Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

purple-eyes

Can we officially call Rhaegar a jerk now?

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

No, not in so far as setting aside the marriage goes since she already gave birth twice (clearly proving the marriage was consummated, and then some).

I know she was functionally barren, and Raggy wanted three children, but that's a really crappy reason for throwing her aside.

Oh, but I definitely agree on that. Rhaegar was a jerk. Throwing his wife and children aside and embarrassing them for a stupid prophecy... I really hope book Rhaegar is better... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/8/2017 at 5:51 AM, purple-eyes said:

His wife was loyal and dutiful to him. She gave him two children although she is always sickly and fragile. But Rhaegar humiliated her for Lyanna in front of the realm. 

And to make it more cruel, shortly after she almost died giving birth to his son, Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna, annuled his marriage with her secretly (turned their two children into bastards) and disappeared for almost one year. He also took his first son's name Aegon and gave it to his new child with Lyanna since Aegon is a name for future king, not a bastard Waters boy.  As if the first little Aegon has never existed. Baby Aegon, first son of Rhaegar, a one year old boy, will be soon forgotten by everyone, because the only Aegon Targaryen who mattered and beloved is Jon Snow. The first Aegon is just a smashed bloody mess whom nobody cared. 

Did Elia and her brothers know her marriage was annuled before she died? 

We do not know.

But she and her children were abandoned by her ex-husband in DS to the mercy of Mad king, then were kept as hostage before they were brutally murdered. 

10000 Dornish army were sent to help Rhaegar still. Elia's uncle Prince Lewyn died fighting for Rhaegar. At the mean time his niece was already divorced by Rhaegar. 

I understand many people are so overjoyed to see Jon Snow is the rightful heir. They do not care what is the back story, only thing matters is that Jon Snow is legit and has a better claim to throne. Sure, he is Aragorn of Westeros, how come he be a bastard? 

But I wish Rhaegar good luck when he met Elia, Oberyn, Rhaenys waters and his nameless bastard baby son in wherever they go after death. 

Rhaegar and Lyanna had a great shinning love, yet somebody else paid for it with their lives. 

 

 

The things people do for love...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sand11751 said:

Yes. Abandonment of Elia and their children was bad enough, but making it official with an annulment was just cruel.

yes. I hope the books will go about in a different less outright cruel way. I feel even worse for his children who were brutally murdered. Little Rhaenys who hid under her father's bed, the same father who made her a bastard. Damn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of assumptions that the annulment was an embarrassment and FU to Elia without considering whether she had any say in it/had spoke to Rhaegar about it. Just something to consider. Maybe she was not actually opposed to annulling the marriage. Maybe she was opposed to it. But my point is we don't yet know.

 

eta; why might she be happy for the annulment? Various reasons - to get away from Aerys/Kings Landing and try to protect her children, for one. Because she knew the relationship between her and Rhaegar was not great, and wanted to pursue someone else.

And regarding her children being illegitimatised, perhaps she reached an agreement with Rhaegar to legitimise them again and put them back in the succession

Or maybe she didn't. Who knows? It's funny how quickly everyone jumps to the worst assumption though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anullment of the marriage to a Martell in favor of a Stark would have absolutely resulted in another civil war even if Robert had accepted Lyanna's decision in complete good humour. Robert did everyone a favour bashing Rhaegar's chest in before this came to light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I repeat that Rhaegar's actions are instantly explained, and justified, if it is revealed that Elia's children were not fathered by him. The basis has been laid. Arriane gives us the blueprint for Dornish promiscuity, Arriane shows her attraction to Gerold Dayne, the Dayne's have Targaryen features which would give the children Targaryen looks, and George has said that there is more to reveal about Arthur Dayne's backstory.

I am not entirely opposed to the idea but what we know about Elia's personality is completely different from Arianne (or Oberyn), so it's in no way a given.

