What do you feel about the romanticization of Rhaegar/Elia/Lyanna's story?

[butterbumps!]

We'll never know what might have happened had Rickard and Brandon not gone to KL. I, somehow doubt Robert would have been content to sit in the Eyrie doing nothing while Rhaegar and Lyanna had babies.

The idea that Rhaegar could have done anything to break Lyanna's engagement to Robert is ridiculous.

On what grounds? He'd be the next king. This is not some kind of constitutional monarchy. Marriages are matters for kings. Robert could be as pissed off as he wants. It's not like that gets him Lyanna.

I'm struck by the irony here in that I'm constantly arguing with posters in other threads that in a post-Rebellion, and especially post-Wot5K context, the status quo is flexible, that a king has limited authority due to the floodgates having been open to make challenges, and that we might see some kind of division of power at the end such that there are recognized checks to the king. But for some reason, when it comes to dealing with the period of time when Westeros had what was actually pretty close to an absolute monarchy, posters are now arguing that the king's power is super limited.

[Mal Malenkirk]

GRRM said he would have to look back "or make it up" in terms of more recent polygamy. GRRM suggested it became harder after no dragons--but harder means not impossible.

Polygamy is not allowed by the Faith or by Westerosi culture. It becomes a matter of political clout. Are you strong enough to quiet the dissident voices? Did Rhaegar have enough clout? No, he did not. He's not even the king and his dynasty clearly has never been weaker so what did he expect?

This obsession with prophecies he had does not suggest the best of mental health to start with, if he believed on top of that he was entitled to an exception on the ban on polygamy, that'd be an additional step toward full blown megalomania.

[Mal Malenkirk]

But for some reason, when it comes to dealing with the period of time when Westeros had what was actually pretty close to an absolute monarchy, posters are now arguing that the king's power is super limited.

The Seven Kingdom never were an absolute Monarchy and any chance it might have become one died with the dragons. By the time of Aerys II, it's not even close. Do you think anything like the Defiance at Duskendale is possible under Louis the XIV in France?

Step one of an absolute monarchy is that the king controls the army, not the nobles. Westeros armed forces are 100% feudal monarchy and 0% absolute monarchy. There is not even a hybrid system unless you count the gold cloak as the the King's army.

A lot of Targaryens over the years sure seemed to have thought they were an absolute monarchy, though. :lol:

[Aibhlin]

Finally, we have the sack of King's Landing. We are told of how much of a badass Lyanna because of how she stood up for Howland Reed and was allegedly the Knight of the Laughing Tree, however, this pales in comparison to what Elia did. It is said that she fought like a Tigress against Gregor Clegane in defence of her child/ren. I repeat, frail and sickly Elia Martell stood against the FREAKING MOUNTAIN in an effort to protect her children.

Elia suffered the most out of all three and her and her children (possibly Rhaenys alone) ended up paying the ultimate price.

Not that I disagree in your assessment of the three, but could I please ask for a quotation on the bolded part? I'm pretty sure there were no witnesses to that particular Clegane crime.

[Ser Eric]

What would Robert have done? I think getting married to someone else pretty much puts an end to the engagement, so if R&L were married, the engagement was broken. Robert may be have been upset, but he would not have been able to get anyone to join him in war on that basis. Robert certainly would not try to get Lyanna back at that point, with her married to Rhaegar and having had his child. But Robert's feelings are not really that important. The war was dependent on Jon Arryn being asked essentially to kill two innocent High Lords--that was enough to bring Houses to war. Steeling Robert's fiance would not have been enough.

Who knows but Robert wouldn't be sitting and admiring the view, that's for certain. I doubt Rickard would be too pleased either with his southern ambitions thwarted by his wild daughter. And Jon Arryn had no choice but to openly rebel when he was asked to kill Ned and Robert. We don't know what they were planning before that. Do you think Ned and Robert were sitting out around having wine with the news that Lyanna had been kidnapped? Don't be absurd.

You just don't marry someone promised to one of the lords without any consequences, absolutely no way. And all this is assuming Rhaegar could marry Lyanna which is very much debatable in any case.

