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

11 minutes ago, Panther2000 said:

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. 

Rhaegar was killed before Elia and their children.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, SOSRadio said:

Rhaegar was killed before Elia and their children.

 

I thought that they died before he did.    Because the King was already dead.

Share this post


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

I thought that they died before he did.    Because the King was already dead.

He wasn't. Rhaegar died before Aerys did.

Share this post


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

I thought that they died before he did.    Because the King was already dead.

Order of death, from what I recall.

  1. Rhaegar
  2. Aerys
  3. Aegon & Rhaenys 
  4. Ellia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Panther2000 said:

I thought that they died before he did.    Because the King was already dead.

You are a show-watcher, right?

Not mean to offend or anything, I just feel like I got a better idea on how show-watchers takes the fact of Rhaegar's divorce and remarriage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 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.

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.

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?)

Would Ned Stark consider Arthur Dayne the finest knight there ever was if he had betrayed his future King by knocking up said Prince's wife? That doesn't seem likely to me. In fact, it seems incredibly unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I doubt the show will ever mention whether the annulment made Elia's children into bastards or not, because they died and so, who cares? (We do of course, because we're trying to establish a dead character's motivations, but 99% of the audience and probably even the writers don't give a shit). I would think that it did make them bastards, as an annulment makes it so that the marriage was never even a thing. How can you have legitimate children if you were never married?

I think those fans who think Elia was on board with this are looking at her potential motivations with far too modern a view. Her concerns would likely be the legitimacy and safety of her children first, not if the arranged marriage between her and her husband was romantic and happy. Rhaegar marrying again means her own children, whether bastards or not, will always be in danger. Those are the primary concerns of people in this world.

Plus, we already have a Show-Rhaegar parallel in the form of Show-Robb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ummester said:

Yea, so Ned is honest until his family requires him not to be. He's no different to Jamie. Perhaps Jamie is even a little more honest, because at least he doesn't pretend to be an honourable and admits the whole system is flawed.

There is at least one crucial difference between them:  whereas Jaime is willing to pre-emptively kill a child (seven-year old Bran, with his bare hands no less) in order to protect his family, Ned is not.  For example, by warning Cersei to leave King's Landing for the children's sake, Ned effectively risked his own daughters' safety in order to protect Jaime's children who were more immediately in danger, something which Jaime in contrast was definitely not willing to do for Ned's child.  The question of who is more honorable notwithstanding, you're never going to convince me that Ned is not more selfless than Jaime -- perhaps he's even selfless to a fault.  By what right does the wolf judge the lion?  Let me tell you...The wolf takes in the lion cubs (and dragon hatchlings) and suckles them; the lion eats the wolf cubs (and crunches dragonling skulls) for breakfast!  The wolf does what is hard, the lion what is expedient.  I wouldn't say Jaime is more 'honest' than Ned -- he's more cynical.  

20 hours ago, ummester said:

At the time Ned learned about Jon, Robert was not yet the King.

But you are missing the point, if Ned is afraid to tell Robert about Jon, then Robert is causing Ned to go against his honour. If so, why is Ned even standing with Robert? Oh, that's right, because the Mad King killed his dad and bro - probably because his sister was fucking around with the Mad King's son. So Ned is standing by a dishonourable family, either way.

He stands with Robert because Robert was his best friend, like a brother to him -- and he loved him more than anyone else in the world.  You might say that loving Robert was Ned's fatal flaw.  Ned is loyal.  He was only willing to betray Robert in order to protect a child; that's where he drew the line.  The question remains for Jaime's arc:  will he at some point be willing to betray a person he loves -- i.e. Cersei -- in order to protect someone else's child from her, at risk to the wellbeing of his own child?  (that would basically constitute the inverse of what he did to Bran)

13 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.

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.

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?)

Unfortunately, the discussion in this thread has focused on the annulment's outcome instead of the grounds upon which Rhaegar based that annulment, which is probably far more interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, purple-eyes said:

You are a show-watcher, right?

Not mean to offend or anything, I just feel like I got a better idea on how show-watchers takes the fact of Rhaegar's divorce and remarriage. 

I'm a show watcher (although I read the first two books prior to quitting) and my take on Rhaegar's annulment is that it puts Jon as the rightful heir (by blood) to the throne.

There's no mention in the show of half the stuff people are discussing.  Those conversations about Mad King naming an heir don't occur in the show at all so they didn't happen in the show's cannon unless we get some flashback or something in future episodes.

The show really leaves no way for Dany's claim to take precedence over Jon's other than him forgoing all titles/claims when he joined the NW.

