Robert rebellion was based on a lie, by whom?

[jcmontea]

6 hours ago, SirArthur said:

It is not Lyanna's romance or Rickard's death, it is Robert's rebellion. The sentence is Robert's rebellion is based on a lie. 

And in Robert's rebellion Robert's perpective may matter. You may not like it, but when Robert feels he got cuckolded, he rebels. And it doesn't matter what lies or not lies are spread around. Lies are complete irrelevant in Robert's rebellion.

Robert rebelling because he got cuckolded strikes me as going even further into revisionist history than saying the rebellion was based on a lie. 

[MinscS2]

Robert didn't rebel because he got cuckolded.
Robert rebelled because he thought that the woman he loved was kidnapped and raped. 

While saying "Roberts rebellion was built on a misconception" doesn't have the same ring to it, its closer to the truth.
"Lie" is a bit exaggerated (since no one actually lied to him, he simply didn't know the truth), but fits the dramatic narrative that D&D wanted to push. 

If Lyanna had someway told Robert that she didn't love him and that she wanted to be with Rhaegar, he might not have rebelled (at least not then and there), but knowing Robert he would probably have told himself that she was lying and/or was forced by Rhaegar to say the things she said, and so he would've rebelled anyway. Robert did love his killing after all.

Personally I think the whole "lie"-sentence is stupid and should've never been uttered in the first place. It fills no purpose. 

[jcmontea]

5 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

Robert didn't rebel because he got cuckolded.
Robert rebelled because he thought that the woman he loved was kidnapped and raped. 

While saying "Roberts rebellion was built on a misconception" doesn't have the same ring to it, its closer to the truth.
"Lie" is a bit exaggerated (since no one actually lied to him, he simply didn't know the truth), but fits the dramatic narrative that D&D wanted to push. 

If Lyanna had someway told Robert that she didn't love him and that she wanted to be with Rhaegar, he might not have rebelled (at least not then and there), but knowing Robert he would probably have told himself that she was lying and/or was forced by Rhaegar to say the things she said, and so he would've rebelled anyway. Robert did love his killing after all.

Personally I think the whole "lie"-sentence is stupid and should've never been uttered in the first place. It fills no purpose. 

how do we know no one lied to him or to Brandon or that Robert himself did not lie? 

[MinscS2]

We don't. We simply know what Robert/The show has told us what people know about Lyanna/Rhaegar.

It's not impossible that he lied in order to start a war (maybe he wanted to become king and used Lyanna as an excuse), but we haven't seen anything indicating this so far in the show, so it's doubtful that we'll see anything in that regard in the last season. Not that it would matter at this point either since pretty much everyone who would react to it in some way are already dead. 

[jcmontea]

20 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

We don't. We simply know what Robert/The show has told us what people know about Lyanna/Rhaegar.

It's not impossible that he lied in order to start a war (maybe he wanted to become king and used Lyanna as an excuse), but we haven't seen anything indicating this so far in the show, so it's doubtful that we'll see anything in that regard in the last season. Not that it would matter at this point either since pretty much everyone who would react to it in some way are already dead. 

I just don't think we have enough information yet to know whether Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna was simply a misunderstanding or a deliberate lie spread by someone looking to either instigate something or someone who was incapable of accepting the truth. 

As for it mattering, I think it only matters regarding Jon's claim and how far the narrative wants to go towards dispelling all doubt that Jon is the rightful ruler. Perhaps Bran's words accomplished what they needed to accomplish and that is all. 

But I just have a feeling that there is something else behind who potentially lied. The only reason I think that is possible is because GRRM said "by the time I finish writing A SONG OF ICE & FIRE, you will know every important thing that happened in Robert's Rebellion."

 

How Lyanna left with Rhaegar and how the story got started that he kidnapped her seem like important things I would want to know. But perhaps the show will not get into it. 

[btfu806]

On 8/12/2018 at 11:55 AM, jcmontea said:

I just don't think we have enough information yet to know whether Rhaegar kidnapping Lyanna was simply a misunderstanding or a deliberate lie spread by someone looking to either instigate something or someone who was incapable of accepting the truth. 

As for it mattering, I think it only matters regarding Jon's claim and how far the narrative wants to go towards dispelling all doubt that Jon is the rightful ruler. Perhaps Bran's words accomplished what they needed to accomplish and that is all. 

But I just have a feeling that there is something else behind who potentially lied. The only reason I think that is possible is because GRRM said "by the time I finish writing A SONG OF ICE & FIRE, you will know every important thing that happened in Robert's Rebellion."

 

How Lyanna left with Rhaegar and how the story got started that he kidnapped her seem like important things I would want to know. But perhaps the show will not get into it. 

First, side note, I absolutely hate the line "Robert's Rebellion was based on a lie." I think it is a useless line, But! with that being said. Maybe this is part of the "third twist" thing. That we get a full explanation of Robert's Rebellion and realize it was something a lot more than what has been shown and maybe that sentence will make more sense after next season? Bran saw more than just what we saw, and saw that maybe Robert really did lie (or someone else) about all of it. Or something.