[butterbumps!]

The Seven Kingdom never were an absolute Monarchy and any chance it might have become one died with the dragons.

Hence why I said "pretty close." If this is about semantics, then the point I'm making is that they have near absolute authority.

Thing is, though, it wasn't until basically the Wot5K that a group of people realized that they had no further reason to kneel to the IT (the North). We can see the post-dragon period as a weakening of the Targ's hard power, but if people in story do not, then it means nothing.

The point stands that when a Targ king said "jump," people jumped. People were not questioning the Targ's authority in any appreciable way until Jon Arryn's refusal to turn over his foster sons. That's when the floodgates opened.

[Ser Eric]

On what grounds? He'd be the next king. This is not some kind of constitutional monarchy. Marriages are matters for kings. Robert could be as pissed off as he wants. It's not like that gets him Lyanna.

He was not the king, he had no power to do anything unless he was one. Aerys was already suspicious of Rhaegar (perhaps rightly so) so I'm not even sure he would have allowed Rhaegar to marry Lyanna. Aerys was close to Steffon as well iirc.

The fact that everything between Rhaegar and Lyanna was done in some secret hide out in Dorne speaks volumes.

[butterbumps!]

He was not the king, he had no power to do anything unless he was one. Aerys was already suspicious of Rhaegar (perhaps rightly so) so I'm not even sure he would have allowed Rhaegar to marry Lyanna. Aerys was close to Steffon as well iirc.

The fact that everything between Rhaegar and Lyanna was done in some secret hide out in Dorne speaks volumes.

If Aerys had a shred of common sense left, he'd see that this is the way to neutralize this looming power bloc forming involving Baratheon-Arryn-Stark-Tully.

[Ser Eric]

If Aerys had a shred of common sense left, he'd see that this is the way to neutralize this looming power bloc forming involving Baratheon-Arryn-Stark-Tully.

Aerys was mad. If he had common sense, he would never have executed Rickard and Brandon in the first place.

Rhaegar (and Lyanna) knew there would be repercussions, which is why they hid somewhere in Dorne before going at it. Wanting a third head doesn't seem like a good enough reason to do it.

[Mal Malenkirk]

Hence why I said "pretty close." If this is about semantics, then the point I'm making is that they have near absolute authority.

The key to an absolute monarchy is that the monarch controls all the sources of power. Obviously that includes the traditionnal Judicial/Legislative/Executive triumvirate, but primordially it involves a monopoly on legitimate violence. In other words, full control of the army. That's how you enforce the 'absolute' part of your monarchy.

An Absolute monarch has a professional army under his control and it is the only organized military unit of meaningful strenght tolerated on the territory. If your armed froces are essentially the man-at-arms and levies sworn to the service of your vassals, then you are not 'pretty close' to an absolute monarchy. You are 'pretty damn far'.

And you are wrong in thinking that Robert's Rebellion the first menaingful insurrection. Just 10 years earlier the king had been taken hostage during the Defiance at Duskendale occured 10 years earlier. Bet there were more.

If Targaryens did not realize by then that no only were they not an absolute monarchy, but they were verging on the weaker side of a feudal monarchy by 285, then that's just one more way to say that they were mad. If you read my previous post, I do think that Rhaegar was most likely not the picture of mental health. If he suffered from megalomania or whatever the clinical term is for 'delusions of grandeur', it explains a lot.

EDIT: Even by the standards of feudal monarchy, the Targaryen seemed to have been pretty weak by 285 AD because as far as I can tell they did not have much of an army of their own. For example, the King of France in the middle-age could field a pretty good army of his own, if I remember correctly. The men directly under his control representing a fair portion of the armed force at his disposal. He did not entirely depends on his vassals like the King of the Seven Kingdoms does.

The power of the Iron Throne seems to be mostly political. You are nothing without the lords paramount support and the only thing preventing one from tossing the king on his ass are the others lords paramount, so you need to keep them in balance.

[butterbumps!]

Aerys was mad. If he had common sense, he would never have executed Rickard and Brandon in the first place.

