Jump to content
purple-eyes

Can we officially call Rhaegar a jerk now?

Recommended Posts

25 minutes 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.

It's like you don't know how absolute monarchies work.  

He can't protect the child from Robert because the King can just say "kill the child" and if Ned doesn't do it then any number of people will.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes 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.

 

14 minutes ago, Lurid Jester said:

It's like you don't know how absolute monarchies work.  

He can't protect the child from Robert because the King can just say "kill the child" and if Ned doesn't do it then any number of people will.  

Furthermore, it is possible that Lyanna made Ned promise her to keep Jon's identity secret and raise him as his own bastard son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kingslayer96 said:

Wasn't lyanna engaged to Robert barratheon? Why is rhaegar the only jerk? They both cheated

I absolutely agree. Being 15 doesn't excuse her actions.

And I have to add that we don't know everything about Rhaegar and Elia's marriage. So I'm going to reserve judgement till we know more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, darmody said:

In the interest of fairness, Jon could've been named Egg to honor the dead son. Parents used to do that, back when babies died more often. Alexander Hamilton, I think, had two sons named Philip for this reason. 

Well, I know one of my college classmates who took her dead sister's name too. But this never ever happened in Targ family before. Plenty of babies died early but they all had their own names. even they only lived for a few days. A life is a life, no matter how short it is. They have existed, a name is a proof of that. No sibling recycled their names.

Actually in whole ice and fire world we never saw this happen (please correct me if I am wrong). So nobody thinks this should be done to honor a dead sibling. 

A more reasonable explanation is that Rhaegar reserved this king's name for his important son. rathet than Lyanna used this name to honor little Aegon who ironically was murdered thanks for her brave and romantic action. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gala said:

I liked the idea Rhaegar and Lyanna being for the first time in their lives in love and happy (Rhaegar surely wasn't happy all his live and he surely wasn't happy in his marriage, since he didn't love Elia and it seems everybody knew that), but that's just idiotic!!! I would easily accept Jon being just a bastard (because it really doesn't matter for his character) or even polygamy (with a grain of salt and dislike, though), but this is just idiotic! If that is what will  happen in the books, I hope he legitimized Rhaenys and Aegon, if this is even possible. I hope this is not what GRRM has in his mind!
 

Jon being the rightful heir to the Iron Throne is the entire basis for the plot of ASOIAF. 

If Jon is a bastard, the story doesn't happen:

  • Kingsguard are never left at The Tower of Joy with a pregnant Lyanna. No matter what the Crown Prince says, he doesn't have the authority to make the Kingsguard stand down on his own protection detail. If Lyanna was just some fling, and not Rhaegar's legal wife (or one of - I prefer polygamy for this story, and not annulment, which seems specifically to assist a modern audience, and many in denial book readers who don't want to accept Jon's lineage still....), they would likely have taken her to Starfall for safe keeping, since no one would care what happened to Rhaegar's bastard, she'd much safer especially since there'd be a Maester handy in case there were any complications in the pregnancy or delivery. 
  • Instead they go with Rhaegar to the Trident, likely defeating Robert Baratheon, ending Robert's Rebellion.
  • Kings Landing is never sacked. 
  • Rhaegar inherits whenever Aerys dies.
  • Viserys and Rhaella never flee to Dragonstone. 
  • Rhaegar's children are never killed by The Mountain.
Edited by ShadowKitteh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, darmody said:

For the record, we know his son is special because he has risen from the dead. And we don't yet, but he'll probably also play a giant role in defeating the Night King. So Rhaegar will end up being correct about Jon being the promised prince. 

Although, I imagine they'll pull a fast one and have it be the Prince and Princess Who Were Promised, to include Dany. Or perhaps the Aunt and Nephew Who Were Promised. 

Maybe they'll also try to pass it off as: "Don't trust prophecy; trust what's in your heart!" Except the same person who they present as excelling on his own merits also just so happens to be Secret King. Which sorts steps on the message. 

