Can we officially call Rhaegar a jerk now?

[purple-eyes]

Some people seem to be confusing book Rhaegar and show Rhaegar.

Book Rhaegar clearly was very into prophecy. his whole life was shaped by prophecy he read in his childhood. He might love Lyanna, but this is not the reason he ran away with her and hid for whole year.

He did what he did in order to make sure a destiny baby will be safely conceived and born, not to make sure he can have some hot sex with a northern teenager in the middle of nowhere while his realm is bleeding.

But show Rhaegar is totally another story. So far there is no prophecy related to him (does not look like D&D will add this for Rhaegar either). And Elia was not declared to be barren either.

Therefore his motivation is straightforward and clear: he desires and wants Lyanna (and Lyanna him), nothing else.

I will give credit to book Rhaegar because he at least partially did it for the greater good. If Elia can give him one more child, book Rhaegar would never run away with Lyanna, no matter how much love he has for her.

But the show Rhaegar is just a horny jerk who was driven by crazy love, completely forgot his duty as a crown prince and was very mean to his wife and trueborn children. Another Aegon IV. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Wildling Queen]

31 minutes ago, purple-eyes said:

Some people seem to be confusing book Rhaegar and show Rhaegar.

Maybe so, and that certainly wouldn't be a first for me.  I am assuming, though, that some of what happens in the show is based on certain things to come in the books, Jon's legitimacy being confirmed would be one of them.

[Hodor the Articulate]

In the show, yes. It's one thing to set aside your wife from a political marriage, but to have your kids be removed from the line of inheritance, and use the alliance granted to you by your original marriage, to fight for you? That's downright coldhearted. The showrunners are going have a hard time making me believe R+L was a love match. Their Rhaegar doesn't seem capable of that kind of emotional attachment to another human being.

The most frustrating thing about this is, I don't think D&D meant for us to see this action as anything bad. I doubt they even considered the implications of having Rhaegar do this massively shitting thing, or if it was even plausible. They just wanted Jon be legitimized for some reason and this was the quickest way to get there (that they could think of).

Why oh why did I start watching this show again???

[Wildling Queen]

3 minutes ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

In the show, yes. It's one thing to set aside your wife from a political marriage, but to have your kids be removed from the line of inheritance, and use the alliance granted to you by your original marriage, to fight for you? That's downright coldhearted. The showrunners are going have a hard time making me believe R+L was a love match. Their Rhaegar doesn't seem capable of that kind of emotional attachment to another human being.

Didn't Barristan Selmy, the only person we've seen in the show who was really close to Rhaegar, tell Daenerys that her brother was a good and decent man? And I'm not sure ending a marriage delegitimizes those children.

[Lord Varys]

16 hours ago, anjulibai said:

Yeah, this seems really shitty for Rhaegar and not something he'd do. Polygamous marriage, yes, but not annul one marriage and make his elder children bastards. What would the grounds be? 

Not sure how a polygamous marriage is any better in a strictly monogamous society. Love is irrelevant there, though. Rhaegar and Elia weren't in love, they entered into an arranged marriage. But Rhaegar had a duty to his wife and his children from that marriage. An annulment would have made the children bastards and Elia basically a whore. Another wife would have confused the succession down the road and most likely led to another Dance eventually.

As to Elia:

The chances that Rhaegar granted her a 'love life' of her own or anything like that is just crap. She was his wife, and having her cuckold him would dishonor him and the royal family and Crown. Not to mention that this would be high treason.

But allowing her to sleep around would still retroactively cast doubt on the parentage of Elia's children, so Rhaegar may have taken another wife but there was no chance that Elia could have an official or unofficial paramour.

Especially not while Rhaegar still wanted sons from her. He sure as hell wanted children that were his own seed, and not the children of some other dude.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

Annulment doesn't make Rhaenys and Aegon bastards.

The whole point of marrying Lyanna and not just having a child by her was for all three children to be legitimate, because Rhaegar thought Aegon was the Prince Who Was Promised and that there needed to be three heads of the dragon.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

35 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not sure how a polygamous marriage is any better in a strictly monogamous society.

Targaryens have had multiple spouses at the same time before, though not for many generations.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

2 hours ago, Emilyll said:

Annulments in the Middle Ages did NOT automatically make the children bastards. Children were considered legitimate if it was agreed their parents had married in good faith (isn't that still the case in the Catholic Church?) and many royal wives agreed to an annulment under the condition that their children were protected.   

Henry VIII declared his daughters illegitimate as part of his fight with their mothers. 

Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis had a papal order declaring their daughters legitimate as part of their anulment agreement.  She was in an unusually powerful position and wanted the anulment herself, which could serve as a framework if Elia's story is  an amicable one.  