Rhaegar (and Lyanna) knew there would be repercussions, which is why they hid somewhere in Dorne before going at it. Wanting a third head doesn't seem like a good enough reason to do it.

As it happens, I wasn't arguing what it looks like you think I've been arguing.

If Rhaegar took Lyanna with the intention of having a child with her at the outset, then the politically smarter thing to do is to make this official. Either by divorcing Elia first, or going the polygamy route. Either would be possible for a Targ. Surely, you must see that making this official-- when you have near absolute authority to make laws-- is a better idea than kidnapping the daughter of a Great Lord and hiding her somewhere, yes?

The fact that he doesn't do this at the outset-- instead, secrets her away like that-- probably indicates that this 3rd head production might not have necessarily part of his initial motivation. I'm saying that there might be another reason for the initial kidnap, because if this is about marrying Lyanna/ making a baby, a Targ crown prince has easier options that don't rely on letting the continent assume he's holding her some kind of hostage.

The key to an absolute monarchy is that the monarch controls all the sources of power. Obviously that includes the traditionnal Judicial/Legislative/Executive triumvirate, but primordially it involves a monopoly on legitimate violence. In other words, full control of the army. That's how you enforce the 'absolute' part of your monarchy.

An Absolute monarch has a professional army under his control and it is the only organized military unit of meaningful strenght tolerated on the territory. If your armed froces are essentially the man-at-arms and levies sworn to the service of your vassals, then you are not 'pretty close' to an absolute monarchy. You are 'pretty damn far'.

And you are wrong in thinking that Robert's Rebellion the first menaingful insurrection. Just 10 years earlier the king had been taken hostage during the Defiance at Duskendale occured 10 years earlier. Bet there were more.

If Targaryens did not realize by then that no only were they not an absolute monarchy, but they were verging on the weaker side of a feudal monarchy by 285, then that's just one more way to say that they were mad. If you read my previous post, I do think that Rhaegar was most likely not the picture of mental health. If he suffered from megalomania or whatever the clinical term is for 'delusions of grandeur', it explains a lot.

Yea, and that serves as a case in point for not going against a Targ king. How many people were involved in this, by chance? I don't seem to recall major Houses rallying behind this as a challenge to the IT.

When the people don't realize that they don't have to jump, it means that the power-- which resides in where men believe the power resides-- is still in tact.

[Mal Malenkirk]

Yea, and that serves as a case in point for not going against a Targ king. How many people were involved in this, by chance? I don't seem to recall major Houses rallying behind this as a challenge to the IT.

When the people don't realize that they don't have to jump, it means that the power-- which resides in where men believe the power resides-- is still in tact.

This is wearying. You say nobody opposed the Targaryen. I show you a recent case of someone who did. You say he lost so it's an argument against opposing the Targaryen. Well of course, the king will win against every insurrection... until he loses the last one and his head with it. It's just common sense.

The Seven Kingdoms are feudal monarchy, and a weak one at that. The king has no army to speak of directly under his command, all his power is derived from the support of the Lords Paramount and he can't move against one without the support of the other.

This is as far from an absolute monarchy as it can get.

---

IRL, the Prime Minister of Canada has more power over his country than the President of the United States over his, that does not mean that Canada is more powerful than the US.

A united Westeros under the king of the Seven Kingdoms is a powerful political entity. But the king doesn't have nearly as much power over it than many other monarchs would. Aerys was NOT Louis the XIV in terms of control over his kingdom, not even close.

I'm not under the impression that the 5 or 6 kings before Aerys were doing nearly as much to antagonize his Lords Paramount. Presumably they had more sense.

[Ser Eric]

As it happens, I wasn't arguing what it looks like you think I've been arguing.

If Rhaegar took Lyanna with the intention of having a child with her at the outset, then the politically smarter thing to do is to make this official. Either by divorcing Elia first, or going the polygamy route. Either would be possible for a Targ. Surely, you must see that making this official-- when you have near absolute authority to make laws-- is a better idea than kidnapping the daughter of a Great Lord and hiding her somewhere, yes?

