Jump to content

Would you prefer if Rhaegar won?


Sunandspear

Recommended Posts

Rhaegar would have been a better King than Bob and he wasn't the one who started the rebellion (Aerys did). If only he made contact with the rebellion to try and patch things up. 

I implore you to remember "the abduction" of Lyanna Stark. Whether or not she went willingly, Rhaegar's action was undoubtedly stupid and offended House Martell and Baratheon. This shows his political skills. And you think he would have made a good king? Stop idealizing him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing in the Starn/Northernmen history showed any inclination to involve themselves with anything going on in the South before Rickard chose to take interest either. And the North isn't even needed for Jon to press a claim. Daemon Blackfyre didn't have any major region behind him when he tried to steal the Iron Throne from Daemon.

 

Even if it wasn't Jon and Aegon, it would have been a descendant of Jon for certain. That's just what happens in this world. Blackfyres are the greatest example. Five generations of wars because of a king who thought crowning his mistress was such a great thing. Who was handsome and a good warrior in his youth. Who even had a warrior maiden (whom he didn't love, apparently, interesting enough.) The coincidences are just too many.

Jon Snow is hardly Daemon Blackfyre material. Even if Aegon happened to grow up sickly and weak like Elia, Jon would still be an unlikely alternative for scheming nobles; he has none of Daemon Blackfyre's appeal and doesn't even look like a proper Targaryen, not to mention that little fact that the elopment of his parents (and therefore his conception and birth, in a way) caused a civil war. There would be a huge stain on his name, even if Rhaegar legitimized him. Nor do I think it's in Jon's character to fight his kinsmen over gold and titles. Sure, there's a chance he would have been raised differently, by someone else than Ned (although Ned would still be a likely candidate, IMO), but I just don't see in him the potential.

If you're looking for a prince of blood who might attract nobles in case Elia's son proved unsatisfactory or not to their taste, I suggest you look Viserys' way. I imagine he may have grown to be a handsome and charming prince (much like young Aerys), had he not spent most of his life wandering the Free Cities with little support and desperate desire for revenge.

As for Jon's hypothetical descendants, it's improbable they would marry high enough to matter or that Jon himself would marry a girl from a particularly important family. Again, sure, Daemon Blackfyre had lacked such ties as well, but as I have said, he had had other advantages: the rumors of his half-brother's illegitimacy his father had spread, his half-brother's unmartial nature and closeness with the Dornish (too hurtful for many so soon after what had transpired during Daeron I's invasion), his own dashing Targaryen looks, his being one of the greatest warriors of his time, the loads of charisma, etc.,... and even then, he and his descendants had ultimately lost everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Snow is hardly Daemon Blackfyre material. Even if Aegon happened to grow up sickly and weak like Elia, Jon would still be an unlikely alternative for scheming nobles; he has none of Daemon Blackfyre's appeal and doesn't even look like a proper Targaryen, not to mention that little fact that the elopment of his parents (and therefore his conception and birth, in a way) caused a civil war. There would be a huge stain on his name, even if Rhaegar legitimized him. Nor do I think it's in Jon's character to fight his kinsmen over gold and titles. Sure, there's a chance he would have been raised differently, by someone else than Ned (although Ned would still be a likely candidate, IMO), but I just don't see in him the potential.

If you're looking for a prince of blood who might attract nobles in case Elia's son proved unsatisfactory or not to their taste, I suggest you look Viserys' way. I imagine he may have grown to be a handsome and charming prince (much like young Aerys), had he not spent most of his life wandering the Free Cities with little support and desperate desire for revenge.

As for Jon's hypothetical descendants, it's improbable they would marry high enough to matter or that Jon himself would marry a girl from a particularly important family. Again, sure, Daemon Blackfyre had lacked such ties as well, but as I have said, he had had other advantages: the rumors of his half-brother's illegitimacy his father had spread, his half-brother's unmartial nature and closeness with the Dornish (too hurtful for many so soon after what had transpired during Daeron I's invasion), his own dashing Targaryen looks, his being one of the greatest warriors of his time, the loads of charisma, etc.,... and even then, he and his descendants had ultimately lost everything.