I would quite like an Arthur-Elia romance like a parallel to Lancelot-Guinevere, but even if they were indeed in love, it doesn't mean that Rhaegar was necessarily cuckolded. For instance, they could have made a mutually convenient agreement that Rhaegar would be free to pursue his own love interest and Elia would pursue hers. Aegon would then marry a daughter by Lyanna, which would eventually get both Martell and Stark blood on the throne, so neither family would be slighted. 

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

If Elia's children are Arthur Dayne's, and Rhaegar realized that he needed trueborn children to fulfill the prophecy, everything falls into place, and Rhaegar is no longer even a douche for doing it.

I don't think that there is a way to completely absolve Rhaegar of any blame, nor that there should be one. People make mistakes, do things they shouldn't. Every single one.

And for the record, I don't consider Rhaegar a douche, I consider him a human being. Living all his life under the shadow of impending death and doom, having a crazy, abusive father who mistrusts him (and I bet Aerys was jealous of him, too), with a wife whom he likes but doesn't love and who nearly dies birthing his children. It seems that before Lyanna, he had never been in love. It doesn't make dumping Elia right (if it is what happened) but it makes shirking his duties, the first time in his life, quite understandable (if it is what happened).

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

EDIT

Interesting is Aerys's reaction to the birth of Elia's first child. He refused to touch the babe, saying she smelt "Dornish". Could that be a hint that both the child's parents were Dornish (Elia and Arthur Dayne, in other words?)

There have been other examples of children taking after a non-Targ parent, so I think all it means is that Aerys was an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

 

 

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The intricacies of papal dispensations and grants of annulments are irrelevant here. You could buy whatever the hell you wanted from the popes, and you still can. Even dispensation for really incestuous marriages.

Chances are that things in Westeros are somewhat simpler. An annulment or a wife that is set aside pretty much goes away. And it should be the same for her children. A man usually wouldn't do such a thing if he cared about the children from such a marriage since there is no reason why on earth a man should not be content with the wife he has if she has given him children. He can still fuck and be with the woman he really loves and is passionate about.

Pretty much nobody in Westeros marries for love. And those who do are morons, defying the customs of the culture they live in. They are basically.

If Rhaegar had had an annulment or set aside Elia somehow it would have reflected on the children from that marriage, too. It would have humiliated them and clearly put the children from the new wife - Lyanna - in a much better position to eventually claim the throne. Because they would have been doubtless Rhaegar's trueborn children while Elia's children either would have been definitely seen as bastards or would have been perceived as having a controversial status.

It could have been a morganatic marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Why shouldn't they just introduce it? They do introduce a lot of their own stuff into the books, why not also the concept of divorce?

The gist of it is the same.

1. Annulment -> dick move for Elia and her children.

2. Bigamy -> dick move for Elia and her children.

 

6 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Huh, I think that's a pretty fair assumption given what we know of the guy. I mean I'm sure he probably didn't intend to be, but look at what he actually did (and did not do). Being irresponsible is not only about intent.

Because the word "divorce" doesn't exist in Westeros and wouldn't fit the characters' linguo, so annulment stands in for it. Of course it's a dick move that would inevitably lead to controversy, but it's a leap to think he was such a complete negligent that he wouldn't take the simple step of decreeing his children still legitimate or try however unsuccessfully to keep Dorne from rebelling by assuring them his son by Elia was still his heir. Rhaegar was a notably charismatic man and a scholar so we know he had diplomatic skills and wasn't a complete idiot. Still, the situation would have been fraught and House Martell would have reason to feel insulted, no one contests that.

One has to wonder who'd get custody of Rhaenys and Aegon. For his PTWP plans, it would be best for Rhaegar to have custody, but Dorne wouldn't like that unless it were sold to them as part of Aegon being heir; a problem somewhat avoided if it's a plural marriage instead as Elia wouldn't have to leave the Red Keep. It seems clear that Rhaegar at least *thought* he could make the best of the situation somehow, and didn't *want* to hurt Elia any more than necessary, but may have been setting himself up for a visit from the Red Viper.

