Angel Eyes

If Robert’s Rebellion was built on a lie,

56 posts in this topic

I just took " it was built on a lie " being that until Bran was told about jon's parentage and then was able tosee  the flashbacks of the wedding, nobody except the priest that married knew of the wedding and everyone had believed she was kidnapped up until that point... so the war was started on the belief that she had been taken against her will when infact she was in love with him and it may have changed how things played out.

Sure Robert would have wanted his head on a stick but Ned would have likely sided with his sister and protected Raeghar because he loved his sister as much as he would have preferred her to be with Robert.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Rhaegar being a kidnapper and a rapist is the lie.  i still think that Brandon would still be pissed off because this older married man who has a lot of power and influence somehow convinced his teenaged little sister to run off with him.  Brandon would have still gone to King's Landing and demand that Rhaegar explain himself.  The events would have still transpired the same.  Aerys would have still killed Rickard and Brandon and called for Ned's and Robert's heads.  Jon Arryn would have still called his banners.  The war would have still continued. 

And even if Brandon didn't get involved, i think that Dorne would have been pissed off.  Running off with Lyanna and leaving Elia and her children to a king who Rhaegar knows is having mental problems is NOT smart. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 2:30 PM, goldenmaps said:

Running off with Lyanna and leaving Elia and her children to a king who Rhaegar knows is having mental problems is NOT smart. 

 

None of Rhaegar's actions were smart. That was his main issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

None of Rhaegar's actions were smart. That was his main issue.

Agree with you there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, goldenmaps said:

Agree with you there. 

GRRM himself agrees. 

The Kingdom was unified with dragons, so the Targaryen's flaw was to create an absolute monarchy highly dependent on them, with the small council not designed to be a real check and balance. So, without dragons it took a sneeze, a wildly incompetent and megalomaniac king, a love struck prince, a brutal civil war, a dissolute king that didn't really know what to do with the throne and then chaos.” 

Rhaegar being love struck clearly did not act intelligently. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2018 at 6:30 PM, goldenmaps said:

I think Rhaegar being a kidnapper and a rapist is the lie.  i still think that Brandon would still be pissed off because this older married man who has a lot of power and influence somehow convinced his teenaged little sister to run off with him.  Brandon would have still gone to King's Landing and demand that Rhaegar explain himself.  The events would have still transpired the same.  Aerys would have still killed Rickard and Brandon and called for Ned's and Robert's heads.  Jon Arryn would have still called his banners.  The war would have still continued. 

And even if Brandon didn't get involved, i think that Dorne would have been pissed off.  Running off with Lyanna and leaving Elia and her children to a king who Rhaegar knows is having mental problems is NOT smart. 

 

Bran could have made that more clear, as an omniscient character.

Edited by Angel Eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2018 at 5:26 AM, Angel Eyes said:

Bran could have made that more clear, as an omniscient character.

That is clearly not the interpretation the narrative is endorsing 

Share this post


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

That is clearly not the interpretation the narrative is endorsing 

Then where is the "lie"? Who "lied" and about what? It's just poor dialog. It implies intent and ownership of intent when there is none to be had. There was a clear chain of events that led to the Rebellion and nowhere in there is a "lie". There is just obfuscation perpetrated by the Targarians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

Then where is the "lie"?

That seems obvious. The lie that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna. 

Quote

Who "lied" and about what?

Who knows if someone lied. Still a season to go 

Quote

It's just poor dialog. It implies intent and ownership of intent when there is none to be had.

You watched Season 8 already?

Quote

There was a clear chain of events that led to the Rebellion and nowhere in there is a "lie". There is just obfuscation perpetrated by the Targarians.

Lol. Looked fairly clear to me that Rhsegsr and Lyanns were wed which was not part of the so called clear chain of events. 

And it is also clear why that scene is there. It is to make clear that Jon is the Rightful King

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jcmontea said:

That seems obvious. The lie that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna. 

Who knows if someone lied. Still a season to go 

You watched Season 8 already?