 

By the time Daeron and the Dragonknight forced Aegon to give up his aspiring queen Barba and their son, there wasn't even a hint of the rumours that Daeron was a bastard. Those would emerge later. What is to stop Rhaegar from declaring his first marriage void (as I believe he did, thanks to the dragon heads thing) or follow in Aegon's footsteps, spreading rumours that Elia was a cheater? Rhaegar wasn't the only man with silver hair and purple eyes in the Seven Kingdoms.

 

Of course, he might not have done any of that. But the possibility isn't one to be excluded. Children by different queens have always meant trouble in the history of the Targaryen kings.

 

Edit: Mixing of two posts and Windows playing tricks on me, so I deleted the first part.

ETA: Part of Jon being who he was is his feeling that he's a bastard. Being a Targaryen prince would have turned him into a different person. Why not Daemon Blackfyre material? He loves his Stark siblings. Can we be sure he'd love Elia's son enough to never make a try? And who is to say he'd stay Lyanna's only child/son? Rhaegar winning at the Trident might have made the difference between life and death for her as well. And Daemon being charismatic only made him a better figurehead. The main reason he had people flocking to him wasn't his charm, it was what he could give them. Jon wouldn't be any different, although disadvantaged in the charm departent, perhaps. Anyway, it doesn't mean he couldn't try and make great trouble for Aegon. Stannis lacks charm - and what of it? There was still war between him and Renly, although he had far less resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But how was Elia supposed to know how Jon would turn out at the time Rhaegar took Lyanna? How was she to know that Lyanna would conveniently die, so she'd have only one child? If someone could have been expected to die and make things nice and cozy, with Lyanna even playing mommy to Aegon and Rhaenys, showing what a great girl she was, it was sickly Elia, not strong Lyanna.

What Elia thinks doesn't have anything to do with it. I'm opposing the idea you proposed that had Rhaegar won, it would have meant a war between Dorne and the North or that Jon and his possible (grand)children might plague the Seven Kingdoms the same way the Blackfyres had. IMO there would be no such war, unless Elia convinces her brothers to preemtively strike first and attack the North (though I'm not sure how would they go about it).

Anyway, I took it to mean that in the hypothetical scenario where Rhaegar wins all the other variables stay unchanged, but asuming that Lyanna would survive Jon's birth, then of course she might give birth to a boy with Daemon Blackfyre's qualities. But if she had royal ambitions for him, not only would she have to get rid of Elia's Aegon (and possibly Viserys, too), but also she would have to get out of the way her own first-born, which means either to kill him or force him to join a celibate order here or there, and although we don't know Lyanna's character very well, I would be very surprised to learn she would be willing to go these lengths. I also can't imagine she could rouse Ned to support her in any of this.

ETA (just noticed your edit):

I think that Jon would be a bastard anyway, since I don't believe that Rhaegar could pull through a polygamous marriage. At most he would have been a legitimized bastard, and people would still accuse him of the "taint" and so on. In fact, I'd say that the version of Jon in AU where Rhaegar won would be much more miserable than the canon Jon in the story we've got. The Westerosi are ever so eager to blame the children for their parents' sins, as the whole business with bastards shows, and Rhaegar and Lyanna fucked up big time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. I hate Rhaegar and am glad Robert killed him. Also, the story would have been totally different. 

Don't you find it annoying when fanboys idealize him as a brave, noble soul who was the best fighter, politician, administrator etc ?If Rhaegar was such politically good material for a king then why did he offend House Martell and Baratheon publicly? Stop idealizing him people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its an interesting question, but I think an equally valid one is what would it have actually taken for Rhaegar to win at the Trident?

 

While Rhaegar's death at Robert's hands was a significant blow, the crown's Dornish forces (some 10,000 men) had already been broken, Prince Lewyn Martell, at least three of Rhaegar's own bannermen and Jonothor Darry of the Kingsguard were all dead and Barristan Selmy had been gravely injured and captured before Robert and Rhaegar even faced off.

 

Let's say Rhaegar cuts down Robert. That doesn't cripple the Rebellion leadership because they've still got Jon Arryn, Eddard Stark and Hoster Tully on the field of battle and Stannis next in line to succeed his brother as leader of House Baratheon. Meanwhile Rhaegar's still lost a good chunk of his men (who were said to be not nearly as battle-hardened as the rebels) and almost all his top commanders.

