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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rhaegar would doubtless have made any provisions necessary to keep his children legitimate, if he could finagle the annulment itself in the first place, a thing which almost never happened and doesn't have any precedents in Targaryen history that I can recall. We should not assume he was totally irresponsible. Almost certainly, he could simply say they're still legitimate and they would be. Legitimizing is a power of kings in Westeros, after all, and he intended to take the reigns from his father once the war was won. The very fact that the ceremony was secret points to his wanting time and space to smooth things over and get people used to the idea.

Also, what you said about the status of the children not being particularly relevant in the show is true, and for that reason the idea that it would make them bastards probably never crossed the showrunners' minds.

Share this post


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

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

Whats does being a hypocrite and a pussy have to do with being right and wrong? In my spectrum right and wrong are a lot more subjective than being a hypocrite or a pussy. Coward's can be right and brave men can be wrong to one person and, at the same time, the opposite to someone else.

Share this post


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

And Elia was not declared to be barren either.

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. 

Share this post


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

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

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.

And both carry the stigma with them that their father thought more with his dick than his brain, giving a shit about the honor of his wife, her family, the Iron Throne, or the well-being of his children.

I daresay Princess Rhaenys and Prince Aegon would have been the laughingstock of the court if they had been raised as the children of the discarded Dornishwoman while a Princess and later a Queen Lyanna would have presided over all the balls and feasts and tourneys at court, enjoying herself, and showering her children by Rhaegar with royal favors.

Even if a King Rhaegar had wanted to make things up for his son Aegon - how he could make him look good? He wasn't the son of the wife Rhaegar truly loved, and Lyanna would have no reason to consider Elia's children her family. Her very existence as Rhaegar's wife would have been a constant and poisonous humiliation of Elia and her children.

The whole setting is even more fucked-up than the prelude to the Dance of the Dragons.

There Queen Aemma is already dead, and Alicent Hightower merely a replacement for a dead queen.

But Rhaegar would have had two wives at the same time (at least while Elia lived) and there is no chance whatsoever that the children of these two women would have become anything but mortal enemies. Even incestuous marriage alliances wouldn't have helped. The mothers and their families would have seen to that. And even if they had tried - it wouldn't have helped with the quarrels between Elia's son(s) and Lyanna's sons.

Share this post


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

We should not assume he was totally irresponsible.

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.

12 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

if he could finagle the annulment itself in the first place, a thing which almost never happened and doesn't have any precedents in Targaryen history that I can recall

Yeah that's a fair point, I mean Elia gave him children, so how the actual fuck did he even manage to get the annulment in the first place, unless he claimed she was unfaithful or already married (wouldn't that be deliciously hypocritical!), in which case the children would most certainly be considered bastards. Still, maybe it's as simple as bribery or threats or a combination thereof.

12 minutes ago, Noneofyourbusiness said:

The very fact that the ceremony was secret points to his wanting time and space to smooth things over and get people used to the idea.

Frankly, it just points to the show wanting to simplify things ("Jon is legit. Don't stop to think about the details!").

5 minutes ago, Liaraeyne said:

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

Yes and no. If she had born no children, or at a stretch no living children, then maaaaaaybe. But she had given him two healthy children, which cost her much. It only starts to make a convoluted sort of sense because of Rhaegar's obsession with having three children.

But yes, in this whole clusterfuck of people who are, to varying degrees, complete assholes to each other, Elia stands out as a decent person, and Rhaegar ditching her really is a dick move of the worst sort, no matter what kind of justification he used.

Share this post


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

I don't understand how Rhaegar is a jerk.

