Jump to content
Sunandspear

Would you prefer if Rhaegar won?

Recommended Posts

Even if you were in an arranged marriage, and the concept of divorce didn't exist?

Then you should let your wife cheat on you too. open relationship. 

in fact, whole westeros is full of arranged marriages, but still people think cheating is not a good thing. 

Why?

by your logic, if it is an arranged marriage, you should feel free to cheat. it is right thing to do. 

But people still think it lowly. 

And Marriage vow cursed the people get between husband and wife. 

Edited by purple-eyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I think one has to look a bit to the history that could have been by looking for potential sources of inspiration from the English, French and Scottish histories that GRRM has admitted to being inspired by.

A lot of the issues that surround Robert's Rebellion have parallels to the Barons Wars which led to the signing of the Magna Carta and the establishment of Parliament--especially with the rumored "Southron Ambitions" alliance between Hoster, Jon and Rickard.

Additionally you have a call to French history with Aerys playing the role of Charles VI, but a far more dangerous kind of "mad" than Charles ever posed (though Charles VI did try to kill his brother, Louis of Orleans). That puts Rhaegar into the position of Charles' Dauphin, the future Charles VII, who essentially was forced into an inactive role while the English overran the country (until of course Jeanne D'Arc appears). The English in this case being an equivalents for the rebel lords. And Jeanne D'Arc the "Visenya" that Rhaegar apparently wanted desperately.

Rhaegar, however also has a touch of King John, who put aside his first wife (John though had no children by her) and interferes with two of his powerful bannermen from forming an alliance through marriage by abducting the teenage girl meant to be married, Isabella of Angoulême. This of course led to a split between John and his liege (in France), King Phillip. Which likely would have gone a similar route had Aerys not gotten distracted by Brandon's words.

Viserys likely pops up in the manner of Arthur of Brittany to Rhaegar's King John at some point, spurred by rumors of the declaration that Aerys makes of wanting Viserys to rule after him, not Rhaegar, and likely finding allies among the disaffected rebels he gives false "sympathy" for.

So there's a lot of ways, given the potential historical inspirations and blending going between French and English history predominantly that there are many different outcomes for Westeros. Everything from Westeros forming a permanent "Great Council" with Harrenhal as its meeting spot (establishing a pseudo early Parliament scenario) to Rhaegar finding the mother to his war-like "Visenya" in the oddest of places (common origin) who appears at the right time to re-inspire the loyalists in Rhaegar's defense (Jeanne D'Arc scenario), to Rhaegar being forced to deal with his brother harshly and with news of that getting out, his loyalists turn on him (Arthur of Brittany scenario).

A whole world of potential. Though given the historical inspirations that I managed to tease out (and do so off the cuff--I'm sure I'd find more if I gave a more thorough examination), only making him Charles VII does Rhaegar really turn out well. The others continue the decline of power and prestige of House Targaryen has been in since Aegon III, if not accelerating it to some degree.

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.

And I think there are some clear similarities between Rhaegar and Baelor, although Rhaegar got dealt a tougher hand. Rhaegar was executing his plans but for a naive reason threw it away, just like Baelor, with Blackfyres on the doorsteps, threw his own life away to save a hedge knight and avenge a puppeteer. If we're calling Rhaegar a fool for going for Lyanna, then Breakspear is also a fool for standing up for Duncan. If Baelor had not taken part in the Trial by Seven then Westeros would, most likely, have had a much stronger and loved king to take the throne after Daeron instead of Aerys who let Bloodraven rule and so give much credit to the Blackfyres and set the stage for further strife.

In regards to plan, Rhaegar was executing them as well in the Tourney at Harrenhall,but got sidetracked, to the sorrow of the realm. I do not however make excuses that going after Lyanna was a mistake, but it was a mistake that was to a large degree made larger by people acting outside of Rhaegar's influence, unless you think that he can warg people across the continent, as some posts seems to think.

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.