Exactly. And this is a culture where divorce doesn't exist.

[redtree]

3 hours ago, Emilyll said:

Annulments in the Middle Ages did NOT automatically make the children bastards. Children were considered legitimate if it was agreed their parents had married in good faith (isn't that still the case in the Catholic Church?) and many royal wives agreed to an annulment under the condition that their children were protected.   

Henry VIII declared his daughters illegitimate as part of his fight with their mothers. 

 

Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis had a papal order declaring their daughters legitimate as part of their anulment agreement.  She was in an unusually powerful position and wanted the anulment herself, which could serve as a framework if Elia's story is  an amicable one.  

Annulment = No marriage, not break of marriage. It means scrubbing clean the whole relationship.

Regarding Eleanor
1. She was set to inherit duchy of Aquitane, the largest and richest province in France. Back then the duchy's area was 1/3 of modern France (larger than England) itself making her possibly much richer than the king of France. I'm sure this did something to influence the Pope.
2. The reason for their annulment was consanguinity within fourth degree without knowledge of an impediment, which was also why the children were still legitimate. Rhaegar couldn't have used this reason, he himself was the product of incest marriage

[ummester]

2 hours ago, Lurid Jester said:

Ned is standing with his family. Robert was his best friend but it wasn't until after he became King that he started showing obvious character flaws.. like a willingness to kill children.  At that point he has to stand with Robert, or do you think he should rebel against the crown? 

If he truly regarded his honour above all else, yes, Ned would have rebelled against the crown - I mean he basically did in the end anyway, by refusing to kill Dany and throwing the hand at Robert, so why didn't he do it earlier? By compromising, Ned ultimately proved Jamie's quote about there being too many vows.

Also, as is said in the Nights Watch, 'Love is the death of honour' and Ned is living proof of that, as he put his love for his family above his honour.

I'm not trying to say what's right and wrong, everyone makes choices - just trying to show that Ned's honour is way overrated.

[Lurid Jester]

6 minutes ago, ummester said:

I'm not trying to say what's right and wrong, everyone makes choices - just trying to show that Ned's honour is way overrated.

Let me direct your attention to your previous post where you are doing just that.

6 hours ago, ummester said:

He's a hypocrite for waging war and a big pussy for keeping Jon's parentage a secret.

So he's brave enough to march to war with Robert, hes honest enough to tell Robert he's a fat arse but he's too chicken shit to tell Robert and his wife that Jon is the Targ heir. Is Ned a man of principles or not? He seems to bee honourable when he can and honest only when it suits him - they are not pick and chose principles, you either live by them or not.

Seems pretty clear where you put Ned in your spectrum of what is right or wrong.  

[Mikkel]

16 hours ago, ummester said:

Rhaegar is a jerk and Lyanna is a home wrecker.

Rhaegar was always a jerk, but now it's official

16 hours ago, Newstar said:

I love how fans have been saying that Dany should supposedly STFU about being the rightful queen because Robert took the throne by force and that she's arrogant and entitled for thinking otherwise, but the moment it's revealed that Jon is Rhaegar's legitimate son, he's suddenly the rightful king. If Dany's claim doesn't entitle her to be queen of Westeros because Robert took the throne and kicked out the Targs, then neither does Jon's

I don't think those are the same people, though. It does mean Dany doesn't even have a claim, as Jon's claim supersedes hers, but Dany's (now Jon's) claim was invalid from the get-go so it hardly matters (in my opinion, I have no doubts that the show will make it a thing).

Dany has even less of a leg to stand on when it comes to calling herself the rightful queen now, but it just means she has to own up to being exactly what she is: a foreign invader who wants to rule, and fuck the consequences. Just like her ancestors.

[ShadowKitteh]

I don't understand how Rhaegar is a jerk.

Setting aside a loveless marriage, doesn't make anyone a jerk.

Setting aside a loveless marriage with a barren wife when you need an heir you know to be your own blood when the other children were in doubt, is survival. (And believing he needed three children only made the need greater.)

There's a lot assuming in this thread as to what annulment means in Westeros.

As for Elia's children being declared bastards, in the US, legal annulment isn't the same as the Catholic Church's definition. Until we find out if it means anything more than Sam stated, I don't see the need to assume the rules are anything more.

[Damon_Tor]

16 hours ago, VenezuelanLord said:

To be fair i dont think the annulment affected Aegon and Rhaenys status as heirs, they were conceived and birthed inside the marriage, he was obsessed with the prophecy of the ptwp and the dragon has three heads, he just wanted his third legitimate son i guess

An annulment isn't a divorce: an annulment says "this marriage was never valid in the first place". It makes it so they were never married.