In show, there is no Mad King taking Rhaegar out of the line of succession so any discussion of that is irrelevant to the show.

Annulment would make Rhaegar's other children bastards and cause Lyanna's kid (Jon) to be the rightful heir.  It is pretty simple really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/08/2017 at 0:51 AM, purple-eyes said:

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. 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. 

Can you please stop saying that Rhaenys and Aegon are bastards? please, do a little research before saying things, it doesn't hurt.

 

Rhaegar and Elia's marriage was legal, they married under the eyes of gods and men, any children born out of their marriage would be legitimate, and would remain legitimate even when the marriage was annuled/ended.

 

This is from a legal site, to help you understand what an annulment is: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHNrUwAU0AANxRn.jpg:large

"Although most annulments take place very soon after the wedding, some couples seek an annulment after they have been married for years. In that case, the court considers all of the same issues as in a divorce, divides property, and makes decisions about support and custody. Children of a marriage that has been annuled are still legally considered "legitimate" children of that marriage."

 

This is pretty much what says there, Rhaenys and Aegon did not lose their legitimacy. That's not to say, what's the point of Rhaegar taking away the legitimacy of his kids? he wanted three legitimate kids as he himself said: "the dragon has three heads".

 

If Rhaenys and Aegon lose their legitimacy, Rhaegar's plan does not make sense.

 

Quote

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.

Rhaegar did not gave a name to his child with Lyanna, he left the Tower of Joy and died long before the kid was born. If anyone named Jon as Aegon, IT WAS LYANNA, AND BY HER OWN CHOICE. The reason for it, i don't know, but since Elia's Aegon was brutally murdered, one can believe that Lyanna named her kid as an homage to Elia's Aegon, it could be as simple as this.

 

Rhaegar's heir would always be Elia's Aegon, Rhaegar himself says as much:

Quote

The man had her brother’s hair, but he was taller, and his eyes were a dark indigo rather than lilac. “Aegon,” he said to a woman nursing a newborn babe in a great wooden bed. “What better name for a king?”
“Will you make a song for him?” the woman asked.
“He has a song,” the man replied. “He is the prince that was promised, and his is the song of ice and fire.”

This is all the proof you need, Lyanna's son would always come after Elia's son in the line of succession.

Also, let's not kid ourselves and say that Rhaegar ended his marriage to Elia without justification so he could be with his "true love". Rhaegar wanted three kids, he makes it clear:

Quote

“There must be one more,” he said, though whether he was speaking to her or the woman in the bed she could not say. “The dragon has three heads.” He went to the window seat, picked up a harp, and ran his fingers lightly over its silvery strings.

If Rhaegar wanted to annul/end his marriage, he would need a reason/justification, otherwise the High Septon would not do it.

After giving birth to two children, what happened to Elia?

Quote

After the birth of Princess Rhaenys, her mother had been bedridden for half a year, and Prince Aegon’s birth had almost been the death of her. She would bear no more children, the maesters told Prince Rhaegar afterward.

There you have it, instead of getting Elia pregnant again, something that would almost surely kill her, Rhaegar ended the marriage.

He then marries Lyanna, so he can have more legitimate children. His actions are pretty straightforward.

Rhaegar probably loved Lyanna, but i don't think for a minute that he went after her without a reason.

 

Quote

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

Elia most likely knew, because if she did not, it would mean problems for Rhaegar in the future. The best thing Rhaegar could do is make her aware of it, and why he was doing it. This way he would avoid any unnecessary problems with Doran and the dornish in the future.

It was also the honest thing to do, i see no reason for Rhaegar not to tell the mother of two of his children that he was planning to annul the marriage. If Rhaegar was as good as Barristan and those men that followed him to the Trident makes him to be, he would have been honest with Elia.

 

Think this way: if Rhaegar had the courage to face Robert at the Trident, and fought him honorably according to all accounts, why wouldn't Rhaegar face Elia with honor as well?

 

On 14/08/2017 at 0:51 AM, purple-eyes said:

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. 

They were fighting for Elia's children as well, including Elia's son, who would be king after Rhaegar. The dornish did not went to the Trident without reason.

 

Do not make everything be about Elia, it was not. I'm sad that she had the ending she had, especially because she was one of the few characters that seemed genuinely good, but i'm not sad that she had her marriage annuled. If anything, it was the best thing for her to not have to bother having children again.

 

So many people angry on Elia's behalf, but no one knows how she felt. What we know is that she did not have to bother to have children again, since her marriage was annuled. It does not look like the end of the world, far from it actually, the annulment had some good implications for her.