 

Even though he has survived, I think Rhaegar withdrawing his army from the field at that point is the only rational outcome. Best case scenario coming out of that is that the Mad King still tries to burn the city and Rhaegar has the influence to depose him. This makes Rhaegar king and with the Lyanna-obsessed Robert dead creates an avenue to sue for peace. Presuming that Rhaegar set aside Elia so that Lyanna would be his queen and offering up the deposed king to be tried and punished by the rebels, the Targs might be able to hold onto the throne.

 

More realistically though, the Mad King doesn't wait for Rhaegar to return and its still Jaime who has to kill him so there's no scapegoat to easily offer up and Lyanna still dies in childbirth not too long after with accusations getting thrown around as to whether it was natural causes or murder disrupting any chance at peace.

 

About the only thing I see Rhaegar beating Robert at the Trident doing is buying a little more time for the Targs to put contingencies in place. They're still going to get stabbed in the backs by the Lannisters. The only real difference might be that with some leadership to rally around there's a real siege of King's Landing before Rhaegar and his family die and we end up with Stannis or Lord Tully or Jon Arryn as king in Robert's place, each with their own inherent problems holding the realm together until something finally shatters the peace.

 

The Rebellion ended up being so much bigger than Rhaegar, Lyanna and Robert that I just don't see much that Rhaegar would be able to do to halt the inertia of it. Blunt it a bit maybe, but I still think we'd end up mostly where we are now, just with slightly different players and a different spark (but probably still struck by Littlefinger) setting it all off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting aside the OBVIOUS reason of this not being possible because they we wouldn't have a story (duh), I think there is no doubt Rhaegar would be a much better King.

Despite what people think of him (being an asshole or whatever), it's not very accurate to think he was an idiot and oblivious to how politic works. He wasn't going to throw a lavish party to announce his marriage to Lyanna and rub it on Doran's face if that's what anyone thinks.

I suppose the Others still happen, and the Realm would face it better. No Wot5K at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I implore you to remember "the abduction" of Lyanna Stark. Whether or not she went willingly, Rhaegar's action was undoubtedly stupid and offended House Martell and Baratheon. This shows his political skills. And you think he would have made a good king? Stop idealizing him.

 

Rhaegar had put his hand on Jaime's shoulder. "When this battle's done I mean to call a council. Changes will be made. I meant to do it long ago, but . . . well, it does no good to speak of roads not taken. We shall talk when I return."

You can't call Robert a shit king for having known about problems in the realm and not taking care of them, when Rhaegar let his mad and ineffective father rule for years because he just never got around to making the changes that he knew needed to be done and that "oh well let's not talk about that, I'll finally do it when I get back" (and he'd known since Duskendale that he had Tywin's support to be king over Aerys so things go back way further than Harrenhal)

Rhaegar was just as lazy and ineffective as Aerys and Robert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't call Robert a shit king for having known about problems in the realm and not taking care of them, when Rhaegar let his mad and ineffective father rule for years because he just never got around to making the changes that he knew needed to be done and that "oh well let's not talk about that, I'll finally do it when I get back" (and he'd known since Duskendale that he had Tywin's support to be king over Aerys so things go back way further than Harrenhal)

Rhaegar was just as lazy and ineffective as Aerys and Robert.

It's very easy to pass judgement on Rhaegar's behaviour towards his father because many people seem to forget the small little fact he was HIS FATHER. We're not talking about some problematic counselour they had to remove. Anyone with a sick relative could tell you how difficult is to cope with someone who you love but acts like they would rather destroy you.

Also, you're not including Rhaegar's quotes from that same conversation in which he says he doesn't want to cause Aerys more troubles. He cared for his father and he knew that removing him meant a civil war: that's probably the reason he didn't act before. He didnt' want to put him in danger. Why would he? There is no asylums in Westeros, nor health care. Removing the King likely meant war and death. Also, politically, it would have been a terrible start for him to begin his ruling by killing his own father.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy to pass judgement on Rhaegar's behaviour towards his father because many people seem to forget the small little fact he was HIS FATHER. We're not talking about some problematic counselour they had to remove. Anyone with a sick relative could tell you how difficult is to cope with someone who you love but acts like they would rather destroy you.

