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

4 hours 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?

Well, I am not that familiar with quality of writing or presentation of story, but I remember this in the book:

Quote

“I never had the honor to know Prince Lewyn,” Ser Arys said, “but all agree that he was a great knight.”

“A great knight with a paramour. She is an old woman now, but she was a rare beauty in her youth, men say.”

Prince Lewyn? That tale Ser Arys had not heard.

Elia died when she was around 25-26 years old and Arianne was only a few years old when Elia died. 

Yet a 20-year old  Arianne told Arys and us "she (paramour of Lewyn) is an old woman now. "

I would say people should check the "important detail" slightly more careful before they can make up a new incest relationship. 

 

 

Share this post


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

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. 

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).

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.

So much this. 

And your first point complies with what's written in AWOIAF regarding Aerys and Elia's kids... 

Totally agree regarding Rhaegar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Mikkel said:

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.

We have already been proven otherwise by the episode itself, when Sam literally tells Gilly their definition of "annulment." 

GILLY:  What's an annulment

SAM:  It's when a man sets aside his lawful wife.

That's it. 

Sam = Mirriam-Westeros.com 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

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.

Excellent point. 

And we also have a Show-Your Point (about her children always will be in danger) in the form of Show-Ramsay Bolton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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."

 

People are knee-jerk reacting to so many posts they're not even reading completely.

Thank you.

This right here.

First, I'm wondering where so many people got their definition of annulment. It's like the Urban Legend version. Unless you've done it in RL, don't assume you know the EARTH version, which so many seem to be basing their opinions on.

Sam has already given us the Westerosi version.

But yes, let's add on to the above EARTH-US version.... someone posted that even Catholic Law doesn't delegitimize the kids. In the "eyes of the church" the time you spent married to that person is erased so you can get remarried in the Church. That's it. It doesn't mean you didn't exist, nor does it affect any offspring. It's a Sin-thing.

That's the Catholic version, and it must be granted by the Pope. I can't remember if they need to see the legal paperwork first. Yeah, I've been through it. We had a Summary Dissolution here in CA. The annulment was like a year after, so I'm pretty sure they needed to see proof, along with your own Treaty of Versailles . I'm not Catholic, so I'm not the one who filed. I am the one who got the giant pile of papers that's their questionnaire. 

The Legal version of annulment is for people who don't own any property usually and aren't fighting over stuff they own together (basically what I did. I think in some states there's a time limit. And for those drunken Oops moments.

Divorce is required here in CA if you've been married legally more than 5 years, even if you agree on everything, and don't own any real estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

We have already been proven otherwise by the episode itself, when Sam literally tells Gilly their definition of "annulment." 

GILLY:  What's an annulment

SAM:  It's when a man sets aside his lawful wife.

That's it. 

Sam = Mirriam-Westeros.com 

Eh, fair point but Sam was not exactly being exhaustive here, he hardly paid attention to what Gilly was saying at all as evidenced by the rest of the scene. I mean it's possible this is all the attention the show will ever pay to the issue "it's ok, Jon is the legit King, stop worrying about it" and if so there's nothing else to do than chalk it up to oversimplification for the sake of the medium, but it'd still be a pity. Whole shows (like the Tudors) have been dedicated to the finer points of medieval annulments, and it's not like those were boring at all.

4 minutes ago, ShadowKitteh said:

Sam has already given us the Westerosi version.

But yes, let's add on to the above EARTH-US version

I think what most people are basing it on is the Henry VIII style annulment, which is perfectly understandable for this show and its obvious similarities with (among other things) the War of the Roses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that we would need more detail to 100% judge him for his actions. I like the idea that Lyanna was his true love and in turn produced the son he was promised. He was raised around the politics of being in nobility and around the the Mad King, I wouldn't expect him to be the image of a big happy family. I think that what happened to Elia and the kids is wrong... really wrong and in that sense, it makes him a jerk of the highest regard. Somebody mentioned above about liking his wife but marriage was out of duty, but met Lyanna and ended up falling in love with her. In the end, though, he died for those actions. Apparently whatever his thought process was, it's one he was passionate and dedicated to.  I would absolutely love to see the real story of how and why everything happened. One can wish... hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why people think that the modern results of annulment are somehow more likely to apply than the examples from the historical period on which ASOIAF is primarily based.

