Jump to content

Lyanna's abduction would still be despised even if it was consensual, right?


Recommended Posts

'Pikachu101' wrote:

This royal match would be the death of House Stark. Lyanna shamed, humiliated and tarnished the reputation of the family by running off with a married man whilst being betrothed to another. So no, Rickard would not be thrilled by this marriage, if anything he'll be even more angry because Lyanna willingly humiliated her family.

This consensual love affair would be despised for many reasons:

A) House Stark's name has been slandered

B ) Lyanna's going to suffer with this scandal looming over her head

C) a woman's maidenhead means everything if she tarnishes her reputation she's screwed

D) The Martells are definitely not going to be ok with it

========================================================================

I think you got C backwards. If she's screwed she tarnishes her reputation. ;-} Seriously, in the eyes of Westerosi nobility, this was a fiasco all around. Lords Paramount were involved, legal contracts had been breached, tradition had been breached, and it was all done in a furtive, under- handed way. Young people running away for love would be frowned on in these circles, but Rhaegar was neither young nor ordinary. The Iron Throne itself was compromised, love or no love. Violence was the inevitable result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be hard for House Stark to talk about honor after such a scandal, and that would eat away at men like Brandon or Robert. Aerys was a problem and Rhaegar decided to become one as well. It a direct challenge to the authority of the head of a House. This means Catelyn, Lysa, Cersei, etc aren't safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was consensual (which it probably was), I'd dislike both of them, rather than just Rhaegar.

This is basically what I think. If Rhaegar kidnapped her, then he's the one to blame (along with Dayne and Whent, who helped). But if she went willingly, then it's both of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it was consensual (which it probably was), I'd dislike both of them, rather than just Rhaegar.

This brings in a whole new question: were Rhaegar and Lyanna dumb, selfish or both?

:dunno:

How idiotic do you have to be to think you can run off and get away with it because it's "true love" :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you said, Dany the Mad Queen.

Even if L+R were madly in love, Rhaegar was giving the middle finger to the Liege Lord of the North, the Liege Lord of the Stormlands and the Liege Lord of the Vale. The Liege Lord of the Riverlands was pissed because Tully's had a marriage alliance/friendship with the Starks and Dorne must have seethed when Rhaegar publically disrespected Elia by crowning Lyanna.

P.S.Lyanna was 13 yrs old by the way!

14-15 years-old is closer to the mark. The tourney was 281, Lyanna died in 283 at 16, so she couldn't have aged three years in two.

In the medieval world, elopement was treated as seriously as kidnapping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elopement abductions may have been more common than the court records reveal because of parental decisions not to prosecute the offence. Yet, on the whole, the toleration of clandestine marriages in later medieval England allowed young couples, when they desired to marry against parental wishes, the opportunity to do so. They rarely resorted to fictitious abductions, and parents rarely chose to prosecute unwelcome suitors in the courts.

Stolen Women in Medieval England: Rape, Abduction, and Adultery, 1100 - 1500, by Caroline Dunn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find that sometimes people confuse the feelings we, the readers, have towards a certain event and what characters would think about it.

Of course, if Lyanna was not raped but loved Rhaegar, it has a series of implications, both for us and for the characters.

Essentially Rhaegar wasn't a rapist/bad guy. That's important for us and for her family, like Ned.

But...

Even if they loved each other, I believe it would be still fucked up and despised in the North.

1. Ladies don't really choose who they marry. Marriages are political, so he would still be "stealing" her.

2. He was much older and a married man. North doesn't really approve of two wives.

So even if people believe Lyanna went willingly, it would still be an aggression on Rhaegar's part. You can't just seduce a 15 year old girl, take her away from her parents and marry her. Morally it can be acceptable, but politically it's an aggression. Of course personally people like Ned could forgive him.

I say that because some people see it like Starks are not really Targ enemies just because Ned doesn't think of Rhaegar as a rapist, but I believe they are.

I agree. Maybe it would not be quite as severe in peoples' minds as the idea some older man had just dragged her off somewhere to rape her, but it would still be prettry damn explosive in political terms. Probably a war anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it is the right opposite, still morally unacceptable, but politically not an aggression. It was something it should have been solved as a private issue, as it was.

What do you mean? Politically it's an agression. The guy stole the girl and caused major political issues (with Dorne, with the Baratheons and even the Riverlands) that eventually came to full blown war (even if it wasn't 100% because of the "elopement"). Now, morally one can believe it was all for love and therefore forgiven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is basically what I think. If Rhaegar kidnapped her, then he's the one to blame (along with Dayne and Whent, who helped). But if she went willingly, then it's both of them.

Not exactly the same. She was a lady of 14~15 easily deluded by the Crown Prince. He was old enough. He was probably mad from the prophecies, though. (which one can say wasn't madness, since a lot of people believe the prophecies are real, Jon Snow is AAR etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elopement abductions may have been more common than the court records reveal because of parental decisions not to prosecute the offence. Yet, on the whole, the toleration of clandestine marriages in later medieval England allowed young couples, when they desired to marry against parental wishes, the opportunity to do so. They rarely resorted to fictitious abductions, and parents rarely chose to prosecute unwelcome suitors in the courts.

I don't know. It should also probably be taken into account that those couples weren't already married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious if anyone knows if there is any mention in the text of the heirs to the IT needing to obtain the permission of the sovereign to marry in order for the marriage to be valid. The reason I ask is that it was a common feature of most European monarchies to have laws or traditions requiring prior approval of the monarch for members of the reigning dynasty to marry. The English monarchy even today still has The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 on the books largely in it's original form stating that if a member of the Royal Family contracts a marriage without first obtaining the consent of the monarch, then that marriage is null and void. Up until 1967, the act even contained a clause that made it a crime to perform or participate in an illegal marriage of any member of the Royal Family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. It should also probably be taken into account that those couples weren't already married.

What I really wanted to know is if that applies to royal marriages and/or marriages important enough like they are in Westeros when it's about Great Houses. Because OK, if a random noble girl elopes, it's one thing. Like Lolly's marrying Bronn isn't such a big deal.

But Rhaegar was the Crown Prince. And Lyanna was the only daughter and promised to Robert Baratheon. It's not any wedding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean? Politically it's an agression. The guy stole the girl and caused major political issues (with Dorne, with the Baratheons and even the Riverlands) that eventually came to full blown war (even if it wasn't 100% because of the "elopement"). Now, morally one can believe it was all for love and therefore forgiven.

I *believe* it is fairly clear what I mean.

And no, it is not objective that such an act is a "political aggression".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I *believe* it is fairly clear what I mean.

And no, it is not objective that such an act is a "political aggression".

Uh... Ok. If you say so. Stealing the girl promised to Rob Baratheon isn't a political aggression at all. Maybe they went to war because they thought it was funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh... Ok. If you say so. Stealing the girl promised to Rob Baratheon isn't a political aggression at all. Maybe they went to war because they thought it was funny.

First, read again: it is not *objective*, i didn't say it can't be subjective to the characters within Westeros.

Secondly, read again: I *believe* it, I didn't say you can't have your own opinion and I didn't make *fun* out of you just like you did of me just now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...