and her son was a prince.

100% agreed. I mean as far as the show is concerned we're kinda forced to accept the "Marriage was annulled and Jon is legit because we say so" reasoning, but we don't have to like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 8/20/2017 at 8:15 AM, Tianzi said:

OK, my mistake, but then again

a. it was probably 'better' for Lyanna's 'honour' to be raped than involved in an extramarital affair

b. good luck with discussing this with Robert, AKA the king, AKA the person, who decides what's the 'right' version.

Like almost any other. So unless one spouse turns out to be a Cersei Lannister, a Robert Baratheon, a Lysa Arryn or a Ramsay Bolton to the other, it's really no excuse to throw the other one and your children under the bus.

Also the 'Targaryens can take two wives' theory is at least in line with how the Westerosi society worked, but introducing a 'a person can annul his marriage just because, in a complete secret' rule is just ridiculous. OK, maybe you can do it to Tysha, but Elia Martell was a princess (not only as Rhaegar's wife, but also on her own right), and so was her daughter, and her son was a prince.

It's kind of amusing how contentious this discussion has become. If Rhagar can be called a jerk, then so is Lyanna.  I agree their actions were selfish and given the amount of power behind their actions, their level of responsibility is  higher, making their actions all the more devastating for the many who suffered the consequences. They both defied their families and ran off to fulfill their own desires together. The result was they threw Westeros into war and thousands died for their selfish love for each other. This is a cautionary tale of why even kings don't get to put their desires first. This is why Lords, Ladies, Kings and Queens are brought up to fulfill their duty to their families, houses and people and to consider their own wants secondary. The underlying theme is that when the happiness of the few comes at the expense of the misery of the masses, then no one  is entitled to it. Dark, sad and too often true.

Edited by Stark_in_Winterfell
grammar police

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 11:12 AM, purple-eyes said:

Well, we know Rhaegar named Lyanna as his queen of love and beauty in front of his lawful wife and whole realm (all smile died). 

We know Elia almost died giving birth to his son but weeks after Aegon was born, Rhaegar disappeared with Lyanna and annuled his marriage secretly.

We know Annulment means this marriage was never ever valid therefore Aegon and Rhaenys became bastards. 

All of these are facts. 

Do these facts sound like jerkish move? 

 

He didnt even have the decency to leave Elia with his best kingsgaurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.08.2017 at 9:25 PM, Stark_in_Winterfell said:

If Rhagar can be called a jerk, then so is Lyanna.

I don't really consider Lyanna an innocent since she went willingly, but since she wasn't

a. married (bethroted yes, but it's still something less)

b. a mother

c. a member of the royal family

d. a grown-ass woman Rhaegar's age (though in this version she's probably older than 14)

I'm going to cut her much more slack than him.

That said, I completely agree that this 'LUUUUFF over duty' approach that several nobles and royals display is completely unsympathetic, and probably completely unintentionally (I have a feeling that the series was trying to make us root for Rhaegar&Lyanna and Robb Stark&whatsherface). My own view of Rhaegar always depended (and in the books still does) on whether he actually have had a good reason to do what he did. And by 'good reason' I understand 'really believing he's doing the necessary to save the world, because prophecy or something', not 'following the moral compass in his pants'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.08.2017 at 9:25 PM, Stark_in_Winterfell said:

The underlying theme is that when the happiness of the few comes at the expense of the misery of the masses, then no one  is entitled to it.

Yeah, but I was discussing not his/their fault to the masses, but the additional aspect of Rhaegar being a dick more privately too, to his wife and children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, can we officially rehabilitate Cat for thinking that Jon's existence is something that would screw his trueborn siblings' lives and that his father would screw his wife and their children over for Jon/his mother? I mean, the circumstances changed, but the woman turned out to be sort of right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now