Jump to content
Sunandspear

Would you prefer if Rhaegar won?

Recommended Posts

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.

While I agree about Aerys madness probably not being that publically known and Rhaegar having a great positon as a unifying element in Westeros, but I also think that you are overestimating the importance of a royal claimant. Jon Arryn was perfectly capable of rasing his banners agaisnt Aerys without having Rhaegar onboard and as the war progressed the rebels could produce their own claimant in Robert and if the Baratheons had not been part of that crew they would most likely have found someone else to make their king. But the important thing to see is that the Starks, Tullys, Baratheons and Arryns didn't do squat until Aerys made a move on them, and then it was full war with the rebels victorious. I think its a bit telling there wasn't more noise from there Houses while Aerys was targeting other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baelor... Breakspear... Reborn.

Now I've seen everything.

Because clearly planning a monumental change like deposing a king to supposedly save the realm from his madness and then giving it up to chase after a tail or prophecy or whatever he was chasing after is the same as taking actions, something that Baelor never hesitated to do.

If someone had a reason to care for the entirety and stability of the kingdom and not a separate region, it was Rhaegar. The one who would inherit it. Alas, love or prophecy took priority but nothing made him entitled to have others clear this mess for him and hand him the realm on bent knee.

Having plans and not executing them is the same as having no plans at all. No credit to Rhaegar here.

Edited by Anath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree about Aerys madness probably not being that publically known and Rhaegar having a great positon as a unifying element in Westeros, but I also think that you are overestimating the importance of a royal claimant. Jon Arryn was perfectly capable of rasing his banners agaisnt Aerys without having Rhaegar onboard and as the war progressed the rebels could produce their own claimant in Robert and if the Baratheons had not been part of that crew they would most likely have found someone else to make their king. But the important thing to see is that the Starks, Tullys, Baratheons and Arryns didn't do squat until Aerys made a move on them, and then it was full war with the rebels victorious. I think its a bit telling there wasn't more noise from there Houses while Aerys was targeting other people.

But they only removed Aerys by rebelling and replacing the Targaryen dynasty. And if you were a lord trying to convince others that Aerys needed removing, wouldn't their response likely be either 'traitor' or 'we need to get Prince Rhaegar onside'. Asking a lord to rebel against his king, with no guarantee that Rhaegar won't attempt to stop him or execute him afterwards, is an enormous thing. And what if Rhaegar simply hands the reins back to his father, assuming his father was still alive? Unless a lord is prepared to full-on rebel, they need Rhaegar. Ned and Bob didn't have much choice; it was fight or die. Arryn could have killed them, refuse and wait to be punished, or rebel.

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.

I wonder (among other things)... how the hell being in love can simultaneously be a redeeming quality (for Bob), and deserve condemnation (for JonCon), all within the same gorram paragraph? :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder (among other things)... how the hell being in love can simultaneously be a redeeming quality (for Bob), and deserve condemnation (for JonCon), all within the same gorram paragraph? :dunno:

Robert did not betray anyone for being in love with Lyanna, she was his betrothed. Jon Con was Robert's own bannerman who betrayed him because he loved the man who wronged Robert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes down to principles, Right vs Wrong, Just vs Unjust. Robert and Ned for that matter committed no crime against Aerys or Rheagar. None whatsoever. What Jon Connington did warrants beheading, taking the Black etc. I cannot stand Jon Connington. He was a betrayer, turncloak etc. Gay love or not does not justify what he did to Robert and what he would have done if he got the chance.

Robert's Rebellion is just the catchy name for the War but in reality, it may have been called or should have been called the War for Justice ect. Rheagar, Aerys and House Targaryen earned the uprising and defeat.

I cannot understand why some people condemn Robert for fighting the war when he was condemned to die for nothing if he did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert did not betray anyone for being in love with Lyanna, she was his betrothed. Jon Con was Robert's own bannerman who betrayed him because he loved the man who wronged Robert.