If only the rebellion had not happened, or if Rhaegar had the decency to choose a woman that wasn't betrothed to Robert Baratheon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people now speculating that Elia was cheating? This is pure speculation that there is zero evidence for, conjured up just to whitewash show!Rhaegar and blame the victim of this situation, Elia. Elia is a victim of bad writing that turned her husband into an insensitive oaf and show!Rhaegar doesn't deserve to be defended or for people to bend over backwards trying to find an excuse for him. (And this actually comes from someone who's a huge fan of Rhaegar, only now I know the one I like is the one from the books, not the show)

Share this post


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

Can you please stop saying that Rhaenys and Aegon are bastards? please, do a little research before saying things, it doesn't hurt.

 

Rhaegar and Elia's marriage was legal, they married under the eyes of gods and men, any children born out of their marriage would be legitimate, and would remain legitimate even when the marriage was annuled/ended.

 

This is from a legal site, to help you understand what an annulment is: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHNrUwAU0AANxRn.jpg:large

"Although most annulments take place very soon after the wedding, some couples seek an annulment after they have been married for years. In that case, the court considers all of the same issues as in a divorce, divides property, and makes decisions about support and custody. Children of a marriage that has been annuled are still legally considered "legitimate" children of that marriage."

 

This is pretty much what says there, Rhaenys and Aegon did not lose their legitimacy. That's not to say, what's the point of Rhaegar taking away the legitimacy of his kids? he wanted three legitimate kids as he himself said: "the dragon has three heads".

 

If Rhaenys and Aegon lose their legitimacy, Rhaegar's plan does not make sense.

 

Rhaegar did not gave a name to his child with Lyanna, he left the Tower of Joy and died long before the kid was born. If anyone named Jon as Aegon, IT WAS LYANNA, AND BY HER OWN CHOICE. The reason for it, i don't know, but since Elia's Aegon was brutally murdered, one can believe that Lyanna named her kid as an homage to Elia's Aegon, it could be as simple as this.

 

Rhaegar's heir would always be Elia's Aegon, Rhaegar himself says as much:

This is all the proof you need, Lyanna's son would always come after Elia's son in the line of succession.

Also, let's not kid ourselves and say that Rhaegar ended his marriage to Elia without justification so he could be with his "true love'. Rhaegar wanted three kids, he makes it clear:

If Rhaegar wanted to annul/end his marriage, he would need a reason/justification, otherwise the High Septon would not do it.

After giving birth to two children, what happened to Elia?

There you have it, instead of getting Elia pregnant again, something that would almost surely kill her, Rhaegar ended the marriage.

He then marries Lyanna, so he can have more legitimate children. His actions are pretty straightforward.

Rhaegar probably loved Lyanna, but i don't think for a minute that he went after her without a reason.

 

Elia most likely knew, because if she did not, it would mean problems for Rhaegar in the future. The best thing Rhaegar could do is make her aware of it, and why he was doing it. This way he would avoid any unnecessary problems with Doran and the donish in the future.

It was also the honest thing to do, i see no reason for Rhaegar not to tell the mother of two of his children that he was planning to annul the marriage. If Rhaegar was as good as Barristan and those men that followed him to the Trident makes him to be, he would have been honest with Elia.

 

Think this way: if Rhaegar had the courage to face Robert at the Trident, and fought him honorably according to all accounts, why wouldn't Rhaegar face Elia with honor as well?

 

They were fighting for Elia's children as well, including Elia's son, who would be king after Rhaegar. The dornish did not went to the Trident without reason.

 

Do not make everything be about Elia, it was not. I'm sad that she had the ending she had, especially because she was one of the few characters that seemed genuinely good, but i'm not sad that she had her marriage annuled. If anything, it was the best thing for her to not have to bother having children again.

 

So many people angry on Elia's behalf, but no one knows how she felt. What we know is that she did not have to bother to have children again, since her marriage was annuled. It does not look like the end of the world, far from it actually, the annulment had some good implications for her.

If only the rebellion had not happened, or if Rhaegar had the decency to choose a woman that wasn't betrothed to Robert Baratheon.

 

Wow, another person who is confusing show and book. 

When did the HBO show mention Rhaegar wanted to have three heads/kids? when did the HBO show mention Elia can not have one more kid? none. 

Half of your long post is completely invalid because they were not mentioned in the show at all. And "annulment" so far is a show stuff and very likely only a show stuff. 

Rhaegar has no excuse in the show (want to have third kid or create a promised prince). He annuled his marriage for his personal desire, just like show Robb. 

And Elia has no reason to feel happy with annulment that she does not need to die by birthing a third child. Because in the show, nobody said she would die with third child! seriously, even JonCon who said this does not even exist in the show. 

