Jump to content
Sunandspear

Would you prefer if Rhaegar won?

Recommended Posts

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.

Stannis' line of House Baratheon surely looks bad but that's not the end of it. The Baratheons of King's Landing went through worse odds then the present and I think that while much work remains to secure peace in the realm, their grasp is not near as weak as its made out to be. If Cersei can regain power, then yes, we should start to look at their downfall, but if anything else happens I fail to see why they won't have a very good chance at coming out ontop with the West and Highgarden behind them, Riverlands under the Frey's tumbs and the North facing more issues from across the Wall.

In regards to the prophecy. Do you remember what happened to Daenerys' son, the Stallion who Mounts the World? If I recall that prophecy went about nowhere, and I see no reason as to why Maggy's prophecy would be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I think that was the plan. He would beat the rebellion, which means Robert the stuckup would die in battle, the rest would bend the knee and Rhaegar would offer them pardons and retribution if they join him in battle against his father. The Lannisters would join him at that point and KL would be invaded

2-3 If Ned died than Benjen would have taken over. However if Rhaegar hoped to bring the North back to the fold than he needed Ned to bend the knee. The last thing Rhaegar needed is a pissed off Stark holed in Winterfell, planning for revenge. 

4- Robert vs Rhaegar was inevitable as the oaf wouldn't surrender his prized asset so easily. I believe once he died the rebellion will simply fizzle out. Robert B was the driving force behind such rebellion and none of the main players would want to take the iron seat. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Definitely so annoying! I just don't understand where all the love both in story and out of it for Rhaegar comes from. It gets on my nerves when some people try and justify his every action to paint him as a hero who can do no wrong; if he raped Lyanna (which I doubt, but whatever) then he's not a good guy, if he ran off with her because 'love', then he's selfish, and if he did it for a prophecy then he's delusional, and if it turns out he did what he did to save westeros, then I might actually be sick. 

Even if he did what he did to save westeros, that doesn't excuse what he did to Elia, at least to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaegar's victory would probably be better for the realm, as I believe he'd be a more capable king than Robert and he'd keep Littlefinger and Varys and maybe even Tywin away from (too much) power. So if I lived in Westeros, I'd want Rhaegar to win. But the story we'd have wouldn't be as exciting as it is now. There probably wouldn't be a a war of the 5 kings, Jon wouldn't go to the Wall, Dany wouldn't be an important character and there wouldn't be any dragons. So as a reader I like it the way it is.

What about you?

But winter would still come and there would still be conflict arising from Rhaegar's two marriages... Mel would still search for AAR. Jon would quite obviously be the prince who had ice and fire in his veins. The book would just be a standard fantasy narrative rather than this glorious creation by Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaegar was reckless, irresponsible, and probably mad. He's not fit to reign over a sandwich, let alone Seven Kingdoms.

Even Viserys in his Begger-King years would make a better king than Rhaegar; at least Viserys kept himself focused on his goal instead of getting side-tracked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Even Viserys in his Begger-King years would make a better king than Rhaegar; at least Viserys kept himself focused on his goal instead of getting side-tracked. 

Now come on, let's not be ridiculous. You don't like Rhaegar? That's fine. I can understand frustration with characters that are painted better than they are by a large chunk of the fandom (in the case of ASoIaF that applies to pretty much every character).but let's not paint him worse than he (probably) was.

Saying Viserys during his worst days would have made a better king is simply wrong; he would have been Mad King Aerys II and being focused on some illusory goal to the point of obsession is not a good thing, as the Golden Crown scene showed.

.....spreaking of which; that was also Rhaegar's fatal flaw; he was obsessed with his prophecy and stayed focused on it for his entire life...so the argument of him being unfocused does not seem very sound in my eyes.

In any case, we don't know Rhaegar, but I believe that even with his prophecy fetish he'd probably would have made a better King than Robert. Again you would have to be the Mad King or Joffrey to be a worse King than Robert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[....]