[storm.131]

7 hours ago, Ygrain said:

Eh, only in theory. There were quite a couple of scandals, with secret marriages or lovers/mistresses which were not supposed to be, either. 

Seriously?  Of course there were exceptions but they are irrelevant to how the majority of people lived in medieval Europe.

It's interesting that you ignored the main point of my comment.

[Noneofyourbusiness]

28 minutes ago, Damon_Tor said:

An annulment isn't a divorce: an annulment says "this marriage was never valid in the first place". It makes it so they were never married.

Not in this definition. Sam even said "sets aside his lawful wife". The voided marriage was still lawful, and he'd want to maintain good relations with Dorne much like the Eleanor of Aquitaine example above. Rhaegar thought his first son Aegon was the Prince That Was Promised and certainly wasn't about to de-legitimize him.

Anyways, I looked it up on Wikipedia: "Some worry that their children will be considered illegitimate if they get an annulment. However, Canon 1137 of the Code of Canon Law specifically affirms the legitimacy of children born in both valid and putative marriages (objectively invalid, though at least one party celebrated in good faith)."

[Mikkel]

30 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

As for Elia's children being declared bastards, in the US, legal annulment isn't the same as the Catholic Church's definition. Until we find out if it means anything more than Sam stated, I don't see the need to assume the rules are anything more.

This may come as a shock to you, but Westeros isn't the US. Yes, of course I'm being facetious  In Westeros, annulment means the marriage was void from the beginning, and any children from this marriage are now considered bastards (it's Henry the 8th levels of assholery, really). Maybe it's some sort of "well she was cheating on me, anyhow" kinda deal, like Renly's plan way back when to get Robert to "set aside" Cersei for Margaery.

 

[of man and wolf]

He was a jerk like all the Targs. Robert smashed him and westeros was better off.

[Lord Varys]

1 hour ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Annulment doesn't make Rhaenys and Aegon bastards.

The whole point of marrying Lyanna and not just having a child by her was for all three children to be legitimate, because Rhaegar thought Aegon was the Prince Who Was Promised and that there needed to be three heads of the dragon.

Sure, it does. And it most certainly does in the show. The point of an annulment is to erase a marriage from existence. It never happened. That means your children are no longer born in wedlock. How could they, if there wasn't a marriage in the first place?

The show really wants to send that message. Else they would simply have used the concept of divorce. But the status of Rhaegar's children in the show is pretty much irrelevant anyway, considering that they are dead and gone.

For the books there is no reason to assume that Rhaegar had an annulment. And certainly not with some named High Septon in Dorne. That's ridiculous and shows that the writers don't have any respect for George's vision there. High Septons don't have names. And they don't live in Dorne.

1 hour ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Targaryens have had multiple spouses at the same time before, though not for many generations.

That isn't the point. The point is that Elia had not reason to assume she was marrying some future bigamist. And neither did House Martell when they brokered that deal. The very idea that Elia could be replaced by another wife or have to share Rhaegar with another wife is insulting.

It would have been an outrageous insult, both to Elia personally - because she had given Rhaegar two healthy children - as well as to her house and all Dorne. And in the eyes of any sane, respectable, and pious noble family this behavior would have been a symptom of Targaryen madness. Rhaegar may not have been clinically insane as his father but with this kind of behavior he really earns his place among the mad Targaryens.

Women and families living in some Islamic country (or some Mormon splinter group) might find the prospect of sharing a husband alluring and 'normal'. But polygamy simply isn't a thing in Westeros, never mind the fact that there were some exceptions from the rule in the distant past.

Also keep in mind that while various kings - both Targaryen kings and others - set wives aside in the past there is no such precedent for a royal prince. Even Prince Daemon dared not defy his royal brother Viserys I when he wanted to rid himself of his Royce wife.

That doesn't mean Rhaegar wasn't stupid enough to take a second wife - but he wouldn't have had any means to enforce such a wedding against the Faith or convince the Faith (without the support of the king) to grant him an annulment. Rhaegar had neither a dragon nor an army. In fac

[Noneofyourbusiness]

9 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

In Westeros, annulment means the marriage was void from the beginning, and any children from this marriage are now considered bastards (it's Henry the 8th levels of assholery, really).

That hasn't been stated anywhere.

7 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Sure, it does. And it most certainly does in the show. The point of an annulment is to erase a marriage from existence. It never happened. That means your children are no longer born in wedlock. How could they, if there wasn't a marriage in the first place?

The show really wants to send that message. Else they would simply have used the concept of divorce. But the status of Rhaegar's children in the show is pretty much irrelevant anyway, considering that they are dead and gone.

It didn't mean that historically and, as I quoted from Wikipedia above, it doesn't mean it now either. They didn't use the concept of divorce because Westeros doesn't have that word.