And there's no denying it would be easy for another Dance to happen after Rhaegar's death, because even if he insisted all three of his children were trueborn during his lifetime, supporters of both Aegon and Jon would have arguments to call the other illegitimate, assuming that factions arose supporting them (with or without the boys' volition).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

Rhaegar was a notably charismatic man and a scholar so we know he had diplomatic skills and wasn't a complete idiot

See, that's what everyone says - and yet we have Robert's Rebellion. Granted, Aerys is more to blame than Rhaegar, but clearly Rhaegar was not all that great at judging what consequences his actions would have, or dealing with them once they happened. If he can misjudge Robert and his father to this degree, who's to say he wouldn't misjudge Oberyn or Doran's reaction to annulment.

Now I know in the end all his actions will probably be retroactively justified, because Jon Snow, but there had to be a better way to get that third child than what he did. I'm still holding out hope that the book-version of events makes more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

See, that's what everyone says - and yet we have Robert's Rebellion. Granted, Aerys is more to blame than Rhaegar, but clearly Rhaegar was not all that great at judging what consequences his actions would have, or dealing with them once they happened. If he can misjudge Robert and his father to this degree, who's to say he wouldn't misjudge Oberyn or Doran's reaction to annulment.

Series of dominoes set off by Brandon Stark's impetuousness and Aerys's madness.

12 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

who's to say he wouldn't misjudge Oberyn or Doran's reaction to annulment.

No one. The only part I contest was the assertion without evidence that the annulment would automatically and officially make Rhaenys and Aegon 100% bastards and that Rhaegar would somehow be sanguine about that, which is highly implausible. No one can deny that it's a mess, a fracas, an insensitive move, an insult, and pretext for people to question the legitimacy of both the children of the voided marriage and the children of the second marriage if they're so inclined. Rhaegar must have had a great deal of confidence in his honeyed tongue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Liaraeyne said:

A maester said that birthing another child would mean Elia's death. We can call that barren. 

@OP: yeah, Rhaegar is a jerk. Can't believe he would ditch his first children and kind, dutiful wife like that. I'm still pretty shocked. I hope book Rhaegar will turn out to be better. But Rhaegar was always a little crazy. He never doubted prophecies, which seems dumb to me. He threw his books aside and started training arms on a whim because of some stupid prophecy he found somewhere... that's just weird. Oh well, we'll see. 

 

She birthed 2 children. Rhaegar doesn't have the right to expect a third. Being barren is only an issue if a woman can't have 1. After all, even Henry VIII didn't use that to get a divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Because she birthed a daughter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

No one. The only part I contest was the assertion without evidence that the annulment would automatically and officially make Rhaenys and Aegon 100% bastards and that Rhaegar would somehow be sanguine about that, which is highly implausible. No one can deny that it's a mess, a fracas, an insensitive move, an insult, and pretext for people to question the legitimacy of both the children of the voided marriage and the children of the second marriage if they're so inclined. Rhaegar must have had a great deal of confidence in his honeyed tongue.

Well, we don't disagree. We both allow for the possibility that the children would be considered bastards. I guess we just come down on different sides of the "default" line, that is: I would need to see a good reason why they would not be considered bastards, because generally that's what would happen in a medieval society when a marriage was annulled.

Unless proven otherwise, I don't buy the idea that we should see it as a modern divorce just using a different word to "fit in", when the word used has a very specific meaning both in-universe and out already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory that Elia and Arthur dayne cheated on rhaegar but somehow dayne Was there tô protect baby jon andrefortuna lyanna while his own children and beloved were murdered is how far we got to justificate jon's legitimacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mikkel said:

Well, we don't disagree. We both allow for the possibility that the children would be considered bastards. I guess we just come down on different sides of the "default" line, that is: I would need to see a good reason why they would not be considered bastards, because generally that's what would happen in a medieval society when a marriage was annulled.

The good reason is that Rhaegar would say so. The whole annulment pretext is, as far we know, just because he says so. He couldn't, and wouldn't want to, claim bad faith on Elia's part. He married Lyanna because he wanted to legitimize his children by her, not because he wanted to de-legitimize his other children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

The good reason is that Rhaegar would say so. The whole annulment pretext is, as far we know, just because he says so. He couldn't, and wouldn't want to, claim bad faith on Elia's part. He married Lyanna because he wanted to legitimize his children by her, not because he wanted to de-legitimize his other children.