.....spreaking of which; that was also Rhaegar's fatal flaw; he was obsessed with his prophecy and stayed focused on it for his entire life...so the argument of him being unfocused does not seem very sound in my eyes.

In any case, we don't know Rhaegar, but I believe that even with his prophecy fetish he'd probably would have made a better King than Robert. Again you would have to be the Mad King or Joffrey to be a worse King than Robert.

Although I would not agree on the prophecy angle1, I agree that one of his flaws, perhaps the fatal one, might have been the excessive focus to the task at hand, to the extend of missing the forest for the tree. I base this assessement on the Harrenhal "crowning" incident: focusing on how he'd find a way to honour Lyanna for her KotLT stance2, he failed to take into account the (very obvious, actually) personal and, more importantly, political implications of this act.

Another flaw would be his refusal to see the problem of his father's madness for what it was and act on it on time; actually, procrastinating seems to be something of his prefered problem "solving" method, as also attested by waiting for so long until assuming responsibility during RR - and even then he didn't come out on his own, he was summoned...

So, while I believe3 that Rhaegar was, most likely, a decent person with great talents in some areas and a certain degree of competence in the rest, I do not believe that he would make an all around good king. In times of peace, sure, but in times of crisis (just like the one he helped create)? no, apparently not. It's also important to note that he'd have to deal with more complex situation in the aftermath than team Robert had - more layered and deep division in his own camp, and the same if not greater dependency on ambitious third parties, like Tywin. And yes, the succession issue would be far from clear, as would be the legal status of his two queens (btw, an other factor of continuous tension, and a great "entry" for the political players to create advancement opportunities and exert influence).

After all, there is the in-story examble of Eddard: a decent and dutiful person and a good administrator within his comfort zone, but completely out of depth in the Game of Thrones... Rhaegar strikes me as a similar type, as one who would fuck up royally in playing the game, as his comparative flaws would get the better of him.

 

By the way, I think that although Robert was far from being a good king, the usual assessment of his reign is overly exaggerated. He was indifferent, but that's that; his Hand is supposed to be a competent politician and administrator3 and he was believed to handle well the matters of the realm4. Fourteen good years should be seen as a success, especially for a new regime that assended after a divisive "civil" war. Surely his indifference / indecisiveness / avoidence to take responsibility did lay the ground for the problems that arose later, but these are the same flaws that Rhaegar exhibited therefore we can't say that he would be a better king than Robert no matter what; he'd (presumably) be more involved and propably he'd have good intentions, but that does not mean anything wrt the end result: as a matter of fact, his involvement could make things worse, for all we know.

 

 

1. There are indications that he was not solely or obsessively preoccupied with prophecy, but that he was involved in the political scene as well.

2. Very assumptive, I know, but that's the interpretation of events that I find the most likely by virtue of providing the best explanation for the known events sequence.

3. As I see it, if so many in-story characters who had personally known him believe so, there must be a degree of truth to it. That goes for all characters.

4. "He beggared the realm" is often used as evidence for the failure of Robert's rule, but I believe it's more of an evidence for Littlefinger's talents in large scale economic fraud, as implied later by Tyrion's POV. Tourneys and other "extravaganzas" should not be considered as useless waste per se, as such events do generate income. Ned's POV presents the more conservative view in financial matters, but had LF not been a "white collar" scum, his economic approach might have been successful (for the realm, I mean, because from LF's view it was very successful indeed).

Edited by ShadowCat Rivers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I would not agree on the prophecy angle1, I agree that one of his flaws, perhaps the fatal one, might have been the excessive focus to the task at hand, to the extend of missing the forest for the tree. I base this assessement on the Harrenhal "crowning" incident: focusing on how he'd find a way to honour Lyanna for her KotLT stance2, he failed to take into account the (very obvious, actually) personal and, more importantly, political implications of this act.

Another flaw would be his refusal to see the problem of his father's madness for what it was and act on it on time; actually, procrastinating seems to be something of his prefered problem "solving" method, as also attested by waiting for so long until assuming responsibility during RR - and even then he didn't come out on his own, he was summoned...