Lol. Looked fairly clear to me that Rhsegsr and Lyanns were wed which was not part of the so called clear chain of events. 

And it is also clear why that scene is there. It is to make clear that Jon is the Rightful King

The lie is that Rhaegar Kidnapped and raped Lyanna? How is that a lie? To lie one must know the truth and purposefully decieve. No one knew any different and there were very good reasons to think she was kidnapped.

 

Have you even read this thread? This has all been discussed before. The poor dialog choice I refer to is the use of the world "lie" in this context. The only lie present is Rhaegar's lie of omition when he just ran off with another woman. Everyone else was just reacting to the situation. I'm just going to quote myself here.

 

"First off, the rebellion was not based on a lie. Lyanna disappeared. She was engaged to Robert and she disappeared with Rhaegar. Her brother went to King's landing and demanded the King release Lyanna. He was arrested. His father came to King's landing at the King's command and they were both burnt alive in the throne room without trial. The King then commanded Jon Aryn to surrender both Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark for execution. What the fuck are people supposed to think!!!!! Robert didn't lie. He had very good reason to believe Rhagar kidnapped his fiance'. Compound that with the Mad King burning people alive for no reason and threatening the populus and you have a rebellion.

 

Futhermore, in digging deeper you will find that the Rebellion was not only a long time coming, but a natural reaction to perpetuated abuse at the hands of Targarians monarchs.

 

Put simply, the problem with Targarian rule is systemic. Their incestuous practices breed madness. It's a diseased bloodline. They are either willfully sadistic or woefully incompetent in letting the incest practice pervail and subjecting their people to even the possibility of an insane monarch (and there have been many "Each time a Targarian is born the gods flip a coin"). If these King's were good Kings they would have safeguarded their people's future by outlawing the practice. They either liked the idea or didn't care enough to stop it. Either way they failed.

 

Moreover, they lost their right to the throne when the people became strong enough to push back and say "No more!". No more needless massaceres. No more innocent lives put at risk. Robert was not a great King but he freed the people from tyranny. He kept them safe and happy for 20 years. Stannis sacrificed everything he had to save the people. His life, his family's life, his army and his House. He was selfless. All Rhagar could think of is his love. Not realizing at all the political ruin it would bring. His duty was to the kingdom as a whole, to the people, his wife and his children. And Jon Snow? He's making the same mistakes his ancestors did!!! He just fucked his Aunt!!!! If he were to take the throne. He MIGHT be a good King (I don't think so, but that's another argument all together). But even if he was can you say the same for his children? Or that he himself won't succomb to madness? Aries II wasn't always crazy. Who knows when or if it could present it's self. The Kingdom could be at the mercy of another madman in twenty years. No. The Targarians lost any claim they had. The true King bears the name Baratheon."

Edited by Lord Stannis-The True King
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

The lie is that Rhaegar Kidnapped and raped Lyanna? How is that a lie? To lie one must know the truth and purposefully decieve. No one knew any different and there were very good reasons to think she was kidnapped.

 

Have you even read this thread? This has all been discussed before. The poor dialog choice I refer to is the use of the world "lie" in this context. The only lie present is Rhaegar's lie of omition when he just ran off with another woman. Everyone else was just reacting to the situation. I'm just going to quote myself here.

 

"First off, the rebellion was not based on a lie. Lyanna disappeared. She was engaged to Robert and she disappeared with Rhaegar. Her brother went to King's landing and demanded the King release Lyanna. He was arrested. His father came to King's landing at the King's command and they were both burnt alive in the throne room without trial. The King then commanded Jon Aryn to surrender both Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark for execution. What the fuck are people supposed to think!!!!! Robert didn't lie. He had very good reason to believe Rhagar kidnapped his fiance'. Compound that with the Mad King burning people alive for no reason and threatening the populus and you have a rebellion.

 

Futhermore, in digging deeper you will find that the Rebellion was not only a long time coming, but a natural reaction to perpetuated abuse at the hands of Targarians monarchs.