The point I was making is that if a bunch of Great Lords gets onboard with it, they can do it, and both Arryn and Tully had the connections to make a rebellion into reality and remove Aerys. It would absolutely have been a good thing to see Rhaegar on their side but even so the rebels did manage to overcome the Targaryens with both king and crown prince arrayed against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

While I agree with the principles of justice and injustice and that sometimes there has to be a regime change, it is, most of the time, not that simple. Again I agree that the idea that Robert, Ned and Jon were fighting for bare survival....in the beginning. It was not long before Hoster and Jon got thinking how they could gain from the Rebellion and rise in power, and then the idea of putting Robert on the throne was born....greedy power-grabbers...(that lasty remark was tongue-in-cheek)

But then you coud also say Jon Con was fighting for the survival of the person he loved. I will tell you know that I've never understood the idea that geographic location should decide your loyalties for you, so I won't call Jon Con a traitor simply because he was born in the Storm Lands, but didn't support the LP fate and chance had arbitarily placed above him.

Of course that is a pretty modern way of looking at things; but so is yours, justice was hardly ever a driving point of Medieval politics.

And I disagree STRONGLY with the idea that the Iron Throne should have been dissolved. no one, absolutely no one would be helped by splintering a posterrous realm into neight (nine?) pieces. Look at what a mess Westeros is with the power of the crown merely weakened; imagine what would happen if no crown was left to keep everyone in their place.

The Iron Born would start raiding and raping up and down the western coast again; Dorne and the Reach would be at their throats, the Riverlands would become everybody's bitch again the Crownlands migth become a disputed teritory again etc. etc.

One of the two good things the Rebellion did was securing the continuation of the Iron Throne. I just think they should have held a Great Council to determine the next king.

Ii really don't get where this romanticised view of the Seven Kingdoms splitting up originates from. The futility of nationalism put aside, they aren't even nations (with the posible exception of the Iron Born, who need to be kept under the boot, and the Rhoynar-influenced Dornish) the regions of the seven kingdoms are about as culturally different from each other as US states.

If we get to state our favourite outcomes for the rebellion then; make Westeros an elective Monarchy, weaken the personal power the Kign and Hand have considerably in favour of a council. That would have done steps to ensure that something like Aerys is less likely to happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all we know Rhaegar was even more irresponsible than Robert.

But we don't know... what we know allows for a buttload of interpretations.

Edited by Orphalesion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Snip.

 

 

 

 

 

 

we are not really far off. The geogràhy issue is simply a hereditary issue. When you become lord you take the inheritance and must accept the responsibilities. As far justice, the whole story is guide by the quest for su h from different character's and faction's points of view. Jon con may not be the most dishonorable man in the story but he is none the less.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was making is that if a bunch of Great Lords gets onboard with it, they can do it, and both Arryn and Tully had the connections to make a rebellion into reality and remove Aerys. It would absolutely have been a good thing to see Rhaegar on their side but even so the rebels did manage to overcome the Targaryens with both king and crown prince arrayed against them.

But the thing is, how do you know that they "hadn't bothered" to try? People talk about "southron ambitions" having no clue at all what it really was about. Perhaps it was just about dealing with the Aerys situation. We can infer that there was a triumvirate formed of Arryn, Stark, Tully, and that it's possible there was contact with Lannister too. Simply, we have no idea about what they were intending to do, so you can't say as a fact that they were happy to let Aerys do his thing as long as he didn't interfere with their own domains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the thing is, how do you know that they "hadn't bothered" to try? People talk about "southron ambitions" having no clue at all what it really was about. Perhaps it was just about dealing with the Aerys situation. We can infer that there was a triumvirate formed of Arryn, Stark, Tully, and that it's possible there was contact with Lannister too. Simply, we have no idea about what they were intending to do, so you can't say as a fact that they were happy to let Aerys do his thing as long as he didn't interfere with their own domains.

I used to strong words and you are correct in that we can't know for sure what happened. But we do know that they didn't act before Aerys moved on them. But you are right in that they could have been planning to do something about Aerys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to strong words and you are correct in that we can't know for sure what happened. But we do know that they didn't act before Aerys moved on them. But you are right in that they could have been planning to do something about Aerys.

What exactly would you have had them do? Rebel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly would you have had them do? Rebel?

The point I was arguing against was that Rhaegar was a horrible person and an idiot, while we knew he was trying to do something about his father, and that the rebels were some shinning knights in white armor coming to save the realm from the Targaryens. I believe that the situation was more complex.

Rhaegar was certainly no paladin in that he humiliated his wife to be with a younger woman and that he made a romanitc but foolish move to run away with Lyanna (no, I don't think she was kidnapped) but at the same time he was trying to do something about Aerys, even before that madman had run his course and left for the Seven Hells, and also its clear that he dared to fight Robert in single combat and by all accounts fough as a knight was ideally supposed to, hence the phrases: "Rhaegar fought valiantly, Rhaegar fought nobly, Rhaegar fought honorably. And Rhaegar died."

