Jump to content
Sunandspear

Would you prefer if Rhaegar won?

Recommended Posts

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".

You know though, I think this kind of a bullshit argument.


The key idea in this argument is, evidently, "because Arryn and his cohorts acted with selfish motives, their entire rebellion is illegitimate."
But, I don't think that's quite correct. I think most of us acknowledge that people have legitimate selfish interest that they are permitted to protect. It's only when people's selfish interest crosses some moral norm do most of us balk. A key example would be LF's actions. 


The problem with the absolutist bullshit that often gets defended by the KNP is that absolutism doesn't really acknowledge people do have legitimate selfish interest. And, hence, maybe fails to design laws and institutions that protect those interest.


And the fact that Arryn didn't pull the trigger until the lives of two individuals, whom were like sons to him, were threatened does not mean that Arryn was not concerned with Aerys behavior. But, you know, pulling off a successful coup against a monarch isn't easy. And it carries lots of risk. That Arryn,  and people like him, might have been apprehensive is understandable. There is ton of political and military coordination that needs to be done before you pull something like that off. 

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Truest statement. I find it pretty sad that there's all these people wasting their time and energy on hating a fictitious character in a fantasy series, without any real justification or proof. I realize that most of these people can't relate to the character, and, therefore, can't understand or empathize with him either. Good looking, intelligent, talented, charismatic, and popular people are easy to over aggrandize, if you like them, and demonize, if you don't like them. Neither is very fair to the person being opined on. They usually don't appreciate either undeserved extreme. But, they usually understand where it comes from, and often ignore it. Which is the lesson my father taught me when I was young. If you don't like someone, ignore them. Don't talk to or about them and don't let them antagonize you to do so. If provoked, you gave them exactly what they wanted, they win. On the flip side, I was taught that  self praise sucks, and that if you're good enough, people will talk about you, so don't do it yourself. But I learned that that's a double edged sword. Yeah, people's praise was pretty sweet, but all sweet things draw bugs and flies, that only want to come and corrupt it and shit on it and ruin it. None of these are fair to the person in question, but you learn to take the good with the bad and keep moving forward. And you realize that both the love and the hate come from  an obsession or fascination with you. It makes you a polarizing figure whether you like it or not. One thing that causes is that you live under a microscope, everything is magnified, most especially your mistakes, ones that if any regular joe made, they wouldn't be noticed, or, if they were, they wouldn't be discussed or remembered for very long. 

 

My point is, give the guy a break from this endless negative speculation, at least until you have some hard evidence to justify this subjective hateration. Use this wasted time and energy to do something positive, in the REAL world. Go get laid or something else titilating, you'll thank me later.

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".

Is Robb selfish too? Are Aegon, Rhaenys, and Visenya horrible human beings for torching a bunch of people at the Field of Fire? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

And for all we know Moonboy could be the best king ever.

Edited by John Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Robb selfish too? Are Aegon, Rhaenys, and Visenya horrible human beings for torching a bunch of people at the Field of Fire? 

Of course they are. Robb has the mitigating factor that he would not have moved if not in response to a very severe provocation, but the conqueror trio is as horrible as all conquerors. Just decided that they want this piece of land, because they can, and who gives a fuck how the people who live in it feel about it? Later on you have the winner's speech of uniting the realm and ending wars blah blah blah, as a means of post-fact, historical moral legitimization of the conquest. That's a standard procedure of all successful conquests in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Robb selfish too? Are Aegon, Rhaenys, and Visenya horrible human beings for torching a bunch of people at the Field of Fire? 

Robb's situation is different than the Rebels.

Aerys didn't turn mad one day after another one. He was unstable for years and no one cared, even though he was already burning people. It was until Aerys threatened Ned Stark (not even Lyanna), that the Starks (and the Baratheons) made a move. People can go now and say "they did it for the good of the Realm" but it's not.

Robb had no reason to rebel and did nothing that was not provoked. When Ned was imprisoned, he moved his men towards the South as it's customary (the Tyrells have men now in KL after Margaery was also sent to prison). Then the Lannisters attacked the Riverlands, the lands of his mother. Robb is product of a Stark-Tully alliance: it was his obligation to answer to this threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aerys didn't turn mad one day after another one. He was unstable for years and no one cared, even though he was already burning people. It was until Aerys threatened Ned Stark (not even Lyanna), that the Starks (and the Baratheons) made a move. People can go now and say "they did it for the good of the Realm" but it's not.