Also, you're not including Rhaegar's quotes from that same conversation in which he says he doesn't want to cause Aerys more troubles. He cared for his father and he knew that removing him meant a civil war: that's probably the reason he didn't act before. He didnt' want to put him in danger. Why would he? There is no asylums in Westeros, nor health care. Removing the King likely meant war and death. Also, politically, it would have been a terrible start for him to begin his ruling by killing his own father.

You could do this with Robert too though. For instance he knew that the Lannisters were amassing too much power and knew that he should have done something, but all he did was refuse to abdicate so that Cersei wouldn't rule through Joffrey, and refused to challenge them because they were his kin. That's as far as he was willing to go, but it doesn't change the fact that he should never have let Jaime become Warden of the East, let Cersei kill Lady, etc.

Having reasons for inaction doesn't excuse the inaction if you had a duty to see something done properly. Duty isn't supposed to be easy otherwise it wouldn't be a duty. And in both cases we have them not doing their duty to the realm, for whatever reasons they might have had. So for me it's hypocritical for people to say that Rhaegar would have been this amazingly effective king compared to Aerys or Robert. He wouldn't have. He probably would have been a bit better, but we see him shirking his duties just as much as the people he's supposed to be so much better than.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But why is Rhaegar the one responsible for removing Aerys? 

Why don't the great lords like Stark, Arryn, Tully, Tyrell, Martell, Greyjoy, Lannister , and Baratheon get some of that blame for not acting sooner? 

Yeah Rhaegar was too little too late but at least he wanted to remove his father. The other great lords would have sat around holed up in their region letting Aerys stay batshit crazy until his craziness hit them than they would be ready to dispose of the mad kind ergo: Robert's Rebellion. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I implore you to remember "the abduction" of Lyanna Stark. Whether or not she went willingly, Rhaegar's action was undoubtedly stupid and offended House Martell and Baratheon. This shows his political skills. And you think he would have made a good king? Stop idealizing him.

Well Rhaegar was idolised by many people from all walks of life including noblemen (Cersei),the  smallfolk and the honourable people (Selmy). He was cultured, good in fighting and of a good heart. Even Ned rated him. 

What he did with Lyanna was wrong however everyone is entitled to one mistake (everyone made them including Tywin, Ned, Robert B etc) and to be fair if it wasn't for Aerys things wouldnt have degenerated in that way. Dont forget that Rhaegar was the crown prince of a family which had a strong grip over the iron throne. At that time it was unthinkable for anyone to believe a world without the Targs. Throughout his life Aerys was able to

a- repeatedly insulting Tywin Lannister, which including passing comments on his wife, humiliating his daughter and stealing his heir
b- insulting the Martells (ie refusing to hug Rhaenys because she looked to Dornish) and then threatening them
c-arresting Brandan Stark and demand his father to come to KL to answer for his sons crimes. That was after Rhaegar humiliated Lyanna Stark.

Any of those three instances would have surely caused a rebellion or at least some sort of retribution in normal circumstances. However Aerys was able to get away with it because he was royalty. So yeah there was a big gap between the royal family and the Lord Paramount. Im sure things wouldnt degenerate the way they did if it wasnt for Aerys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say yes, if only for the reason that the monstrosity that was the Sack of King's Landing would likely not have happened. Of course there would probably still have been a number of gruesome battles and sieges such as (possibly) White Harbour, the Eyrie, the Riverlands getting devastated yet again.

In addition there might have been problems between Rhaegar and Aerys after Aerys eliminated him from the line of succession and with Dorne in either case after what Rhaegar did to Elia. 

Really it would have been better for the inhabitants of King's Landing for the time being but I think in the long picture there will not be much difference whether Rhaegar or Robert had won. All the rbellion dd was changing the royal sigil after all.