The other half of your post is about if annulment will turn kids into bastards. 

plenty of people in this post have said so and cited references. I will not bother to say again. 

please do your own research. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, theMADdestScientist_ said:

snip

Where is that link from? Is that modern annulment? Because the most famous case of annulment involving royalty that I can think of is Henry VIII whose children did indeed become illegitimate. Medieval and modern law cannot be assumed to be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, theMADdestScientist_ said:

Can you please stop saying that Rhaenys and Aegon are bastards? please, do a little research before saying things, it doesn't hurt.

 

Rhaegar and Elia's marriage was legal, they married under the eyes of gods and men, any children born out of their marriage would be legitimate, and would remain legitimate even when the marriage was annuled/ended.

 

This is from a legal site, to help you understand what an annulment is: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DHNrUwAU0AANxRn.jpg:large

"Although most annulments take place very soon after the wedding, some couples seek an annulment after they have been married for years. In that case, the court considers all of the same issues as in a divorce, divides property, and makes decisions about support and custody. Children of a marriage that has been annuled are still legally considered "legitimate" children of that marriage."

 

This is pretty much what says there, Rhaenys and Aegon did not lose their legitimacy. That's not to say, what's the point of Rhaegar taking away the legitimacy of his kids? he wanted three legitimate kids as he himself said: "the dragon has three heads".

 

If Rhaenys and Aegon lose their legitimacy, Rhaegar's plan does not make sense.

 

Rhaegar did not gave a name to his child with Lyanna, he left the Tower of Joy and died long before the kid was born. If anyone named Jon as Aegon, IT WAS LYANNA, AND BY HER OWN CHOICE. The reason for it, i don't know, but since Elia's Aegon was brutally murdered, one can believe that Lyanna named her kid as an homage to Elia's Aegon, it could be as simple as this.

 

Rhaegar's heir would always be Elia's Aegon, Rhaegar himself says as much:

This is all the proof you need, Lyanna's son would always come after Elia's son in the line of succession.

Also, let's not kid ourselves and say that Rhaegar ended his marriage to Elia without justification so he could be with his "true love'. Rhaegar wanted three kids, he makes it clear:

If Rhaegar wanted to annul/end his marriage, he would need a reason/justification, otherwise the High Septon would not do it.

After giving birth to two children, what happened to Elia?

There you have it, instead of getting Elia pregnant again, something that would almost surely kill her, Rhaegar ended the marriage.

He then marries Lyanna, so he can have more legitimate children. His actions are pretty straightforward.

Rhaegar probably loved Lyanna, but i don't think for a minute that he went after her without a reason.

 

Elia most likely knew, because if she did not, it would mean problems for Rhaegar in the future. The best thing Rhaegar could do is make her aware of it, and why he was doing it. This way he would avoid any unnecessary problems with Doran and the donish in the future.

It was also the honest thing to do, i see no reason for Rhaegar not to tell the mother of two of his children that he was planning to annul the marriage. If Rhaegar was as good as Barristan and those men that followed him to the Trident makes him to be, he would have been honest with Elia.

 

Think this way: if Rhaegar had the courage to face Robert at the Trident, and fought him honorably according to all accounts, why wouldn't Rhaegar face Elia with honor as well?

 

They were fighting for Elia's children as well, including Elia's son, who would be king after Rhaegar. The dornish did not went to the Trident without reason.

 

Do not make everything be about Elia, it was not. I'm sad that she had the ending she had, especially because she was one of the few characters that seemed genuinely good, but i'm not sad that she had her marriage annuled. If anything, it was the best thing for her to not have to bother having children again.

 

So many people angry on Elia's behalf, but no one knows how she felt. What we know is that she did not have to bother to have children again, since her marriage was annuled. It does not look like the end of the world, far from it actually, the annulment had some good implications for her.

If only the rebellion had not happened, or if Rhaegar had the decency to choose a woman that wasn't betrothed to Robert Baratheon.

 

oh wait, Aegon. 

You choose to whitewash Lyanna and Rhaegar by claiming they named Jon as homage to dead Aegon. convenient. sweet. 

But the fact is that there are plenty of babies died young (especially Targ) but nobody recycled their names for siblings. Even they only lived for a few days or hours they have their names and tombs which carried their names. Go back to check those dead brothers and sisters of Rhaegar. everyone has its own name no matter how long they lived. Name one case from book and show that one sibling used exact same name after the other sibling died please. 