The fact that he doesn't do this at the outset-- instead, secrets her away like that-- probably indicates that this 3rd head production might not have necessarily part of his initial motivation. I'm saying that there might be another reason for the initial kidnap, because if this is about marrying Lyanna/ making a baby, a Targ crown prince has easier options that don't rely on letting the continent assume he's holding her some kind of hostage.

Better? Perhaps but then again I'm not sure that would have even been possible. Is there any precedence for setting aside a Targaryen wife especially when she has already given him 2 heirs? There have only been 2 cases of Targaryen polygamy in 300 years with last one more than 2 centuries ago. I think there's a reason why Rhaegar had to 'kidnap' and hide her. He had no other option.

I think he fell in love with Lyanna and decided to wing it and have a heir by her instead of finding another girl. And that's where he went wrong. He could have picked any number of other highborn girls without causing as big a fuss as in the case of Lyanna.

[butterbumps!]

This is wearying. You say nobody opposed the Targaryen. I show you a recent case of someone who did. You say he lost so it's an argument against opposing the Targaryen. Well of course, the king will win against every insurrection... until he loses the last one and his head with it. It's just common sense.

The Seven Kingdoms are feudal monarchy, and a weak one at that. The king has no army to speak of directly under his command, all his power is derived from the support of the Lords Paramount and he can't move against one without the support of the other.

This is as far an absolute monarchy as it can get.

What's wearying is how I had already addressed the issue of Duskendale as a case study in a piddly defiance that no one else joined in, and that resulted in their being decimated for the insolence of disobedience. A case study in what not to do if you're pissed off at the king.

What's additionally wearying is how I'm not insisting that Westeros is an "absolute monarchy," as I don't care. I used it upthread as shorthand, and called it "pretty close." I explained the point I was making is that regardless of how you labeled it, the Targs have near absolute authority. Which is true. I'm not somehow insisting on how to label it, because I genuinely don't care what you call it.

No one prior to the Rebellion deconstructed their ideas about the nature of Targ/ IT power. Arguably, it wasn't until the end of aGoT that we really see this.

What you are talking about is the case in reality-- that Aerys' power extended only so far as lords would obey. But the fact of the matter is that lords did obey because they thought he had power.

[The Wolves]

Polygamy is not allowed by the Faith or by Westerosi culture. It becomes a matter of political clout. Are you strong enough to quiet the dissident voices? Did Rhaegar have enough clout? No, he did not. He's not even the king and his dynasty clearly has never been weaker so what did he expect?

This obsession with prophecies he had does not suggest the best of mental health to start with, if he believed on top of that he was entitled to an exception on the ban on polygamy, that'd be an additional step toward full blown megalomania.

There is no evidence in the books that says polygamy is not allowed by the Faith or Westeros' culture. No one ever thinks or says throughout the book that polygamy is illegal in Westeros so no it's not illegal.

And Rhaegar comes from the line of his female ancestor who correctly predicted The Doom of Valyria and another one predicted the return of dragons. Also with ice zombies and dragons about Rhaegar being obsessed with prophecies could very well have saved the world.

[Mal Malenkirk]

What's additionally wearying is how I'm not insisting that Westeros is an "absolute monarchy," as I don't care. I used it upthread as shorthand, and called it "pretty close." I explained the point I was making is that regardless of how you labeled it, the Targs have near absolute authority. Which is true.

Why did they stop with the polygamy, then? It's pretty convenient in political term. Bu they couldn't afford to piss off the Faith and all the devout lords (there are quite a few).

In the past 100 years, none of the Targaryen kings antagonized notably their Lords Paramount. Aerys was the first to truly test them. He lost his throne.

They did not have 'neat absolute authority' since they lost their dragons. The first king to truly act as if he did, lost his throne. And pretty handily at that.

What does that tell you?

You don't have 'near absolute authority' if you don't control the army. Or dragons.

[butterbumps!]