In a way I think you're correct on the PTWP thing.... 

Jon is AA reborn.

Dany + Dragons = Lightbringer.

Jon will wield them, and "darkness will flee before [them.]"

So yes, together they are TPTWP.  (Or Jon is TPTWP, and together they are AAR.) Either way.....Jon & Dany need to work together to win the War for the Dawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ser Yorick Ampersand said:

Rhaegar saved the world.

The joke is on you OP.

Well, he did not save world. his son might save the world. 

plus Dany might also save the world.

So does birth of Dany justifiy Aerys raping his wife after burning person alive? 

If not, should the birth of Job justify his daddy's jerkish move? 

 

Share this post


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

There is sure a whole lot of ass-umtion going on in this thread.  No one knows the facts, and an annulment does not get approved without cause. If you read TWoIaF you'll remember Aerys said Rhaegar's chindren "smelled Dornish".  We know that Dornish people are very open sexually, what if the children born to Elia were not Rhaegar's? Perhaps she had a paramour at court...someone she loved before and continued to be with after the political marriage to Rhaegar.

For all the talk about his nobility and honor, to have him abandon his children and wife without cause doesn't make sense...but here are a bunch of folks choosing to condemn him here without any facts.  A wise man once said:  "Shut that shit DOWN".  There is a lot of information still to be revealed, patience folks!

I couldn't agree more. Let's all be a tad more patient and see what the full story is. Or at least a little more than what we just got last night.

Share this post


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

The annulment is definitely only the show stuff. With the whole polygamy background missing, it would be deus ex machina, not to mention all the sensitivities which don't mind boobs and cocks and guts and gore but would freak out because of an unusual marriage arrangement.

That would really depend on what ground the annulment was issued. For instance, there was a RL example in the Middle Ages when the king asked for an annulment on the grounds of consanguinity (which apparently was not an issue for him while he was an exile and his wife married him against the wishes of her family and stood by him in bad and worse), so that he could marry a young princess of nobler blood and start a grand dynasty, and all his children from his first marriage were delegitimized by the annulment, including an adult heir. - Now that's what I call a jerk move.

As a fan of history, what monarch are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussed Rhaegar's character for years, thought he was a straight piece of dung for years, but showRhaegar makes him look like Baelor the Blessed and Breakspear in one.

I don't understand why he went into hiding, or why he coldn't do it in KIng's Landing if the HS was involved, or why he didn't admittedly return home when word any form of conflict went about, he could have easily ended it with declaring Lyanna was not his second, but one and true wife, Rickard and his band of old lords would have jumped for joy, that is the perfect scenario for him.

Why the HS kept it secret only the seven knows, or why if he wanted it secret he had it set to the citadel, where they read to copy documents for the whole realm to have.

Share this post


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

It's like you don't know how absolute monarchies work.  

He can't protect the child from Robert because the King can just say "kill the child" and if Ned doesn't do it then any number of people will.  

Why is it relevant how absolute monarchies work in a fantasy story in a world with zombies and dragons? If ASoIaF was historically accurate medieval fiction, it would be set on Earth and have no magic.

This saga drives home that realistic fantasy is an oxymoron.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked back at the visions Daenerys had in the House of the Undying not long ago after the show confirmed that R+L=J and I had a thought.

In that vision, Daenerys saw who we assume was Rhaegar talking to a woman nursing a newborn. Since we know he couldn't have been with Lyanna after she had Jon, I'm assuming it was Elia Martell. He said the new baby boy's name was Aegon and that he was the prince who was promised. And then they looked at each other and Rhaegar said "there must be another" and "the dragon has three heads." And then he played sad music on his flute.

So I'm thinking it might be possible, and this is just based on my interpretation of the scene, that maybe Elia knew Rhaegar would have to have more children with someone else since she couldn't have more. Theirs wasn't a marriage of love, but of duty. Whether or not Elia ever grew to love Rhaegar, she would surely have loved her children. Wouldn't she have wanted her son to fulfill a prophecy to be the prince who brought peace to a united realm?