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

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

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

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

first, you mixed show with book. In show, Elia was not declared barren. Rhaegar had no relationship with prophecy. and nowhere we were told he needed three children as some sort of three heads. In the show, he annuled his marriage only because he wanted to marry his "anne boylen". 

second, what is the situation of "the other children are in doubt"? you just made it up? Where did you get Elia's children are in doubt? or I misunderstood your English writing? 

third, you should not use 21st century attitude on a royal marriage in a medieval age like world. By your logic, 99% of marriages during that time should be annulled because nobles do not marry for love, including Ned and Cat. you might find it intolerable but those people were ok with it. Plus, even a dude in our time fall in love and run away with a teenager right after his wife just almost dies giving birth to their second baby and secretly one-sidedly  divorce her-----even if he already lose his interest and love in his wife------he is still a jerk. Let me translate for you. "i do not love you! I love that hot teenager girl! you and our two babies are not my concern! love is so great! it is my natual right to pursue true love! good bye!" Sounds a little bit mean, right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes 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.

And both carry the stigma with them that their father thought more with his dick than his brain, giving a shit about the honor of his wife, her family, the Iron Throne, or the well-being of his children.

I daresay Princess Rhaenys and Prince Aegon would have been the laughingstock of the court if they had been raised as the children of the discarded Dornishwoman while a Princess and later a Queen Lyanna would have presided over all the balls and feasts and tourneys at court, enjoying herself, and showering her children by Rhaegar with royal favors.

Even if a King Rhaegar had wanted to make things up for his son Aegon - how he could make him look good? He wasn't the son of the wife Rhaegar truly loved, and Lyanna would have no reason to consider Elia's children her family. Her very existence as Rhaegar's wife would have been a constant and poisonous humiliation of Elia and her children.

The whole setting is even more fucked-up than the prelude to the Dance of the Dragons.

There Queen Aemma is already dead, and Alicent Hightower merely a replacement for a dead queen.

But Rhaegar would have had two wives at the same time (at least while Elia lived) and there is no chance whatsoever that the children of these two women would have become anything but mortal enemies. Even incestuous marriage alliances wouldn't have helped. The mothers and their families would have seen to that. And even if they had tried - it wouldn't have helped with the quarrels between Elia's son(s) and Lyanna's sons.

So I get that you don't like this development. It makes Jon legitimate, something you have railed against for a long time. But other than not liking it, is there more to your point? For example, are you saying that the basic principle of Jon being legitimate, however Martin does it, will not occur in the books?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

So I get that you son't like this development. It makes Jon legitimate, something you have railed against for a long time. But other than not liking it, is there more to your point? For example, are you saying that the basic principle of Jon being legitimate, however Martin does it, will not occur in the books?

You don't understand me. You should know that I'm a strong proponent of the polygamy idea. I always was. I just don't think this transfers into any authority claim-wise considering that people shouldn't give shit what (in the books) cripples see in visions or swamp devils tell their fellows.

The idea that Rhaegar had an annulment in the books makes no sense. As a plot element that would be ridiculous because that would then actually cast doubt on Prince Aegon's claim who is right now gathering support and setting himself up as king.

If Rhaegar married Lyanna this won't be a secret marriage in the books, nor would an annulment there being a secret. Especially not if it involves the High Septon.

Dany and Jon will fall in love and marry each other in the show. Nobody cares about their claims to the Iron Throne because there are no Targaryen loyalists in Westeros in the show. Dany's people are all from Essos and Cersei has destroyed all Targaryen loyalists. Jon's subjects (assuming they stick to him) won't give shit about his claim to the Iron Throne just as Dany's people won't give shit about Jon's name and claim to the Iron Throne. The Dothraki and freed slaves follow her personally.

The idea that anybody in the books would ever care about Jon's claim was always silly. But it is even more so in the show setting. People in the books will, of course, care about the Targaryen claim. But that claim will be enforced by Prince Aegon and by Daenerys, not Jon Snow. 