 

 You know, I have to say, that everytime I see this argument, I just have to think it's pretty much: "RR was illegitimate because the rebels didn't act with most altruistic motives. So golly gee willikers, Aegon or Dany must be the rightful king or queen, just like I've always suspected!!!!!"


And how do you know that nobody, among the rebels, cared about what Aerys was doing? As I pointed out earlier, the rebels probably had plenty of good reasons to be cautious. Removing a Targaryen monarch was not an easy task, since they were plenty of houses that were going to be loyal to House Targaryen no matter what Aerys did, as events in RR showed.


The fact that the rebellion wasn't started with the highest altruistic motives does not make it illegitimate.  Nor does it imply that the rebels acted wrongly.


And your history is a bit off. It wasn't the Starks and the Baratheons that made a move. It was Jon Arryn who made the move, when pressed with the decision to commit murder upon two boys who he probably thought of as sons. What were Ned and Robert supposed to do, after Jon stuck his neck out for them? Leave Jon hanging out to dry? Were they supposed to say, "Sorry Jon, but we really can't help you out on this."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You know, I have to say, that everytime I see this argument, I just have to think it's pretty much: "RR was illegitimate because the rebels didn't act with most altruistic motives. So golly gee willikers, Aegon or Dany must be the rightful king or queen, just like I've always suspected!!!!!"


And how do you know that nobody, among the rebels, cared about what Aerys was doing? As I pointed out earlier, the rebels probably had plenty of good reasons to be cautious. Removing a Targaryen monarch was not an easy task, since they were plenty of houses that were going to be loyal to House Targaryen no matter what Aerys did, as events in RR showed.


The fact that the rebellion wasn't started with the highest altruistic motives does not make it illegitimate.  Nor does it imply that the rebels acted wrongly.


And your history is a bit off. It wasn't the Starks and the Baratheons that made a move. It was Jon Arryn who made the move, when pressed with the decision to commit murder upon two boys who he probably thought of as sons. What were Ned and Robert supposed to do, after Jon stuck his neck out for them? Leave Jon hanging out to dry? Were they supposed to say, "Sorry Jon, but we really can't help you out on this."

I've said this before, but I think it's an important point when criticising the rebels: how much would most lords not in King's Landing even know about Aerys' behaviour? Ned didn't know that Robert, his king and best friend, had turned out the way he did or that the country was financially ruined. So why would Rickard or Jon or Hoster know anything about Aerys' mental state until Harrenhal? I doubt Aerys or the lickspittles surrounding him were telling people 'hey, Aerys is nuts'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they are. Robb has the mitigating factor that he would not have moved if not in response to a very severe provocation, but the conqueror trio is as horrible as all conquerors. Just decided that they want this piece of land, because they can, and who gives a fuck how the people who live in it feel about it? Later on you have the winner's speech of uniting the realm and ending wars blah blah blah, as a means of post-fact, historical moral legitimization of the conquest. That's a standard procedure of all successful conquests in history.

Points taken. Though this is off topic but what are your feelings on Nymeria? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this before, but I think it's an important point when criticising the rebels: how much would most lords not in King's Landing even know about Aerys' behaviour? Ned didn't know that Robert, his king and best friend, had turned out the way he did or that the country was financially ruined. So why would Rickard or Jon or Hoster know anything about Aerys' mental state until Harrenhal? I doubt Aerys or the lickspittles surrounding him were telling people 'hey, Aerys is nuts'.

Well that's a good point.


But there is another point I'd like to make. I think we can openly acknowledge the rebels' faults and be candid about it. There are things about RR that I do not like. But none of those faults or things automatically make Dany or Aegon righful queen of Westeros. None of those faults or things give Dany or Aegon some automatic right to show up to the North, the Vale, or the Riverlands and to demand immediate and unconditional submission by those regions.


