Jump to content

Archived

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

Danny-

Did ned stark know that roberts rebellion was started on a lie?

Recommended Posts

Lyana wouldn't have named the kid aegon  if she didn't love rhaegar.

i'm still reading the first book but i think ned figured everything out after tower of joy and hearing the baby's name.

keeping that kinda secret is hard.

edit : howland reed! He's the only dude who knew other than ned ,i think we will see him on s8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in the books its made clearer that Ned knew that Lyanna did not love Robert, and I believe that though it's never confirmed, he at least suspected that she left with him willingly. I think to be honest everybody suspected that, because after all, I'm sure the lords of Westeros were aware of what kind of persons Rhaegar and Robert were. Having said that, the Rebellion wasn't started 'on a lie' completely - that's the show being dramatic. Although Rhaegar did not kidnap Lyanna, her brother and father did fo to King's Landing, and murdered by the Mad King. That more than anything was what started the rebellion, and I'm sure that the kidnap just an excuse that many of the Westerosi lords needed to legitimize a rebellion to overthrow the King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rebels didn't go to war after Lyanna's kidnapping. They went to war after batshit insane Aerys roasted Rickard Stark alive and killed his heir in response for them wanting Lyanna back. And probably because of generally being fedup with the crazy tyrant.

If Aerys had not killed Rickard and Brandon, his line would likely still rule Westeros today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The rebels didn't go to war after Lyanna's kidnapping. They went to war after batshit insane Aerys roasted Rickard Stark alive and killed his heir in response for them wanting Lyanna back. And probably because of generally being fedup with the crazy tyrant.

If Aerys had not killed Rickard and Brandon, his line would likely still rule Westeros today.

This. Either the showrunners, or Bran/Sam are ignorant of the fact that Lyannas supposed kidnapping was largely inconsequential to the rebellion rather than cause- and effect: it was not irrelevant, as it set other things in motion, but Aerys being a complete nutcase and Rhaegar hiding out in Dorne were the real problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say after the Tower of Joy, yes.  I would also say that while Lyanna's death semi mended the relationship between Robert and Ned because Robert was in love with her...that relationship was permanently damaged due to the treatment of the Targaryean family (sans Aerys) by the Lannisters; remember Ned wanted the Lannister's punished for what they did to Ellia and her sons but Robert wasn't having it because Tywin was rich.   Now that all of our over a decade long predictions about Jon's true parentage has been confirmed and we know Rhaegar and Lyanna were married and loved each other, I think it's safe to say Ned only mended his relationship and kept quiet about the truth of the rebellion being started on a lie to protect Jon and honor his beloved sister.  Lyanna was closer to Ned than any of her other siblings and he loved her unconditionally and while he now knew that Lyanna and Rhaegar were both willing participants and their actions were the catalyst for the rebellion, he would still protect his blood, and knowing Robert allowed the Lannisters to butcher Rhaegar's other kids and other wife made it a fairly simple choice for him.  

 

 It's quite possible (off topic too sorry) Ned also offered to take Theon after the Greyjoy Rebellion to protect him as well, and I think his plan was to eventually send them both to the Nights Watch, Jon for sure Theon if necessary.  Once a crow no one could touch them.  

Back to the original, you could also see later that Ned only went to Kings Landing to be Robert's hand because he felt honor bound to find out what happened to Jon Arryn and to prevent the Lannisters from taking the throne for themselves.  I don't think Ned ever looked at Robert the same after he just allowed the Lannisters to skate when Amory Loarch and Clegane raped Ellia and murdered her 2 sons brutally.  And he also realized that Robert hadn't changed all these years later when he still wanted an assassin to hunt down Dany, another child.  However again I think his honor required him to seek out the truth behind Jon Arryn's death and force Robert's hand to give the Kings Justice to the Lannisters if he found they had anything to do with Arryn's death.  He probably should have left Sansa and Arya at Winterfell, bringing your daughters to live and be around scumbags like them wasn't very smart, but I don't think he too much cared for Robert or his crappy leadership skills anymore, and just underestimated the deviousness of Tywin's children, and Peter Baelish's unspoken hatred of the Starks for taking Catelyn away from him and Brandon almost killing him.  Which in hindsight he fucking should have killed that little fucker then and there.

 

Share this post


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

This. Either the showrunners, or Bran/Sam are ignorant of the fact that Lyannas supposed kidnapping was largely inconsequential to the rebellion rather than cause- and effect: it was not irrelevant, as it set other things in motion, but Aerys being a complete nutcase and Rhaegar hiding out in Dorne were the real problems.