 

Put simply, the problem with Targarian rule is systemic. Their incestuous practices breed madness. It's a diseased bloodline. They are either willfully sadistic or woefully incompetent in letting the incest practice pervail and subjecting their people to even the possibility of an insane monarch (and there have been many "Each time a Targarian is born the gods flip a coin"). If these King's were good Kings they would have safeguarded their people's future by outlawing the practice. They either liked the idea or didn't care enough to stop it. Either way they failed.

 

Moreover, they lost their right to the throne when the people became strong enough to push back and say "No more!". No more needless massaceres. No more innocent lives put at risk. Robert was not a great King but he freed the people from tyranny. He kept them safe and happy for 20 years. Stannis sacrificed everything he had to save the people. His life, his family's life, his army and his House. He was selfless. All Rhagar could think of is his love. Not realizing at all the political ruin it would bring. His duty was to the kingdom as a whole, to the people, his wife and his children. And Jon Snow? He's making the same mistakes his ancestors did!!! He just fucked his Aunt!!!! If he were to take the throne. He MIGHT be a good King (I don't think so, but that's another argument all together). But even if he was can you say the same for his children? Or that he himself won't succomb to madness? Aries II wasn't always crazy. Who knows when or if it could present it's self. The Kingdom could be at the mercy of another madman in twenty years. No. The Targarians lost any claim they had. The true King bears the name Baratheon."

That is certainly your interpretation. 

And it is one the show is rejecting strongly by undermining the causis beli for Robert’s Rebellion in order to clearly make Jon Snow - Aegon Targaryen the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. 

Maybe the books will support your intererpration. But the show clearly does not. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am open to this discussion. All the info I have discussed is present in the TV Show (I actually haven't read the books). How is Robert's Rebellion being undermined? And more specifically, how do you interpret these facts differently to arrive and your "interpretation". No sarcasm here, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. 

 

P.S. - I'm glad you've finially decided to respond to me. I was very disappointed that you decided not to converse in the Danny vs Stannis thread. 

Edited by Lord Stannis-The True King
Added Post Script

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

I am open to this discussion. All the info I have discussed is present in the TV Show (I actually haven't read the books). How is Robert's Rebellion being undermined? And more specifically, how do you interpret these facts differently to arrive and your "interpretation". No sarcasm here, I'm genuinely interested in your opinion. 

What facts? 

The main fact is that the tv series is using very common visual storytelling techniques to communicate something. 

It almost never does voice overs. I can only think of a couple in the entire run of the show. 

It is choosing to present a voice over to tell us several key pieces of information all of which are there to build to the final piece of information that it spells out unambiguously that Jon is the rightful heir to the Iron Throne. 

By choosing to use a voice over, the show is deciding that this piece of information is so critical it needs to convey it via voice over and spell it out for the audience. 

I don’t believe they would do that unless its to communicate that what we are hearing is true and thus what the narrative itself strongly supports. 

Edited by jcmontea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The facts that I was referring to were in my very large quote above. 

If I am understanding you correctly, you are choosing to accept a voice over as non-biased factual information not open to interpretation over your own opinion based on the facts that the series presents, simply because you deem information conveyed in a voice over as more important than the conclusions you can draw from the actual events.

If that is your perspective than there really is no point in discussing anything. You have turned off your brain and made yourself incapable of thinking critically or developing a rational opinion. 

I will however mention an alternate possibility for this voice over. It could be to walk the audience through what they are seeing. I know many people who have watched the whole series only once as each episode comes on. Many of them are fuzzy in details and what characters are connected to which others, especially if we've never seen them before (Rhaegar). My mother for example didn't understand the context of the Tower of Joy revelation or who Rhaegar even was. Explaining the history of the series to a casual fan is beyond exhausting. This information was presented in this format to allow casual fans to more easily follow the story. 