A life is a life, no matter how short it is. A name is a proof that this baby has existed in this world and has been loved. If Lyanna named Jon as Aegon Targaryen when there was another Aegon Targaryen son of Rhaegar, (and this Aegon happened to die thanks to her brave beautiful romance), this will be just too cruel. 

But of course an annulment will make sense here because this made first Aegon into Aegon Waters/Sand, not Aegon Targaryen any more, no confusion no biggie. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be book only, but didn't Ned name Jon? After Jon Arryn? I had assumed that Rhaegar had picked out some Targaryen name; Aemon, perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

This might be book only, but didn't Ned name Jon? After Jon Arryn? I had assumed that Rhaegar had picked out some Targaryen name; Aemon, perhaps.

True. And I agree with the Aemon thing; Aemon was the only good man from Rhaegar's family that he knew. If he were to have a second boy, I think he'd like to name him Aemon. 

Share this post


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

True. And I agree with the Aemon thing; Aemon was the only good man from Rhaegar's family that he knew. If he were to have a second boy, I think he'd like to name him Aegon. 

Not to mention that naming Jon after the dead son of the woman who you replaced as wife would be monumentally bad taste on behalf of Lyanna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 4:46 AM, Tucu said:

Prince Lewyn had a secret paramour in King's Landing; Rhaegar annuls her marriage to Elia. Join the dots.

That is an important detail that I completely missed. Then that would be another incestuous affair between close relatives, such a consistent theme. So the suggestion is that baby Aegon I is not Rhaegar's child?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Stark_in_Winterfell said:

That is an important detail that I completely missed. Then that would be another incestuous affair between close relatives, such a consistent theme. So the suggestion is that baby Aegon I is not Rhaegar's child?

The birth of a silver-haired, purple-eyed child would rather preclude Lewyn Martell as the father, no? I'd also rule out Arthur Dayne as Ned called him 'the finest knight I ever saw' - not words I'd expect Ned to use to describe a man who betrayed his Prince by sleeping with and impregnating his wife.

An important fact to remember: Rhaegar and Elia lived on Dragonstone, not King's Landing. So time to interact with members of the Kingsguard would be pretty minimal for a woman who spent a lot of time bed-ridden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, WSmith84 said:

The birth of a silver-haired, purple-eyed child would rather preclude Lewyn Martell as the father, no? I'd also rule out Arthur Dayne as Ned called him 'the finest knight I ever saw' - not words I'd expect Ned to use to describe a man who betrayed his Prince by sleeping with and impregnating his wife.

An important fact to remember: Rhaegar and Elia lived on Dragonstone, not King's Landing. So time to interact with members of the Kingsguard would be pretty minimal for a woman who spent a lot of time bed-ridden.

Not my theory. I don't keep track of every minuscule detail so when someone throws one out there that I am unfamiliar with, then I don't know if it fits or not. I'm also not into getting upset about this because I watch/read fantasy for entertainment. I'm too old to care about this like it's real. I care about the quality of the writing and presentation of the story because that is my background.

The fiction is Rhaegar was a prince/king. The GOT story is based more or less on a specific time in English history, the war of the roses, King Henry VIII and other people , events, customs and ideals of the time. All these noble and royal marriages are arranged and expected. Love is unimportant. Kings must have heirs and one little boy is not enough to make the 20th century English royals comfortable, as England breathed easier after Prince Henry (the spare to the heir) was born. (Yes I'm old enough to remember this.)  it certainly isn't enough to make a fictitious 15th century-esque prince happy living in a world with high infant mortality.

So the matter of a barren wife is a serious one and one that septons and popes alike were willing to grant annulments that invalidated the prior born children. Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I were made illegitimate when King Henry VIII annulled his marriages to their mothers, yet out of necessity they were later made legitimate due to the death of his only son without issue. It doesn't matter who loved who, a prince/king has a duty to prevent a succession crisis by procreating. Many wives of princes, kings and lords enter the arrangement knowing full well that they will be sent packing if they fail to produce heirs or adequate numbers of heirs. Elenor of Aquataine gave birth to only daughters with King Louis VII of France and he had their marriage annulled based on consanguinity. So she married King Henry II of England and gave him three sons. Meanwhile King Louis's daughters were declared legitimate. So the practice of what happens to the legitimacy of the children depends on the conditions and laws and popes and cardinals of the time. Back in Westeros, I don't think any of us actually know the law on annulment, but I'm sure we would find out if FAegon were alive (on tv) but since he is alive in the books, then the issue of legitimacy post annulment may matter. It seems that not only can bastards have a long shot chance at being legitimized in a time of necessity, true born children can be made illegitimate because a King is granted annulment. It seems the Isle of Naarth has this problem figured out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×