BS. That was a rebellion, and the choice was either to betray his lord, or to betray his king, and there simply was no option of honoring all his oaths. Hell, Stannis Baratheon himself, in the same situation, considered siding with Robert (his blood!) dishonorable. Be honest, just say "he was supposed to like the character I like".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS. That was a rebellion, and the choice was either to betray his lord, or to betray his king, and there simply was no option of honoring all his oaths. Hell, Stannis Baratheon himself, in the same situation, considered siding with Robert (his blood!) dishonorable. Be honest, just say "he was supposed to like the character I like".

An unjust, mad king ordered Robert's head as well as Ned's. For what? Jon Connington was a Rheagar, therefore an Aerys lickspittle. Like I said, it comes down to principle. Jon Connington had the wrong kind. Robert did not when it came to the Rebellion. It was a rebellion for justice, right vs wrong, sanity vs insanity. Rheagar was just as wrong as his daddy and Jon Con betrayed his leige lord out of lust/love, gold, profit, prommotion, whatever. The only difference between him and Roose Bolton is that Jon Con openly betrayed Robert and his Oath but in principle, a traitor just the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS. That was a rebellion, and the choice was either to betray his lord, or to betray his king, and there simply was no option of honoring all his oaths. 

So you support Walder's betrayal of Robb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Stannis, the only good thing he is doing is trying to beat the Boltons and Freys. Stannis, while strict black and white when interpreting things, lacks a likable personality and in general, sympathy and empathy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you support Walder's betrayal of Robb?

 It ended a war (or at least a sub-set of a war) with (relatively speaking) minimal bloodshed.

So I, personally would support it if Walder had done it for the purpose of restoring peace to the realm. However Walder did not do what he did because of any conflicting loyalties between Robb or Joffrey, nor did he do it to restore peace.

He did because of a hurt sense of pride and as a bid for power.

So it's not quite the same as Jon Con actually openly choosing not to participate in Robert's Rebellion (as justified as Robert's Rebellion was).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An unjust, mad king ordered Robert's head as well as Ned's. For what? Jon Connington was a Rheagar, therefore an Aerys lickspittle. Like I said, it comes down to principle. Jon Connington had the wrong kind. Robert did not when it came to the Rebellion. It was a rebellion for justice, right vs wrong, sanity vs insanity. Rheagar was just as wrong as his daddy and Jon Con betrayed his leige lord out of lust/love, gold, profit, prommotion, whatever. The only difference between him and Roose Bolton is that Jon Con openly betrayed Robert and his Oath but in principle, a traitor just the same.

And yet in your original rant you concentrated on, how was it? Oh, "notably, Rheagar's gay admirer". Half the realm sided with the dragon against the stag, more than half to be precise, yet you decided to single out Jon Connington of all people. Notable among Bob's feats were three battles fought in one day against his three bannermen, for Pete's sake.

Just wanted to check if you see how inconsistent you are. I know what I wanted to know, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he did with Lyanna was wrong however everyone is entitled to one mistake

You are not entitled to make the mistake of cheating on your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rheagar was just as wrong as his daddy and Jon Con betrayed his leige lord out of lust/love, gold, profit, prommotion, whatever. The only difference between him and Roose Bolton is that Jon Con openly betrayed Robert and his Oath but in principle, a traitor just the same.

Well if a traitor is a traitor regardless of the individual circumstances then Robert Baratheon is a traitor, and Jon Arryn, and Ned Stark. All traitors....after all they could have served their liege lord like they were supposed to an rolled over and let Aerys murder them. Robb Stark? Also a traitor. Stannis and Renly, all traitors.

Everybody in Robert's Rebellion ended up betraying someone, their King or their Lord.

I agree that RR was probably as justified as a Rebllion could be (I however still disagree with the decision to crown Robert) but Jon Con is not a lickspittle only because he chose to give his loyalty to the side you don't like. If we follow that logic it's just as easy to say that everybody who sided with Robert is a Baratheon lickspittle and traitor to their king.