Really, I don't care who winds up on the IT. But, the notion of either Targaryen claimant having an absolute and automatic right to bully the former rebel houses back into submission, because of the rebels faults, annoys me greatly. I think it's difficult to argue that when pressed with the situation that Arryn faced, he, Ned, and Robert acted unreasonably by rebelling against House Targaryen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting for sure. Ned sent to the wall , either the Freys or the Darrys  the paramount in the Riverlands , Jon Snow now the bastard of Dragonstone , Cercei marries Rhaegar to give him a daughter . No dragons, Daenerys married to Viserys . Tywin made the hand to the king . Varys still plotting . Benjen a hostage in King's Landing . Young Robb new lord of Winterfell .

SOMETIME THE NEW KING IS THE SAME AS THE OLD KING

 

Edited by BRANDON GREYSTARK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Rhaegar was never trying to do something about his father though. What he actually did was think about doing something and never went through with it. There's a difference and you don't deserve any praise for having just thought that something should have been done. If Rhaegar had actually taken steps to dispose his father than he should get praise for. Instead by Rhaegar's own mouth before he left for the Trident he never took those roads. He didn't do anything.

 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?

Sorry but that's just not true

The king touched her cheek, his fingers brushing across the rough stone as gently as if it were living flesh. "I vowed to kill Rhaegar for what he did to her."

Robert didn't just do nothing and wasn't offended or didn't care, he vowed to kill Rhaegar for what he did to her. He was absolutely pissed when he found out, enough that he decided that Rhaegar had to die.

As to the idea that Robert and Ned did nothing about Lyanna's abduction and didn't care until their own heads were called for, again that's not true, and has unfortunately been spread among the community as a genuine belief, because it's just a huge distortion that completely ignores the context of the situation that Robert and Ned were under when everything went down: Robert and Ned were in the Eyrie. Saying that they did nothing when they weren't in their own lands to do anything about it is just ridiculous. Exactly how do you think that Ned or Robert are supposed to do anything about the affronts done to them, when they have no armies at their disposal to do anything? They are entirely in Jon Arryn's mercy at the moment... which is why the rebellion starts with Jon and not them. Because Jon was in the position that they weren't in to start the war. What did you want them do exactly? Ride in to King's Landing by themselves? They need their armies and that requires them to first go home.

Like actually think about that for a second. Jon Arryn calls his banners and starts the war... and what happens to Ned and Robert? They go home and do the same. Not Jon Arryn calls his banners and starts the war and Ned and Robert call their banners from the Eyrie and fight side by side Jon's army until the northern and Stormlands armies can all unite somewhere somehow. Because that can't happen. Ned and Robert need to first get out of the Vale before they can ever do anything. Which is literally exactly what happens. They get out of the Vale and immediately call their banners when they actually can.

And even without all that, saying Ned and Robert did nothing first entirely presumes that they ever even knew that anything had happened until the message from Aerys arrived at Jon Arryn's castle asking for their heads. Which is never stated in the books. It's a complete invention to say that they knew that Lyanna had been kidnapped, that Rickard and Brandon had died, etc. and did absolutely nothing about it until their own deaths were called for. All the books actually say is that when Aerys called for their heads, with no mention at all of why, they revolted

His eyes found hers, and she could see how hard it took him, as she had known it would. In his youth, Ned had fostered at the Eyrie, and the childless Lord Arryn had become a second father to him and his fellow ward, Robert Baratheon. When the Mad King Aerys Targaryen had demanded their heads, the Lord of the Eyrie had raised his moon-and-falcon banners in revolt rather than give up those he had pledged to protect.

There is zero mention anywhere that they knew what all the stakes were prior to this, other than that their own heads had been called for. There is no mention of Ned's reaction to learning about Brandon racing to King's Landing or anything. He might and probably did know about all these events before his own head was called for, but it's never mentioned. Which means that treating it like it was is entirely on you and not on anything that GRRM ever wrote. You are entirely presuming he knew about everything and willingly choose to do nothing. He could have, but don't treat it as fact. It's just as much a "fact" that Ned simply learned everything in the message that called for his head. Nothing's mentioned in the books about what they knew prior to that moment, or when they learned anything at all.

It's all just your presumption that they had to have known, and you "knowing" that they knew and did nothing with the knowledge makes it look like they didn't care.