But he would need some pretext to call for the annulment - the most commonly used one (non-consummation) is obviously out, so what did he use? I agree that the crown prince would probably have the power to "get it done", but he would still need a pretext. Most of the known ones make the previous children bastards (usually on purpose).

I'm not saying it's impossible that there was a loophole somewhere, but until we see what that might be, I don't think it's unfair to assume his previous children would be considered bastards or (at best) with a dubious place in the succession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he did need a pretext. He was making his own rules here. But if he felt he needed one, the obvious one would be Elia's difficulty in having more children. And that shouldn't call into question the legitimacy of the children she'd already had in good faith with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

I don't think he did need a pretext. He was making his own rules here. But if he felt he needed one, the obvious one would be Elia's difficulty in having more children. And that shouldn't call into question the legitimacy of the children she'd already had in good faith with him.

He did need a pretext if he wanted there to be the slightest chance of anyone else accepting it, particularly the church. The days of the Targaryens making their own rules were over. Whether Elias inability to have more children would be an acceptable reason I cannot say, but it would definitely be the first. To the best of my knowledge, "annulment because I want more kids than the two I already have" has never been used in the history of Westeros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 7:42 AM, 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

  Reveal hidden contents

Now what seems odd is that according to the leaks, his name its Aegon, wich its stupid since his firstborn son was named Aegon and was pretty much alive by the time Rhaegar departed for the trident, why name both of them the same? D&D doin it again...

 

I think that everyone is also forgetting or may have missed.  When did he get the annulment & remarry?   Was is 1st wife & children already dead. Where they captured by the mad king?   

 

The haters are really hating, Lol.   Rhaegar never loved his wife, he was forced into the marriage.  I think that by the time that the Torney at Harren Hall came about, there was an agreement between he and his wife.  She was a sickly wormen who could have no more children.  But like it was stated in this thread.  We need to know what he read that changed him.    Him getting an annulment or Divorce from his wife is no different than anyone today doing the same.   I am pretty sure had his other children lived or even Eilia, he would not have just abandoned them.   Once removed his father, I am sure that Eilia & his children would have been taken care of.  He then I am sure would have had issues with Dorne.    But, at least we know ( show wise and I am pretty sure that there will be something very close in the books).   Jon is not a Bastard, & Lyanna was NOT raped & butchered by Rhaegar.   What they did was not smart & left a lot of innocent victims.  However, there is a BIGGER Picture and they paid with their lives for the Bigger picture. A bigger picture that neither Elia or her kids could help with.       However, in the end I do think that Jon will once again give his life for safety of Mankind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Panther2000 said:

Rhaegar never loved his wife, he was forced into the marriage.

Probably true, but it was par for the course, and he's far from the only one who had to go through that, almost every other couple we see is an arranged marriage

6 minutes ago, Panther2000 said:

I think that by the time that the Torney at Harren Hall came about, there was an agreement between he and his wife.

I would like to know what, if anything, you base this on, other than pure conjecture.

7 minutes ago, Panther2000 said:

We need to know what he read that changed him.

Some prophesy or other stipulating that the dragon must have three heads, and he mistakenly assumed that meant his three children. Though his third child, Jon, will obviously prove instrumental in whatever the ultimate endgame turns out to be.

 

2 minutes ago, Panther2000 said:

Him getting an annulment or Divorce from his wife is no different than anyone today doing the same.

 

Patently false. Divorce does not even exist as a concept in Westeros. Marriage, especially among nobles and royalty, was a very different affair than it is today. Even among smallfolk, marriages were also often more of a business transaction than an act of love though, the stakes were just different: a farmhouse instead of a castle, help with the harvest instead of help in war etc.

Divorce today is not a big deal, hell in my home country you can even do it online, assuming it's a mutual decision. Westeros doesn't even have the concept, outside of annulment, which is a very different thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×