And NO, i do not say that it was a-ok for Rhaegar to run off with the bethrothed of one of his chief bannermen (regardless of her being willing to participate in the whole thing or nor) nor do I say Aerys should have been allowed to murder anybody he doesn't like. Just I won't fault houses for not wanting to participate in what (at the time) looked like a lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes down to principles, Right vs Wrong, Just vs Unjust. Robert and Ned for that matter committed no crime against Aerys or Rheagar. None whatsoever. What Jon Connington did warrants beheading, taking the Black etc. I cannot stand Jon Connington. He was a betrayer, turncloak etc. Gay love or not does not justify what he did to Robert and what he would have done if he got the chance.

Robert's Rebellion is just the catchy name for the War but in reality, it may have been called or should have been called the War for Justice ect. Rheagar, Aerys and House Targaryen earned the uprising and defeat.

I cannot understand why some people condemn Robert for fighting the war when he was condemned to die for nothing if he did not.

Exactly. It was the tyranny of Aerys and Rhaegar that started the rebellion. 

A better name for Robert's Rebellion would be The War of Westerosi Liberation, or The Lord-Paramounts Uprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet in your original rant you concentrated on, how was it? Oh, "notably, Rheagar's gay admirer". Half the realm sided with the dragon against the stag, more than half to be precise, yet you decided to single out Jon Connington of all people. Notable among Bob's feats were three battles fought in one day against his three bannermen, for Pete's sake.

Just wanted to check if you see how inconsistent you are. I know what I wanted to know, thank you.

Connington was Robert's direct bannerman. He betrayed his own leige lord. Robert was "innocent". He had to wage war as his head was called for, for "nothing", unless being the betrothed of the woman the married crown prince ran off with and or kidnapped etc. The fact that Connington was gay is not a bash against gay people but it cuts the matter of why he did what he did. He had a crush on Rheagar and that caused him to dishonor himself and his house by siding with a cruel and unjust dynasty against his own leige lord to whom he is sworn obedience. Jon Connington was a major bannerman in the Stormlands and was appointed Hand of the King to Aerys, partially due to his "devotion" to Rheagar and also to sap some of the Stormlands military away from Robert.

Edited by A Ghost of Someone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if a traitor is a traitor regardless of the individual circumstances then Robert Baratheon is a traitor, and Jon Arryn, and Ned Stark. All traitors....after all they could have served their liege lord like they were supposed to an rolled over and let Aerys murder them. Robb Stark? Also a traitor. Stannis and Renly, all traitors.

Everybody in Robert's Rebellion ended up betraying someone, their King or their Lord.

I agree that RR was probably as justified as a Rebllion could be (I however still disagree with the decision to crown Robert) but Jon Con is not a lickspittle only because he chose to give his loyalty to the side you don't like. If we follow that logic it's just as easy to say that everybody who sided with Robert is a Baratheon lickspittle and traitor to their king.

And NO, i do not say that it was a-ok for Rhaegar to run off with the bethrothed of one of his chief bannermen (regardless of her being willing to participate in the whole thing or nor) nor do I say Aerys should have been allowed to murder anybody he doesn't like. Just I won't fault houses for not wanting to participate in what (at the time) looked like a lost cause.

I believe the war was over justice/injustice. Some times there must be a regime change. If Aerys could do what he did and tried to do to Robert and Ned, what was to keep him from doing it to others as well? Who would be next? Rheagar did nothing to defuse the situation that he instigated. I also agree that Robert should not have been crowned. I think the Iron throne should have been disolved.  As far as Connington goes, he made a choice when he clearly had one. He chose the side of injustice and for reasons we know why. The rebellion forces were up against the wall. Jon Arryn knew he would be declared a traitor for not taking Ned and Robert's heads so he called his banners too. Ned became instantily betrothed to Cat when Brandon died, as custom. The Tulley's would be fighting no matter what due to their location on Westeros. Hoster Tulley guaranteed his full support when he got Jon Arryn to marry Lysa.  Not lickspittles, they were fighting for their lives, not for profit or greed. That would be House Lannnister when it was clear Robert and his allies would win.

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

×