Better? Perhaps but then again I'm not sure that would have even been possible. Is there any precedence for setting aside a Targaryen wife especially when she has already given him 2 heirs? There have only been 2 cases of Targaryen polygamy in 300 years with last one more than 2 centuries ago. I think there's a reason why Rhaegar had to 'kidnap' and hide her. He had no other option.

I think he fell in love with Lyanna and decided to wing it and have a heir by her instead of finding another girl. And that's where he went wrong. He could have picked any number of other highborn girls without causing as big a fuss as in the case of Lyanna.

Who would have stopped him? The HS? Because he's the central figure of authority that everyone follows? I'd bet anything that if a Targ king/ crown prince wanted a divorce or polygamous marriage, he'd have gotten that divorce/ polygamous marriage. A Targ crown prince has options.

[Ser Eric]

Who would have stopped him? The HS? Because he's the central figure of authority that everyone follows? I'd bet anything that if a Targ king/ crown prince wanted a divorce or polygamous marriage, he'd have gotten that divorce/ polygamous marriage. A Targ crown prince has options.

Maybe but when no Targaryen king in 250 years has attempted it (even those with dragons and the sex crazed Aegon 4) then it does get you wondering.

[butterbumps!]

Why did they stop with the polygamy, then?

In the previous century, none of the Targaryen kings antagonized notably their Lords Paramount. Aerys was the first to truly test them. He lost his throne.

They did not have 'neat absolute authority' since they lost their dragons. The first king to truly act as if he dud, lost his throne.

What does that tell you?

Because they chose to stop? Are you trying to claim that they stopped because someone told them to? If someone actually had that sort of authority over the Targ marriage practices, don't you think the whole incest thing would have been a better place to start?

I really do not understand what point you are trying to make that you disagree with me so strongly on. In objective terms, the loss of dragons does erode the "real power" (as in, ability to back up their power by force) of the Targs. I'm not disagreeing with that.

But what I'm telling you is that no one put that together and realized that without dragons, there is really nothing binding them to the King's authority. What matters isn't the dragons. What matters is whether people believe that the king still has authority over them. And they did. Consider it inertia, perhaps. Until Arryn's defiance that was actually shared by more people who agreed to disobey.

[Bright Blue Eyes]

What's your point, though? This is the case anytime there's an issue of 2 wives at some point. Whether it's the first wife's death and then remarriage, polygamy, or putting one wife aside.

Sure. And that's the reason any sane king/prince/Lord chooses his second wife from a vastly weaker family than his first wife's. Especially if said family is more powerful than his own.

Rhaegar did the opposite.

What the Westerosi saw-- kidnapping a Great Lord's daughter by the Crown prince-- wasn't even enough to get Westeros' panties in a bunch. If Rhaegar made this official, either by putting Elia aside or publicly reinstating polygamy and formally taking Lyanna to wife, then what follows looks incredibly different. As in, going in one of those directions is probably the politically smarter move if the intention all along was to have Lyanna bear his next son.

Please don't assume that everything was settled regarding Lyanna. The focus shifted after Brandon and Rickard were murdered, but that's the only reason the STAB(L) alliance didn't try to strongarm Aerys/Rhaegar.

What would Robert have done? I think getting married to someone else pretty much puts an end to the engagement, so if R&L were married, the engagement was broken. Robert may be have been upset, but he would not have been able to get anyone to join him in war on that basis. Robert certainly would not try to get Lyanna back at that point, with her married to Rhaegar and having had his child. But Robert's feelings are not really that important. The war was dependent on Jon Arryn being asked essentially to kill two innocent High Lords--that was enough to bring Houses to war. Steeling Robert's fiance would not have been enough.

"You breake it (the hymen), you buy it (one crown prince please)."

Mysogynistic like hell, but the truth. The crown would have to make up for the damage to House Stark, House Baratheon and House Tully. They didn't have another region to grant them, only the Seven Kingdoms themselves.

The point stands that when a Targ king said "jump," people jumped. People were not questioning the Targ's authority in any appreciable way until Jon Arryn's refusal to turn over his foster sons. That's when the floodgates opened.

Did the Blackfyres jump? Their last couple rebellions are living memory. Same for Duskendale.