Share this post


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

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

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

Do you even know what principle means?
Do you know honour means? What love means for that matter? Or what it means to keep a promise? Rings any bells, no? 
Anyway, I do not think that he knew Jon was an heir (if he even is a legitimate in the books, which I highly doubt) and I think he just wanted to save the child and keep a promise of a dying beloved sister, since he knew what Robert would do (after Elia and her kids and this was Lyanna's child with Rhaegar!) and realm surely didn't need any more wars. He was even against killing Viserys and Dany.
I really do not understand what you are suggesting what he should have done - bring back the child to KL for Mountain to crash his skull? You are either lunatic or just trolling, really. 

Share this post


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

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

That's why I said D&D likely didn't think about the full implications of this new reveal. That, or they've now decided Rhaegar would be more fun as a giant douche.

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Dany and Jon will fall in love and marry each other in the show. Nobody cares about their claims to the Iron Throne because there are no Targaryen loyalists in Westeros in the show. Dany's people are all from Essos and Cersei has destroyed all Targaryen loyalists. Jon's subjects (assuming they stick to him) won't give shit about his claim to the Iron Throne just as Dany's people won't give shit about Jon's name and claim to the Iron Throne. The Dothraki and freed slaves follow her personally.

The idea that anybody in the books would ever care about Jon's claim was always silly. But it is even more so in the show setting. People in the books will, of course, care about the Targaryen claim. But that claim will be enforced by Prince Aegon and by Daenerys, not Jon Snow.

I do wonder if the show did this to make up for not having Aegon. Perhaps there's some plot that requires another legitimate Targaryen, say Dance of the Dragons 2.0, that has to happen for another event later down the road. Or it could just be a cheap way to create tension between Dany and Jon.

Share this post


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

Yeah that's a fair point, I mean Elia gave him children, so how the actual fuck did he even manage to get the annulment in the first place, unless he claimed she was unfaithful or already married (wouldn't that be deliciously hypocritical!), in which case the children would most certainly be considered bastards. Still, maybe it's as simple as bribery or threats or a combination thereof

Well, since when does the show care about such minor details? :D

- Which, IMHO, means that whatever way book!Rhaegar resolved his dilemma, it was not annulment because there was zero basis for it.

Share this post


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

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.

Probably, all this make sense, I just do not like the idea...I love Jon and I also think that it really does not matter whether he is an heir or not.
I've even interpreted  Sam's reaction when Gilly mentiones annullment of marriage of a prince, as a support of my idea - it does not matter. I'd like to see him deserving to be a king (although, I think he is above all that and does not want to) rather than being a legitimate heir with "birthright". But if it is necessary for future conflict and to "rub" Dany's nose later, I'd prefer polygamy.

Share this post


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

Well, since when does the show care about such minor details? :D

- Which, IMHO, means that whatever way book!Rhaegar resolved his dilemma, it was not annulment because there was zero basis for it.

It largely doesn't care about such details of course - which is why I am loathe to read anything into this as far as the books are concerned.

Share this post


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

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

Barren usually means unable to get pregnant. If a woman can make it all the way to labor, she's not barren. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Ygrain said:

Well, since when does the show care about such minor details? :D

- Which, IMHO, means that whatever way book!Rhaegar resolved his dilemma, it was not annulment because there was zero basis for it.

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?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't at all be shocked if Elia and Rhaegar both agreed to the annulment or the show explains it that way.   One of the prices of arranged marriages, it's not really true love in the end.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, darmody said:

Barren usually means unable to get pregnant. If a woman can make it all the way to labor, she's not barren. 

 

2 hours ago, Mikkel said:

Yes and no. If she had born no children, or at a stretch no living children, then maaaaaaybe. But she had given him two healthy children, which cost her much. It only starts to make a convoluted sort of sense because of Rhaegar's obsession with having three children.

 

For all intents and purposes, Elia was barren. I know what barren means. Sure, her womb could quicken but another birth would mean her death. Rhaegar apparently respected her too much to do that to her. So, having another child by her was not an option. So for all intents and purposes, Elia was barren and Rhaegar went to look for another women because 'the Dragon has three heads' or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Liaraeyne said:

So for all intents and purposes, Elia was barren

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×