And on the other side we have the rebels who were most certainly scandalized by Rhaegar and then greviously hurt with murdered family members by Aerys. So in that regard their rebellion was fully justified, but I will not forget that as far as I have read, there was no major effort on the part of the rebels before they were personally affronted, to do anything about Aerys, thus the idea that they are some white knights come to save the realm also seems hollow to me.

I do personally not fault anyone for not rebellion against Aerys but neither will I call those who finally did rebel when they were personally affected by Aerys' actions altruistic heroes untill I get some kind of info from the books or hint from the author that the rebels did have something planned even before their actual rebellion against Aerys.

I hope I make some sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously? Aerys, Robert B even Ned cheated their wife

1. Ned never cheated on his wife

2. Is rape okay since Aerys did it? The kind of logic behind something being okay just because others do it isn't really something I subscribe to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Ned never cheated on his wife

2. Is rape okay since Aerys did it? The kind of logic behind something being okay just because others do it isn't really something I subscribe to.

There are people who thinks that the king can do whatever the king wish and that the law of the realm is essentially his will. Thus by that definition, rape would have been ok, although I strongly disagree with that reasoning for this reason, among other ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly would you have had them do? Rebel?

Well, the whole thing is called a "rebellion", right? :dunno:And the name was well put. A rebellion happen when you defy orders established, in this case, Aerys' authority.

BUT, this only happened after Aerys' authority threatened certain specific important people's lives. Before that, Aerys was committing certain actions no one really cared. Of course, the whole thing has gone through history as "how the rebels removed the dangerous King from the Throne" instead of "how a couple of guys started a rebellion after the King they watched being an asshole for decades but did nothing about finally asked for their heads and threatened their status".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the whole thing is called a "rebellion", right? :dunno:And the name was well put. A rebellion happen when you defy orders established, in this case, Aerys' authority.

BUT, this only happened after Aerys' authority threatened certain specific important people's lives. Before that, Aerys was committing certain actions no one really cared. Of course, the whole thing has gone through history as "how the rebels removed the dangerous King from the Throne" instead of "how a couple of guys started a rebellion after the King they watched being an asshole for decades but did nothing about finally asked for their heads and threatened their status".

But how much would any lord not in King's Landing know about Aerys' behaviour? Ned was Warden of the North and best friend of the King, and he had next to no clue about the general state of the country or Robert's behaviour. So I don't know why we should expect Jon Arryn, Rickard Stark, Mace Tyrell etc. to know about Aerys' crazier behaviour. Most lords were shocked by Aerys' behaviour at Harrenhal, so clearly they didn't know much about his mental state.

But let's say Rickard Stark decided that Aerys was insane and had to go. Who would ally with him? Would Jon Arryn go against his King for no reason? Would Robert Baratheon go along with it? Would Rickard's children side with him? And let's say Rickard emerged victorious and deposed Aerys; what guarantee does he have that Rhaegar wouldn't lop off his head for treason, or hand power back to his father? The lords needed Rhaegar, and Rhaegar needed the lords. Without Rhegar, or another royal claimant, a lord can only remove Aerys by rebelling and hoping that his successor agrees with his decision. But Rhaegar could remove Aerys in a relatively bloodless manner, perhaps even totally bloodless. If anything, Aerys going to Harrenhal should have helped Rhaegar; Aerys was displaying his unstable behaviour, for all the greatest lords to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Ok, I just don't want to get mad at this but it really really REALLY bugs me that JonCon and his actions are always analyzed with a "because he was in love with Rhaegar" undertone and this is seen as bad or a dumbing quality. Cat always acted out of love for Ned and her children, does she deserve condemnation for this? :dunno:

It's very easy to jump and say "jon betrayed his liege lord because he was after the Prince!" in an attempt to use this very D&dish way of thinking to demonize his actions, and by doing this, we're portraying Jon as a man who had no real motivation in life besides being loved by Rhaegar. I mean, he obviously never cared that being Hand of the King and winning the Rebellion would bring himself and his family honour, titles, money and more other benefits. Despite this is a guy who often talks about pride, pride of his name and the love his father had for his lands that he deeply resents to have lost, the only thing he always cared was Rhaegar's dick. And, after he lost all of that, I'm pretty sure that Jon's motivation to rise in the GC was to, when he died, he could go and tell Rhaegar's ghost "hey! are you impressed?!". No, Jon, being a gay man in love of a dude, did everything because he had gay motivations and not because he was a human being with ambitions or personal desire to self-improvement.