So, while I believe3 that Rhaegar was, most likely, a decent person with great talents in some areas and a certain degree of competence in the rest, I do not believe that he would make an all around good king. In times of peace, sure, but in times of crisis (just like the one he helped create)? no, apparently not. It's also important to note that he'd have to deal with more complex situation in the aftermath than team Robert had - more layered and deep division in his own camp, and the same if not greater dependency on ambitious third parties, like Tywin. And yes, the succession issue would be far from clear, as would be the legal status of his two queens (btw, an other factor of continuous tension, and a great "entry" for the political players to create advancement opportunities and exert influence).

After all, there is the in-story examble of Eddard: a decent and dutiful person and a good administrator within his comfort zone, but completely out of depth in the Game of Thrones... Rhaegar strikes me as a similar type, as one who would fuck up royally in playing the game, as his comparative flaws would get the better of him.

 

By the way, I think that although Robert was far from being a good king, the usual assessment of his reign is overly exaggerated. He was indifferent, but that's that; his Hand is supposed to be a competent politician and administrator3 and he was believed to handle well the matters of the realm4. Fourteen good years should be seen as a success, especially for a new regime that assended after a divisive "civil" war. Surely his indifference / indecisiveness / avoidence to take responsibility did lay the ground for the problems that arose later, but these are the same flaws that Rhaegar exhibited therefore we can't say that he would be a better king than Robert no matter what; he'd (presumably) be more involved and propably he'd have good intentions, but that does not mean anything wrt the end result: as a matter of fact, his involvement could make things worse, for all we know.

 

 

1. There are indications that he was not solely or obsessively preoccupied with prophecy, but that he was involved in the political scene as well.

2. Very assumptive, I know, but that's the interpretation of events that I find the most likely by virtue of providing the best explanation for the known events sequence.

3. As I see it, if so many in-story characters who had personally known him believe so, there must be a degree of truth to it. That goes for all characters.

4. "He beggared the realm" is often used as evidence for the failure of Robert's rule, but I believe it's more of an evidence for Littlefinger's talents in large scale economic fraud, as implied later by Tyrion's POV. Tourneys and other "extravaganzas" should not be considered as useless waste per se, as such events do generate income. Ned's POV presents the more conservative view in financial matters, but had LF not been a "white collar" scum, his economic approach might have been successful (for the realm, I mean, because from LF's view it was very successful indeed).

I wish we could like posts. it is so rare to see a post in this kind of thread that is not only NOT desperate character shilling for  the poster's pet Baratheon/Targaryen but also as well and throughly argued as your post, ShdowCat.

I applaud you.

Edited by Orphalesion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering what Robert Baratheon's reign did to the realm, and the turmoil his union with the Lannisters has brought on the realm, I think it's pretty safe to say that Rhaegar would have been a better king. From all accounts he was a great man and likely would have been a great ruler, and it did seem that he was ready to depose his father had the Targaryen side emerged victorious.

Those quick to say that he kidnapped a woman and started the war could be correct, but to assume we know things that we don't is a dangerous premise. I think it more likely that Lyanna went willingly, and it remains to be seen if Rhaegar's actions plunging the kingdoms into war was not worth it. If his interpretation of prophecy turns out to be correct enough (ala Jon Snow is his son and The Prince That Was Promised) then his causing a war is dwarfed by what he accomplished for mankind in importance. I don't think it's right to condemn Rhaegar for his actions until we know more about the past and the future. For all we know, he may have saved all of humanity. I'm not saying that he did, but I do advise patience before judgement. Keep in mind that The Others are the big picture, and this squabbling over the throne holds very little weight in comparison. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaegar was reckless, irresponsible, and probably mad. He's not fit to reign over a sandwich, let alone Seven Kingdoms.

Even Viserys in his Begger-King years would make a better king than Rhaegar; at least Viserys kept himself focused on his goal instead of getting side-tracked. 