Truest statement. I find it pretty sad that there's all these people wasting their time and energy on hating a fictitious character in a fantasy series, without any real justification or proof. I realize that most of these people can't relate to the character, and, therefore, can't understand or empathize with him either. Good looking, intelligent, talented, charismatic, and popular people are easy to over aggrandize, if you like them, and demonize, if you don't like them. Neither is very fair to the person being opined on. They usually don't appreciate either undeserved extreme. But, they usually understand where it comes from, and often ignore it. Which is the lesson my father taught me when I was young. If you don't like someone, ignore them. Don't talk to or about them and don't let them antagonize you to do so. If provoked, you gave them exactly what they wanted, they win. On the flip side, I was taught that  self praise sucks, and that if you're good enough, people will talk about you, so don't do it yourself. But I learned that that's a double edged sword. Yeah, people's praise was pretty sweet, but all sweet things draw bugs and flies, that only want to come and corrupt it and shit on it and ruin it. None of these are fair to the person in question, but you learn to take the good with the bad and keep moving forward. And you realize that both the love and the hate come from  an obsession or fascination with you. It makes you a polarizing figure whether you like it or not. One thing that causes is that you live under a microscope, everything is magnified, most especially your mistakes, ones that if any regular joe made, they wouldn't be noticed, or, if they were, they wouldn't be discussed or remembered for very long. 

 

My point is, give the guy a break from this endless negative speculation, at least until you have some hard evidence to justify this subjective hateration. Use this wasted time and energy to do something positive, in the REAL world. Go get laid or something else titilating, you'll thank me later.

Why focus on and speak negatively of only those who think negatively of the character? If you were unbiased you should be saying that it's pretty sad that there's also tons of people who love a fictional character that they don't really know seeing as none of us really know Rhaegar as he's been dead for 15 years by the time the books start, and that they should all instead go out and get laid. You can't just say that it's stupid to hate the character without having enough proof to "warrant" it, but not say that it's equally as stupid to love that same character. Everybody has the exact same amount of space in the books dedicated to Rhaegar which is extremely slim. There's not suddenly 200 pages in AGOT or AFFC painting Rhaegar as this guy who deserves nothing but love for everything that he did as he never did anything horribly wrong and was a saint.

You come across as a hypocrite, or at worst somebody who's just bullshitting and really just doesn't like that people don't like a character that you personally do.

Robb's situation is different than the Rebels.

Aerys didn't turn mad one day after another one. He was unstable for years and no one cared, even though he was already burning people. It was until Aerys threatened Ned Stark (not even Lyanna), that the Starks (and the Baratheons) made a move. People can go now and say "they did it for the good of the Realm" but it's not.

Robb had no reason to rebel and did nothing that was not provoked. When Ned was imprisoned, he moved his men towards the South as it's customary (the Tyrells have men now in KL after Margaery was also sent to prison). Then the Lannisters attacked the Riverlands, the lands of his mother. Robb is product of a Stark-Tully alliance: it was his obligation to answer to this threat.

And exactly what did Aerys ever do before he called for Ned and Robert's heads that was so utterly unstable and required the lords of the realm to have attempted to oust him as you seem to think they should have because of it?

Like you mention that he was burning people, but left out that he was burning criminals who had lawfully received the death sentence and that was his method of execution. He wasn't burning people who had done nothing wrong, he was killing the criminals of the realm. Same as if he'd just had someone hang them or cut their head off. He was executing people, not murdering anybody.

The truth is that there isn't anything. Aerys never did anything before he called for Ned and Robert's heads, which had no justification or warrant, that was terrible for the realm and required action because it was just completely and utterly mad. Which is why nobody ever did anything or wanted to do anything. Because they didn't need to as Aerys was not fucking up the realm in any way. The Mad King earned his nickname at the end of his reign, not across decades of unsupported and completely unreasonable policies and actions which made no sense and couldn't be supported. Maybe he was a little odd and jumped around between ideas, but he wasn't doing anything that wasn't letting the realm run perfectly fine.

Edited by King of the Narrow Sea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

Yeah that's right House Martell had a choice, it's not as though House Targaryen (not only Aerys) was keeping Elia and her children in hostages, it's not as though they had more to lose with a victory from the rebels which happened by the way. But sure, they were fighting for the great Rhaegar :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

We have nothing to show that he was executing any plans. All we know is that he might have had some plans and that he spoke of "roads not taken". While I agree that Rhaegar got dealt a tougher hand, I can't see anything indicating that he did anything to deal with it at all. At Harrenhall, if he ever had any plans, he threw them all away for crowning Lyanna, aka insulting three great Houses at one. Nowhere close to Baelor. And that's without even going into what he did later.