The true is that even JonCon, the FANBOY, has also been critical of Rhaegar. "King Aerys was one such. By the end, even Rhaegar saw that plain enough". Here is Jon acknowledging that Rhaegar waited too much to take actions and was in denial about the obvious. The only difference is that his phrasing is more respectful. I mean, it's completely possible to criticise a person without saying mean things about them and belittle their good deeds.

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.

Considering the Rebellion was mostly against Aerys, I'd say that removing Aerys and calling a Council could have been the smartest decision he could have taken, and a way to "soothe" the Rebels (that, of course, if we consider that some of them didn't want political power instead).

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.

Well, Rhaegar being smart, brave and a well loved person is in the books. These same books hint a lot that he had the potential to be a good King. OTOH, can you prove that House Martell was politically offended? Or Baratheon?

Because, while  a Baratheon once rebelled after a Prince snubbed a marriage to his daughter, Robert simply stopped liking Rhaegar (Wow, I'm sure Rhaegar couldn't sleep at night knowing that). In fact, House Baratheon didn't move one finger after Lyanna was "kidnapped", nor House Martell called banners after it was publicly known that Rhaegar was having an affair. No one cared that Rhaegar was either cheating on Elia or cheating with Lyanna. Of course, we can use this to call Rhaegar immoral and I guess, we wouldn't be wrong but we're discussing Rhaegar as a political figure and so far, his actions towards these two women had no consequences from the Houses they belong. I mean, maybe Elia told him she would never sleep with him again or insulted him or even slap him and she would be completely justified. Yet, House Martell still fought for his side and the side of the Targ/Martell children. Idem for house Stark. Rickard only went South to ask for his idiot son. Probably a whole month passed between Lyanna's "abduction" and the whole Realm shrugged.

So, did Rhaegar hurt a bunch of people's feelings? Yes. But this affected the political panorama? Not a bit. :dunno: Rhaegar was so important that it was his death what eventually decided which sides many Houses would take. You think it's coincidence that Tywin didn't act before the Trident? Or that House Tyrell simply camped outside Storm's End? Or that the Greyjoys waited to finally enter the War?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with you JCRB about JonCon. Plenty of Stormlords stayed loyal to Aerys, hell even Stannis had a hard time choosing. So it's very unfair to reduce his decision down to just love. We know JonCon didn't like serving Robert anyway because of his drinking and whoring. JonCon probably had many reasons to choose his king over Robert, with his feelings for Rhaegar just being one of them.

I disagree on the insult though. Brandon Stark was clearly enraged by his crowing of Lyanna, and Robert was apparently not pleased. Now, maybe that doesn't mean anything, but one day Rhaegar is going to need those men. They are the LPs of their respective regions; insulting them without good reason is a poor move. Can you really say that Elia wasn't the least bit offended by it either? And just because nobody rebelled over Lyanna, doesn't make Rhaegar's act any less poor. What if he decides to call on the LPs to remove Aerys one day? Are the Starks and Baratheons more or less likely to help him after he ruins their marriage alliance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaegar might have been a better king than Robert (not a very high bar really) but he'd have a lot harder situation to deal with post-Trident. He has to pacify the North, Riverlands, Stormlands and Vale and then prevent his father from doing something else insane. There would be a lot of ill-feeling during his reign and I don't know if Rhaegar would have been up to the task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's put it that way: you are a lord in Westeros, you are at Harrenhal expecting perhaps a contact from the prince to make a move against the king, which is really dangerous but really necessary, and then you watch the prince crowning Lyanna, thus offending three major houses and sending really doubious messages about his priorities... what are you going to do? Personally, I'd opt to feign ignorance of any plot ideas and hope for better days, as I am certainly not thowing my lot with Rhaegar after this performance; not really a show of dependability from his part, I say... There is a reason it was called "the moment all smiles died", and that's not Ned's supposed subjectivity, but the objective and very real potential of even more turmoil, independently of intentions. 

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

×