QFT.

Rhaegar had proved that he would be something between Baelor the Befuddled and Aerys; a prophecy zealot who stops at nothing from getting what he thinks that it is right. Who is to say that after Lyanna had Jon he wouldn't had another idea to elope with someone else and start another war? At least Robert never cause a war because he eloped with someone and then as a typical coward hide away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If his interpretation of prophecy turns out to be correct enough (ala Jon Snow is his son and The Prince That Was Promised) then his causing a war is dwarfed by what he accomplished for mankind in importance. I don't think it's right to condemn Rhaegar for his actions until we know more about the past and the future. For all we know, he may have saved all of humanity.

If it's Daenerys who saves the world, will the mad king get the props for raping his wife after burning his hand, resulting to fathering the saviour? Or is it Rhaegar who gets it again, for if he didn't start the whole mess then the sequence of events that led to Dany's conception would not have occured? This line of thinking can produce some very, ehm, interesting stuff...

Edited by ShadowCat Rivers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Mythology" of Rheagar is one of the more nauseating aspects of fandom. However, people are etntitled to their opinions as I certainly have mine which undoubtedly bother others. Rheagar, unless something is revealed by GRRM in future books, is responsible for the doom of his family and the near destruction of Lyanna's, tens of thousands of people which reverberates  to this day in the story.  Robert is heaped upon scorn upon scorn and never given the benefit of the doubt when he says he loved Lyanna and was in love with her etc... Yet, Rheagar is given almost the benefit of the doubt by probably the vast majority of fans. Why? Also, if Lyanna went willingly with Rheagar, she must share in the blame for the tragedies that followed. Robert and Ned fought for their lives and were clearly victimized by Rheagar and his daddy and their lackies, notably, Rheagar's gay admirer, lord of Griffin's Roost, Jon Connington, one of 18 year old Robert's own Bannermen who swore to kill him for his beloved Rheagar. Rheagar, wnen he came back from the Tower of Joy, had the opportunity to remove his father then, reach out to Ned, Robert, explain some things and try and keep everything from falling apart, but he chose to try and kill them out of what I see as "arrogance" and "ignorance" all in one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now come on, let's not be ridiculous. You don't like Rhaegar? That's fine. I can understand frustration with characters that are painted better than they are by a large chunk of the fandom (in the case of ASoIaF that applies to pretty much every character).but let's not paint him worse than he (probably) was.

Saying Viserys during his worst days would have made a better king is simply wrong; he would have been Mad King Aerys II and being focused on some illusory goal to the point of obsession is not a good thing, as the Golden Crown scene showed.

.....spreaking of which; that was also Rhaegar's fatal flaw; he was obsessed with his prophecy and stayed focused on it for his entire life...so the argument of him being unfocused does not seem very sound in my eyes.

In any case, we don't know Rhaegar, but I believe that even with his prophecy fetish he'd probably would have made a better King than Robert. Again you would have to be the Mad King or Joffrey to be a worse King than Robert.

Do you think Viserys would have risked losing his crown over a hook up? If not, then that's one quality he has over Rhaegar. In any case Viserys was not shown to be aroused by torture or obsessed with fire; having a bad temper does not make someone the next Aerys. Being able to keep a child alive for 13 years of desperate poverty shows that he knows how to manage money (at least on a small scale), which is a good skill for a king to have. While his mental instability would have prevented Viserys from being a great king, he had it in him to be an ok king. 

Robert was a dysfunctional drunk, but that does not necessarily make him a bad king. He mostly stayed out of the way and left things in the hands of the competent Jon Arryn, and as a result the realm was at peace for most of his fifteen year reign. When he was needed, he answered the call and crushed the Savage Ironborn under heel. He didn't legitimize all his bastards like Ageon IV Targaryen, he didn't use slave labor to construct impractically elaborate building projects like Harren Hoare, and he didn't feed any of his siblings to an animal like Ageon II. 