 

Personally, I think Baelor was something of a fool. Not nearly as bad as Rhaegar, though. He didn't have a mad father, he had an adult son and grandchildren on the way. There was no way to anticipate something like the Great Spring Sickness which didn't have anything remotely this lethal ever beforehand. Rhaegar had all the reasons to expect problems after his great escape to love or prophecy realm.

 

Anyway, I was left with the impression that you presented Rhaegar as someone as great as Baelor, not as stupid as Baelor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Rhaegar was never trying to do something about his father though. What he actually did was think about doing something and never went through with it. There's a difference and you don't deserve any praise for having just thought that something should have been done. If Rhaegar had actually taken steps to dispose his father than he should get praise for. Instead by Rhaegar's own mouth before he left for the Trident he never took those roads. He didn't do anything.

I disagree. Varys whispered to Aerys that Rhaegar meant to use the tourney against him, with the lords gathered and all, and as far as I know Varys would be the guy to know about how this works. Also I'm willing to cut some slack for Rhaegar in regards to the difficulty of getting a rebellion underway. Aerys is a paranoid nutcase and has Varys to supply him with information. When combining those two I don't find it odd that Rhaegar has to move slowly and cautiously to avoiding having his father execute him because some greedy servant of lickspittle lord informed on the prince.

But I agree that Rhaegar never took the road to force a confrontation with his father and see which side the lords took. Maybe it was a mistake in hindsight.

We have nothing to show that he was executing any plans. All we know is that he might have had some plans and that he spoke of "roads not taken". While I agree that Rhaegar got dealt a tougher hand, I can't see anything indicating that he did anything to deal with it at all. At Harrenhall, if he ever had any plans, he threw them all away for crowning Lyanna, aka insulting three great Houses at one. Nowhere close to Baelor. And that's without even going into what he did later.

 

Personally, I think Baelor was something of a fool. Not nearly as bad as Rhaegar, though. He didn't have a mad father, he had an adult son and grandchildren on the way. There was no way to anticipate something like the Great Spring Sickness which didn't have anything remotely this lethal ever beforehand. Rhaegar had all the reasons to expect problems after his great escape to love or prophecy realm.

 

Anyway, I was left with the impression that you presented Rhaegar as someone as great as Baelor, not as stupid as Baelor.

In regards to Rhaegar meaning Balor reborn I meant it with both ideas. He's clearly chivalrous or at least remembered as it, while also prone to the folly that brought Breakspear his death. Also I don't think that Rhaegar was much more foolish than Baelor since only luck prevented one of Maekar's sons from being killed and shielded Baelor from getting into a blood feud with his own brother, or his sons if Maekar had died, and if you don't think that would have been destructive then I don't know what would have been with Bittersteel and the Blackfyres plotting across the sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I prefer the books as they are.

That way, I can enjoy the utter annihilation of house Baratheon much more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's baffling how many people on these forums are siding with the mad king in RR.

Edited by John Doe

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.

1. Well according to what he said he did.

2. No one knows whether it was rape or if it was consensual. The way Ned speaks about Rhaegar, he seem to believe that it was the latter. Thing about it, if you're a woman and has a choice whom would you choose, the elegant and romantic crown prince who can make people cry with his harp or the idiotic oaf who soiled his brother's wedding bed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. No one knows whether it was rape or if it was consensual. The way Ned speaks about Rhaegar, he seem to believe that it was the latter. Thing about it, if you're a woman and has a choice whom would you choose, the elegant and romantic crown prince who can make people cry with his harp or the idiotic oaf who soiled his brother's wedding bed?

Well, one is an oaf who probably won't remain faithful, whilst the other is an elegant prince who is being unfaithful to his wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's baffling how many people on these forums are siding with the mad king in RR.

then you will feel even more confused that why so many people did not want to side with the rebellion:

people in seagull town, people in Stromlands, people in riverlands, people in Iron islands, people in Dorne, etc. 

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

×