I am pretty sure the books will get pretty deep with Lyanna and Rhaegar, and I hope they do, explaining everything that happened. The show though, I am a little worried about if they will keep going down that route.

[Angel Eyes]

21 hours ago, btfu806 said:

First, side note, I absolutely hate the line "Robert's Rebellion was based on a lie." I think it is a useless line, But! with that being said. Maybe this is part of the "third twist" thing. That we get a full explanation of Robert's Rebellion and realize it was something a lot more than what has been shown and maybe that sentence will make more sense after next season? Bran saw more than just what we saw, and saw that maybe Robert really did lie (or someone else) about all of it. Or something.

I am pretty sure the books will get pretty deep with Lyanna and Rhaegar, and I hope they do, explaining everything that happened. The show though, I am a little worried about if they will keep going down that route.

I also don't understand why Bran had to reveal it at the end of the season, since we already know R+L=J. There's a whole bunch of stuff he could reveal when he was reunited with Sansa:

• Littlefinger betrayed their father
• R+L=J
• Where the White Walkers are and how to be them

But nooo, his first priority is to say Sansa looked beautiful the night she was raped. 

 

At least for the show, I believe the theory that it was Littlefinger that lied, in an attempt to get Brandon killed. He hadn't intended for an entire war to break out, but he learned the power of words and twisted words, and sought to destroy the Starks and Tullys.

[jcmontea]

28 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

I also don't understand why Bran had to reveal it at the end of the season, since we already know R+L=J. There's a whole bunch of stuff he could reveal when he was reunited with Sansa:

Technically the show had not revealed R+L=J. Last season they revealed ?+L=J. 

don't underestimate how difficult it is for most show only watchers who don't delve into the story outside of that hour to follow all the timelines. 

but what is the issue with revealing it at the end of the season? 

seems like the type of thing you would save for a series finale and in universe it was promoted by Sam getting to WF. 

[btfu806]

41 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

I also don't understand why Bran had to reveal it at the end of the season, since we already know R+L=J. There's a whole bunch of stuff he could reveal when he was reunited with Sansa:

• Littlefinger betrayed their father
• R+L=J
• Where the White Walkers are and how to be them

But nooo, his first priority is to say Sansa looked beautiful the night she was raped. 

 

At least for the show, I believe the theory that it was Littlefinger that lied, in an attempt to get Brandon killed. He hadn't intended for an entire war to break out, but he learned the power of words and twisted words, and sought to destroy the Starks and Tullys.

7 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

Technically the show had not revealed R+L=J. Last season they revealed ?+L=J. 

don't underestimate how difficult it is for most show only watchers who don't delve into the story outside of that hour to follow all the timelines. 

but what is the issue with revealing it at the end of the season? 

seems like the type of thing you would save for a series finale and in universe it was promoted by Sam getting to WF. 

I also go back and forth about if this was super annoying or not. Because I knew about R+L=J for a long time now. But I forget that the casual viewer wouldn't "get it" like I would on first viewing (Because I read the books a few times). I agree that showing it at the end made the most sense, it is a perfect way to end a season and I get why they did it two seasons in a row. Very few people knew who Rhaegar was. 

But I do agree with the issues with Bran as a character. Some of the stuff he says and does, just doesn't make sense...

 

[MinscS2]

Yes, look at it from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the books, watched the show several times and spent uncountable hours discussing Game of Thrones on the internet: Most viewers (as in the "casuals" who only look at each episode once, maybe twice) didn't see R+L=J coming, don't really know who Rhaegar is ("is he the one that Drogo killed?") and are generally confused about how Jon and Daenerys are related. ("are they cousins or siblings?")

I'm starting to believe that people on these boards are overthinking the "built on a lie"-scene. 

 

[jcmontea]

2 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

Yes, look at it from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the books, watched the show several times and spent uncountable hours discussing Game of Thrones on the internet: Most viewers (as in the "casuals" who only look at each episode once, maybe twice) didn't see R+L=J coming, don't really know who Rhaegar is ("is he the one that Drogo killed?") and are generally confused about how Jon and Daenerys are related. ("are they cousins or siblings?")

I'm starting to believe that people on these boards are overthinking the "built on a lie"-scene. 

 

Could be. Could just be a way to communicate to the 99.99% of people who watch the show once and don’t interact online that Jon is the true King period and his claim is true and just. 

[MinscS2]

Exactly. The whole "built on a lie"-scene does end with Bran stating that Jon is the "heir to the Iron Throne". There's no hidden agenda or meaning, and it's not setting up a big reveal next season about how Robert truly did lie in order to justify starting a war.

(Well, of course there could be, but my money is on isn't.)

[Angel Eyes]

9 hours ago, MinscS2 said:

Exactly. The whole "built on a lie"-scene does end with Bran stating that Jon is the "heir to the Iron Throne". There's no hidden agenda or meaning, and it's not setting up a big reveal next season about how Robert truly did lie in order to justify starting a war.

(Well, of course there could be, but my money is on isn't.)

And Bran’s priorities are skewed. He’s supposed to be trying to stop the dead, not judge who’s supposed to be on the throne yet.