Compared to both of these people we have Rhaegar, who didn't even wait to be king before pissing off 4 of the 7 Lord Paramounts, causing a bad civil war, hiding in Dorne during most of it, and overestimating his battlefield strategy abilities during a critical battle. He doomed himself to never become a king, but he died having earned the proud title of "family fuck-up".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Mythology" of Rheagar is one of the more nauseating aspects of fandom. However, people are etntitled to their opinions as I certainly have mine which undoubtedly bother others. Rheagar, unless something is revealed by GRRM in future books, is responsible for the doom of his family and the near destruction of Lyanna's, tens of thousands of people which reverberates  to this day in the story.  Robert is heaped upon scorn upon scorn and never given the benefit of the doubt when he says he loved Lyanna and was in love with her etc... Yet, Rheagar is given almost the benefit of the doubt by probably the vast majority of fans. Why? Also, if Lyanna went willingly with Rheagar, she must share in the blame for the tragedies that followed. Robert and Ned fought for their lives and were clearly victimized by Rheagar and his daddy and their lackies, notably, Rheagar's gay admirer, lord of Griffin's Roost, Jon Connington, one of 18 year old Robert's own Bannermen who swore to kill him for his beloved Rheagar. Rheagar, wnen he came back from the Tower of Joy, had the opportunity to remove his father then, reach out to Ned, Robert, explain some things and try and keep everything from falling apart, but he chose to try and kill them out of what I see as "arrogance" and "ignorance" all in one.

Yep, it bugs me how many people ignore the fact that Rhaegar was a horrible human being. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, it bugs me how many people ignore the fact that Rhaegar was a horrible human being. 

But... but.... Doomed lovers... silver hair... good jouster.... he didn't really loved Elia.... violet eyes.... great musician...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But... but.... Doomed lovers... silver hair... good jouster.... he didn't really loved Elia.... violet eyes.... great musician...

Well why didn't you say so?

And here I was worried about unimportant things like Jory Cassel growing up without a dad, Barbary Dustin never seeing her beloved again, the Glovers losing Ethan, the Wulls losing Theo, the Ryswell's losing gentle Mark, Jon Arryn losing his cousin Denys, the Martells losing Lewyn, Elia being brutally murdered through no fault of her own, her two children being murdered through no fault of their own, Brandon dying because of an attempt to save his sister Taken Style, Rickard burning alive for having the gall to expect an actual trial-by-combat, the people of Kings Landing being massacred, untold tens of thousands of peasant smallfolk dying, and causing bitter rivalries between families that once-upon-a-time were steadfast allies. 

Clearly Silver Hair (caused by excessive inbreeding), being a Good Jouster (expecally against people loyal enough to throw the match and let him win), having purple eyes (again, inbreeding), and good with a harp (though he's probably not as good as Tom O Sevenstrings) make up for causing such widespread destruction and chaos. 

:thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well why didn't you say so?

And here I was worried about unimportant things like Jory Cassel growing up without a dad, Barbary Dustin never seeing her beloved again, the Glovers losing Ethan, the Wulls losing Theo, the Ryswell's losing gentle Mark, Jon Arryn losing his cousin Denys, the Martells losing Lewyn, Elia being brutally murdered through no fault of her own, her two children being murdered through no fault of their own, Brandon dying because of an attempt to save his sister Taken Style, Rickard burning alive for having the gall to expect an actual trial-by-combat, the people of Kings Landing being massacred, untold tens of thousands of peasant smallfolk dying, and causing bitter rivalries between families that once-upon-a-time were steadfast allies. 

Clearly Silver Hair (caused by excessive inbreeding), being a Good Jouster (expecally against people loyal enough to throw the match and let him win), having purple eyes (again, inbreeding), and good with a harp (though he's probably not as good as Tom O Sevenstrings) make up for causing such widespread destruction and chaos. 