Now on to the content of Bran's little voice over. It seems you are taking everything he says as abject unbiased fact. I really don't see how you can. He sees the past. That is true. However, it has been clearly established that he only sees one piece at a time. He's not omnitiant. He doesn't know all. Only what he sees in the order he sees it. That makes him fallable. He can say one thing based on the events he's seen only to later understand he misinterpreted those events based on a lack of information.

For example, let's say in the future the three eyed Raven looks back and sees Joffry's coronation. He would say that Joffry is the King. Only later he sees his true parantage and realizes that is false. 

Everything is open to interpretation. Bran saying that Jon is the true King exemplifies this fact. He (as far as we know and have been shown) has not seen anything of Robert's Rebellion or the events over the centuries that led to it. He has no context to draw from but that which Bran had. Which is very little. 

I would suggest you think more about what is presented to you. Crittical thinking is a valuable asset in storytelling. As is the unreliable narrator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

The facts that I was referring to were in my very large quote above. 

If I am understanding you correctly, you are choosing to accept a voice over as non-biased factual information not open to interpretation over your own opinion based on the facts that the series presents, simply because you deem information conveyed in a voice over as more important than the conclusions you can draw from the actual events.

If that is your perspective than there really is no point in discussing anything. You have turned off your brain and made yourself incapable of thinking critically or developing a rational opinion. 

I will however mention an alternate possibility for this voice over. It could be to walk the audience through what they are seeing. I know many people who have watched the whole series only once as each episode comes on. Many of them are fuzzy in details and what characters are connected to which others, especially if we've never seen them before (Rhaegar). My mother for example didn't understand the context of the Tower of Joy revelation or who Rhaegar even was. Explaining the history of the series to a casual fan is beyond exhausting. This information was presented in this format to allow casual fans to more easily follow the story. 

Now on to the content of Bran's little voice over. It seems you are taking everything he says as abject unbiased fact. I really don't see how you can. He sees the past. That is true. However, it has been clearly established that he only sees one piece at a time. He's not omnitiant. He doesn't know all. Only what he sees in the order he sees it. That makes him fallable. He can say one thing based on the events he's seen only to later understand he misinterpreted those events based on a lack of information.

For example, let's say in the future the three eyed Raven looks back and sees Joffry's coronation. He would say that Joffry is the King. Only later he sees his true parantage and realizes that is false. 

Everything is open to interpretation. Bran saying that Jon is the true King exemplifies this fact. He (as far as we know and have been shown) has not seen anything of Robert's Rebellion or the events over the centuries that led to it. He has no context to draw from but that which Bran had. Which is very little. 

I would suggest you think more about what is presented to you. Crittical thinking is a valuable asset in storytelling. As is the unreliable narrator.

Lol. First of all if you want to use critical thinking you should read what someone writes. What I said is the narrative is pointing away from your interpretation. So my assesment of the facts are somewhat irrelevent to that since we are talking about what the narrative is clearly pointing at. You can disagree with the narrative or think the narrative didn’t actually show what it is clearly telling us. But you have to recognize at least where the narrative is leaning. 

But maybe that is not your forte since you seem to think Stannis died a hero in the tv show.

Share this post


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

Lol. First of all if you want to use critical thinking you should read what someone writes. What I said is the narrative is pointing away from your interpretation. So my assesment of the facts are somewhat irrelevent to that since we are talking about what the narrative is clearly pointing at. You can disagree with the narrative or think the narrative didn’t actually show what it is clearly telling us. But you have to recognize at least where the narrative is leaning. 

But maybe that is not your forte since you seem to think Stannis died a hero in the tv show.

"The narrative is pointing away from your interpretation" is itself an interpretation of the material being presented. I disagree with your thesis and gave various points that challenge your interpretation of that material. You seem content not to confront these points in an open dialog. I won't push you any further. I enjoy a good discussion but I can tell that's not what you're looking for. 

Also, King Stannis Baratheon did die hero. In fact I spent a great deal of time explaining that to you in another thread that you didn't feel like responding to. If that is a topic you are interested in discussing I would ask you to reply in the Stannis' vs Danny thread. I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the subject and challenge any assertions you have to the contrary.

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