Even if the annulment didn't bastardise Elia's children, marrying Lyanna Stark was still a supremely stupid move on Rhaegar's behalf. Legitimate children of two different sets of parents rarely ends well. Just look at Aegon the Conqueror's children or the Dance of the Dragons. And that's not even counting all the political strife you'd create among your own lords.

Also, and I'm going to keep repeating this, Elia's son Aegon had Targaryen features. Therefore, Lewyn Martell almost certainly cannot be the father (plus, as purple-eyes pointed out, his paramour is supposedly still alive). Ned Stark considers Arthur to be the finest knight he ever saw (his actual words); I somehow doubt that he'd consider him so if he had knocked up Rhaegar's wife. Plus, Elia and Rhaegar lived on Dragonstone, so they had minimal chance to interact with Kingsguard, particularly Elia (who was bed-ridden for a long time after birthing each child).

Share this post


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

I don't know why people think that the modern results of annulment are somehow more likely to apply than the examples from the historical period on which ASOIAF is primarily based.

Even if the annulment didn't bastardise Elia's children, marrying Lyanna Stark was still a supremely stupid move on Rhaegar's behalf. Legitimate children of two different sets of parents rarely ends well. Just look at Aegon the Conqueror's children or the Dance of the Dragons. And that's not even counting all the political strife you'd create among your own lords.

Also, and I'm going to keep repeating this, Elia's son Aegon had Targaryen features. Therefore, Lewyn Martell almost certainly cannot be the father (plus, as purple-eyes pointed out, his paramour is supposedly still alive). Ned Stark considers Arthur to be the finest knight he ever saw (his actual words); I somehow doubt that he'd consider him so if he had knocked up Rhaegar's wife. Plus, Elia and Rhaegar lived on Dragonstone, so they had minimal chance to interact with Kingsguard, particularly Elia (who was bed-ridden for a long time after birthing each child).

Ned also didn't say anything bad about Rhaegar either. Only once he said something remotely good about him - that he somehow assumed that Rhaegar wasn't a man to visit brothels, although, he didn't know the man at all.

I do not buy incest theories about Elia (or Lyanna for that matter) - they are just made up to justify Rhaegar actions, but Martells have few drops of Targ blood, so theoretically the kids could inherit the looks, just theoretically.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gala said:

Ned also didn't say anything bad about Rhaegar either. Only once he said something remotely good about him - that he somehow assumed that Rhaegar wasn't a man to visit brothels, although, he didn't know the man at all.

I do not buy incest theories about Elia (or Lyanna for that matter) - they are just made up to justify Rhaegar actions, but Martells have few drops of Targ blood, so theoretically the kids could inherit the looks, just theoretically.  

But this isn't a case of Ned not saying anything (or saying something very neutral). He actually tells Bran that Arthur Dayne was the finest knight he ever saw. That's active praise. A little different from the Rhaegar situation, at least imo.

I agree with you though. It is theoretically possible that they could be someone else's kids, I just think it's incredibly unlikely and has zero evidence to support it. Still, I've been on these boards long enough to know that that won't stop people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/14/2017 at 7:47 PM, 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.

Honesty is not the sole virtue. Sometimes it comes between you and a higher virtue. Jaime is not more honest. Did he go around blabbing to everyone that he was sexing his sister behind the Kong's back? No. He attempted to murder a child to keep lying about that. 

Does he admit the whole system is flawed? The system from which he benefitted, which had him as an honored member of the King's Guard? Heck no. 

Jaime was only honest insofar as he pretended not to care about people's opinion of him, and when it could help to win arguments. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that Rhaegar = jerk was long established historical fact confirmed by many witnesses present at Harrenhall. He publicly humiliated his wife in favor of his lover. Why Martells took no offense is a mystery to me. However: Oberyn was said to be present at Harrenall but absent during the war for all I know. Lewyn Martell was accused of betrayal by the King, even though he's lost his life at the Trident.

Annulment of a marriage could happen if a wife is unable to produce an heir. Which Elia succeeded in, unless her two children were bastards by unknown father. Again: Lewyn Martell is sometimes mentioned. Else if Rhaegar wanted more children, he could have dissolved marriage by divorce on that ground, but then his heirs would be: his first son according to 7kingom's law or his firstborn daughter according to Dorne's law. It was already suggested that Rhaegar was trying to avoid succession war: perhaps he wanted to avoid the war between Elia's children.

Or maybe as a 20-year old and head over heels he was not thinking straight anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to throw something into the pot here.