:thumbsdown:

I understand that you hate Rhaegar but it don't change that you are wrong. For all his faults Rhaegar was planning to remove Aerys while the Baratheons, Starks, Arryn and Lannister were perfectly ok with letting the mad king go around to rape, murder and burn as long as he didn't touch them personally. Only when Aerys killed theirs did they bother to rise while before that, they seemed to have been pretty chill with it. Big bonus points to Rhaegar for being the, as far as I can see, the only one who was looking to do something about Aerys. A great shame that it fell through with the Lyanna business and everything went to hell after that.

Also I find it rather interesting that Rhaegar is apparently responsible for other people's actions. Apparently he could warg Brandon Stark, his own father Aerys and thousands of other people to make them do bad things, even after his own death. I thought that Bloodraven was good but Rhaegar must have been the greatest warg ever to have existed!

But on a more serious note Rhaegar is not responsible for what other people do. He is responsible for what he did. That Aerys burned the Starks, Arryns, Mallisters, Royces etc. falls on Aerys, just like Cersei, Littlefinger, Varys and all the people who raped, murdered or stole did so on their own account and are guilty of their own actions. They did so because they decided to do it, and must carry the responsibility for it.

Go Prince Rhaegar, Breakspear reborn!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well why didn't you say so?

And here I was worried about unimportant things like Jory Cassel growing up without a dad, Barbary Dustin never seeing her beloved again, the Glovers losing Ethan, the Wulls losing Theo, the Ryswell's losing gentle Mark, Jon Arryn losing his cousin Denys, the Martells losing Lewyn, Elia being brutally murdered through no fault of her own, her two children being murdered through no fault of their own, Brandon dying because of an attempt to save his sister Taken Style, Rickard burning alive for having the gall to expect an actual trial-by-combat, the people of Kings Landing being massacred, untold tens of thousands of peasant smallfolk dying, and causing bitter rivalries between families that once-upon-a-time were steadfast allies. 

Clearly Silver Hair (caused by excessive inbreeding), being a Good Jouster (expecally against people loyal enough to throw the match and let him win), having purple eyes (again, inbreeding), and good with a harp (though he's probably not as good as Tom O Sevenstrings) make up for causing such widespread destruction and chaos. 

:thumbsdown:

Pfft they were just filthy common people they were not the uber human emo princeling who was too good for this world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft they were just filthy common people they were not the uber human emo princeling who was too good for this world.

He's like Paris of Troy, only without an annoying older brother to kill his buzz.

"Can you be the man who carried off a beautiful woman from a distant land and warlike family, to be a curse to your father, to the city, and to the whole people?  Are you too cowardly to stand up to the brave man whom you wrongedYou will soon find out the kind of fighter he is whose lovely wife you stole." -Hector of Troy

Ugh, nothing ruins the romance of a Star-Crossed Ship like a sibling who thinks too much!

Edited by Timjames98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that you hate Rhaegar but it don't change that you are wrong. For all his faults Rhaegar was planning to remove Aerys while the Baratheons, Starks, Arryn and Lannister were perfectly ok with letting the mad king go around to rape, murder and burn as long as he didn't touch them personally. Only when Aerys killed theirs did they bother to rise while before that, they seemed to have been pretty chill with it. Big bonus points to Rhaegar for being the, as far as I can see, the only one who was looking to do something about Aerys. A great shame that it fell through with the Lyanna business and everything went to hell after that.

To be fair, unless the other lords spent much time in the capital, they probably wouldn't know too much about Aerys' madness, at least until Harrenhal. And none of those Lords have the authority or unifying potential that the Crown Prince has. Rhaegar could unify the great lords around him, using his authority as future king to do so. A lord would have to act on behalf of a claimant to the throne, which is far riskier and far less likely to garner support. What if, say, Lord Stark declares to the great lords that he intends to remove Aerys and install Rhaegar as king? That's clear treason, and if he did that before Rhaegar came to the conclusion that Aerys had to go, Rickard would find himself declared a traitor and executed. The lords needed Rhaegar; they needed a claimant to rally around. So it's not quite true to say that the other lords were fine with Aerys' behaviour.

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

×