I don't know, just a thought. It would seem to fall more in line with the descriptions of Rhaegar in the books and show that paint him as a good and gentle man rather than a jerk who would hurt the mother of his firstborn children.

Edited by Wildling Queen

Share this post


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

 

Furthermore, it is possible that Lyanna made Ned promise her to keep Jon's identity secret and raise him as his own bastard son.

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.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Tucu said:

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

Can you pls give me a hint at what you are getting at? 0_0 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Newstar said:

Yes. The show has left out the bit about Rhaegar wanting one more kid for his prophecy and Elia being presumably unable to provide one for his health, which would make the Henry VIII comparison even stronger, since Henry VIII set aside his marriage because Anne Boleyn promised him a son.

 

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.

Dany was being arrogant about it and that was the reason people were annoyed for the most part. Jon from what we have seen wouldn't do that or at least we haven't seen it.  Yes some people are just anti dany but for the most part it was how she acted with it.

Share this post


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

Why is it relevant how absolute monarchies work in a fantasy story in a world with zombies and dragons? If ASoIaF was historically accurate medieval fiction, it would be set on Earth and have no magic.

This saga drives home that realistic fantasy is an oxymoron.

... what?  Seriously... what?

You were crapping on Ned Stark because he kept Jon's true parentage secret from everyone, and how he wouldn't stand up to Robert... the King. 

I'll say that again.

Robert the King.

Who is the head of an absolute monarchy. The reason that is absolutely relevant is because if you're trying to protect a child from a Monarch... you don't tell that Monarch about it

Robert could literally order Ned to kill Jon. Ned would refuse but then there would be hundreds if not thousands of people that would eagerly kill Jon to gain the King's favor. Ned's refusal would also in all likelihood doom his house.  

The only option Ned had was to keep his mouth shut and never speaking of what happened at the ToJ again. Ever. To anyone. There is too much of a risk to the child. Too many people have little birds and whisperers everywhere.  

So that's why understanding how an absolute monarchy works is relevant to Ned Stark keeping his mouth shut in order to keep Jon safe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lurid Jester said:

... what?  Seriously... what?

You were crapping on Ned Stark because he kept Jon's true parentage secret from everyone, and how he wouldn't stand up to Robert... the King. 

I'll say that again.

Robert the King.

Who is the head of an absolute monarchy. The reason that is absolutely relevant is because if you're trying to protect a child from a Monarch... you don't tell that Monarch about it

Robert could literally order Ned to kill Jon. Ned would refuse but then there would be hundreds if not thousands of people that would eagerly kill Jon to gain the King's favor. Ned's refusal would also in all likelihood doom his house.  

The only option Ned had was to keep his mouth shut and never speaking of what happened at the ToJ again. Ever. To anyone. There is too much of a risk to the child. Too many people have little birds and whisperers everywhere.  

So that's why understanding how an absolute monarchy works is relevant to Ned Stark keeping his mouth shut in order to keep Jon safe.  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, redtree said:

Annulment doesn't mean a break of marriage but totally declaring the marriage as null and void, as if it has never happened. If it's an annulment (not divorce) than it means that he purposedly making his first 2 children, the daughter who loved him so much she hid under his bed thinking he would protect her and a newborn son he so hastily left after his birth as bastards. It doesn't matter whether they were born during marriage because annulment will cancel the whole thing. Think of Mary and Elizabeth, they were both declared illegitimate/bastard

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.  

Edited by Emilyll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

Yes he was. The Rebellion was over. Aerys was dead. Robert was recovering from his wounds sustained by Rhaegar at the Trident and consolidating his power.  Elia and her children were dead and Robert had already shown the opinion that a dead Targaryen is better than anything by thanking Tywin for his service.  

No. I'm not missing the point. You are missing the complexity of the situation and oversimplifying everything.  

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? 

Because That makes perfect sense. 

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

×