I do not agree that royal authority under the Targaryens post-RR would or could be any lower than what the Baratheons have right now (none if you don't count Tommen as a "real" Baratheon, and not very much even if you do)

Actually yeah they are at breaking point what with the only true Baratheons (Stannis and Shireen) trapped up North in the dead of winter and probably not making it out alive by the next book. Then we have the royal house of Lannister & Baratheon who's hold over the Iron Throne and Westeros is so fragile right now that even the slightest opposition against their rule may just destroy them. Not to mention their remaining heirs are marked for dead by prophecy.

I agree, however the Targaryens were also in tight spots time and again (they also faced their first crisis right after Aegon I died) and if Tommen was able to hold on to the crown and avoid being killed before producing heirs (and there weren't any ice zombies or dragons on the way) they could make it. In 80 years with Tommen II on the throne, nobody (except the occassional Targaryen or Baratheon pretyender, real or fake)would give a rat's ass about whether Tommen I was a bastard or not.

That's the way medieval history worked, whoever's currently in power gets to choose how to portray historical events and every real life dynasty has taken advantage of that.

So if there weren't all those super-natural things working against the Baratheons they still could make it, theoretically (Cersei's children anyways, Stannis and Shireen are toast) 

 

I think there is no doubt Rhaegar would be a much better King.

Despite what people think of him (being an asshole or whatever), it's not very accurate to think he was an idiot and oblivious to how politic works. He wasn't going to throw a lavish party to announce his marriage to Lyanna and rub it on Doran's face if that's what anyone thinks.

I suppose the Others still happen, and the Realm would face it better. No Wot5K at least.

I agree with most of this. I do believe that Rhaegar would have been a better king than Robert (you'd have to be Aerys in full mad king mode to be a worse king than Robert)

Though I do believe there would have still been some sort of civil unrest or civil war, either involving Dorne or Rhaegar VS Aerys.  It's difficult to say if that event would have been as devastating as the Wot5K however....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Rhaegar had the potential to be better than Robert, but the political situation for him after a victory at the Trident would be way more complicated than it was for Robert. He would have to deal with 4 rebel kindoms, a very pissed-off Dorne, and an ambitious Tywin Lannister. And his mad father.

Killing Robert wouldn't be nearly enough to bring peace to the seven kingdoms

Jon Snow's birth might have given him some help with the Rebels (crowning Stannis would put Jon in danger, and I doubt Ned would like that. If he bends the knee, there's a chance the others do the same), but less so with Dorne. 

I don't think the situation would be hopelessly, though. If he manages to remove Aerys and makes it very, very clear Aegon is his heir, instead of Jon, he could have at chance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are so many variables to consider when you ask this question.  A few of the main ones...

1. Does Rhaegar follow through with his presumed plan to depose Aerys after the war?  If so, that's undoubtedly better for the people of Westeros because Aerys is destructively crazy.

2. Does Ned Stark live?  This is inherently tied to the first question.  I believe that, if Rhaegar won at the Trident, Ned would probably do the sensible thing and, knowing the war was lost, bend the knee.  At least, he'd do that if someone other than Aerys was in a position to pardon him.  As long as Aerys is on the throne, Ned effectively can't bend the knee because he knows that Aerys would kill him anyway.  But if Rhaegar takes over the throne, then yeah, he could probably safely bend the knee and go back to Winterfell.

3. Ned is important because, if he dies, the North probably continues to rebel, fracturing the kingdom.  The Riverlands and the Eyrie were also tied to the North, and might continue to rebel even in Robert's absence as well.  They'd really have no choice if Aerys continued to sit the throne because there's zero chance Aerys is showing mercy to anyone.  If Ned lives, however, he likely goes back home and the North falls back into line, meaning a general peace for Westeros.

4. What happens to House Baratheon?  Are they wiped from the face of the earth, or does Rhaegar spare Stannis and Renly, leaving Stannis to head the house?  Would Stannis even bend the knee after rebelling?

Generally speaking, I do think the realm would be better off if Rhaegar had won the war, but only if he had immediately returned to King's Landing and deposed his father.  With Aerys on the Iron Throne, Westeros was destined for death and destruction no matter what.  But Rhaegar on the throne would more than likely have led to peace, and it's probably safe to say that Rhaegar would have been a better king than Robert (low bar, but still).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...