In the back of my head, I seem to remember that one of the arguments Henry VIII gave for the annulment of the marriage between him and Catherine of Aragon was that her failure to carry another child to term after Mary was evidence that God did not approve of their marriage (in that specific case, the argument was made that it was unlawful under God for him to have married his brother's wife, despite the fact the marriage had never been consummated between Catherine and Arthur Tudor).

It is possible that GRRM is thinking along these lines with Rhaegar and Elia -- as Elia can have no more children.

Historically, in Christian religious terms, marriage is all about the procreation of offspring. You, for example, could request an annulment if your spouse deceived you as to impotency or infertility prior to the marriage. GRRM could be playing around with this idea, Westerosing it, and that would give a valid and reasonable basis for Rhaegar to annul the marriage to Elia and contract a new one with Lyanna.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging this character by today's standards of love and marriage is futile. Besides if Jon does play a decisive role in defeating the Others wouldn't that make the treatment and ultimate fate of Elia and her kids insignificant in the larger scheme of things? Even Robert's Rebellion and the subsequent history of the story are unimportant and pale in comparison to the need to produce a savior to protect the world from wintery undead domination. If this is Jon Snow's destiny, the suffering and death required to produce him is moral and righteous on a level that does not have to concern itself with betraying, humiliating, or sacrificing wives and children. However, if this was just about true love and happiness for R + L, they are as shallow and stupid as Robb Stark breaking his word to Frey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/15/2017 at 4:36 PM, 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 Aemon. 

Until the show makes Jon's Targ name clear, I am with you.  Aemon makes sense from what the show has told us, both about Aemon and Jon. I particularly remember the scene with Ser Aemon says being the last Targaryen is a terrible thing and then Jon walks into the room.  I have read that others claim Jon's name is Aegon but I hope not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, lakin1013 said:

Until the show makes Jon's Targ name clear, I am with you.  Aemon makes sense from what the show has told us, both about Aemon and Jon. I particularly remember the scene with Ser Aemon says being the last Targaryen is a terrible thing and then Jon walks into the room.  I have read that others claim Jon's name is Aegon but I hope not. 

Wig you think about it though, it kind of makes sense.  Obviously assuming that Rhaegar filled Lyanna in on the prophecies, assuming she believed him, and assuming that Rhaegar told her that his "name is Aegon, and his is the Song of ice and fire".

if Lyanna heard that Ellia and Rhaegar's other children had been killed she probably would have done what she could to try to ensure the prophecy was fulfilled.  

This resulting, potentially, in two Aegons.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

But this isn't a case of Ned not saying anything (or saying something very neutral). He actually tells Bran that Arthur Dayne was the finest knight he ever saw. That's active praise. A little different from the Rhaegar situation, at least imo.

I agree with you though. It is theoretically possible that they could be someone else's kids, I just think it's incredibly unlikely and has zero evidence to support it. Still, I've been on these boards long enough to know that that won't stop people.

Oh, I know that, too. People keep bringing up ideas like that all the time - that's why I sometimes stop visiting and reading the forum for months. I mean without the next book and no evidence it's just frustrating. I remember someone was arguing/suggesting Lyanna-Ned, Lyanna-Brandon and Elia-Oberyn relationships, but that's just ridiculous and awful that people cannot believe in brother-sister love and keep arguing that their is Jaime-Cersei incesteous couple why not the other siblings in the series, too.

Share this post


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

It is theoretically possible that they could be someone else's kids, I just think it's incredibly unlikely and has zero evidence to support it.

It's alluded to in AWOIAF, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, by Aerys, so I wouldn't say zero (as in it's never crossed anyone's mind.) It's just not hard evidence, because it's a crazy man's opinion/suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ShadowKitteh said:

It's alluded to in AWOIAF, as has been mentioned several times in this thread, by Aerys, so I wouldn't say zero (as in it's never crossed anyone's mind.) It's just not hard evidence, because it's a crazy man's opinion/suggestion.

Aerys mentions that Rhaenys 'smells Dornish' presumably because of her looks (she didn't have the Targ looks). I'm not sure he believed that she wasn't Rhaegar's, just too Dornish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WSmith84 said:

Aerys mentions that Rhaenys 'smells Dornish' presumably because of her looks (she didn't have the Targ looks). I'm not sure he believed that she wasn't Rhaegar's, just too Dornish.

Well, he did have the crazy belief that Dorn was out to get him, and that they betrayed Rhaegar...  so anyone with Dornish blood was likely a suspect.  

Even kids apparently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×