It was the catalyst though.  Without it, Starks don't ride south and demand Rhaegar's imprisonment.  The death of the 2 Starks and then the command of sending Robert and Ned to KL to be put to death was what actually sealed the deal and brought Jon Arryn to join and get Ned and Catelyn to marry to bring in the Tully forces.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

It was the catalyst though.  Without it, Starks don't ride south and demand Rhaegar's imprisonment.  The death of the 2 Starks and then the command of sending Robert and Ned to KL to be put to death was what actually sealed the deal and brought Jon Arryn to join and get Ned and Catelyn to marry to bring in the Tully forces.  

Right, understood, but when Brandon and then Rickard rode south, it was not a rebellion. Even when that epitome of genetic refinement that was Aerys burned and strangled them, it was not a rebellion. Only when he then demanded the heads of Ned and Robert did it become a rebellion, because Jon Arryn had honour, political acumen and cojones the size of a coconut.

If Aerys had been a less insane person, and managed to calm down or at least placate the enraged Northeners rather than murder them, then actual kidnapping or not it probably wouldn't have turned into a rebellion. That's why the fact that it wasn't actually a kidnapping/rape situation doesn't really matter.

Share this post


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

Right, understood, but when Brandon and then Rickard rode south, it was not a rebellion. Even when that epitome of genetic refinement that was Aerys burned and strangled them, it was not a rebellion. Only when he then demanded the heads of Ned and Robert did it become a rebellion, because Jon Arryn had honour, political acumen and cojones the size of a coconut.

If Aerys had been a less insane person, and managed to calm down or at least placate the enraged Northeners rather than murder them, then actual kidnapping or not it probably wouldn't have turned into a rebellion. That's why the fact that it wasn't actually a kidnapping/rape situation doesn't really matter.

I see what you're saying but it's semantics in my opinion.  People always say WW1 was started by the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, and technically it wasn't until Austria Hungary declared war on Bosnia and then Russia joined to protect the Slavs, and then Germany joined because of their Austrian ties and it snowballed.  It still was the catalyst and none of it happens without that 1 event.  

Had everyone known it was mutual between R+L, the events that transpired after probably would have been way different and quite possibly would have resulted in Rhaegar's rebellion.  Not Robert's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

The rebels didn't go to war after Lyanna's kidnapping. They went to war after batshit insane Aerys roasted Rickard Stark alive and killed his heir in response for them wanting Lyanna back. And probably because of generally being fedup with the crazy tyrant.

If Aerys had not killed Rickard and Brandon, his line would likely still rule Westeros today.

In the books, if Aerys hadn't killed the Starks, Rhaegar would have returned, calmed them down, and gotten back on target with the plan to force a Great Council. So yeah, either Aerys would still be technically King but with Rhaegar as his regent, or Rhaegar would be king.

But in the show, there was no such plan. There was just a crazy tyrant, with no hope of replacing him. And Rhaegar wasn't a guy who'd just swapped the order of his replace-dad plan and his sire-the-third-dragon-head plan because of bad timing who everyone could have worked with, he was a guy who'd eloped because he was lovestruck, and had no plans at all, so I don't think it's at all guaranteed that he could have resolved everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

I see what you're saying but it's semantics in my opinion.  People always say WW1 was started by the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, and technically it wasn't until Austria Hungary declared war on Bosnia and then Russia joined to protect the Slavs, and then Germany joined because of their Austrian ties and it snowballed.  It still was the catalyst and none of it happens without that 1 event.  

Had everyone known it was mutual between R+L, the events that transpired after probably would have been way different and quite possibly would have resulted in Rhaegar's rebellion.  Not Robert's.  

How far do you take this cause and effect argument then? If only the Tourney at Harrenhall hadn't happened, then Lyanna never would have eloped with Rhaegar. Do you therefore blame whoever organized the tourney for the Rebellion that followed? Or if only Rhaegar hadn't discovered the prophecy that drove him to marry Lyanna, he never would have sought her out.

At best, therefore, you can say that if the truth had been known, Lord Rickard and Brandon would not have travelled to King's Landing to demand Lyanna back. What happened after that was at that point undetermined, and relied on Aerys's insane actions to take it from merely an unhappy meeting all the way to a civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the showrunners want to let House Targaryen off the hook for the rebellion because their inbred monsters are going to be ruling the roost when its all done.

At best it was started on a 'misunderstanding' of Lyanna's actions but there are still things to consider in the timeline.

Why did Lyanna not send a raven ahead to Riverrun for Brandon? If it was all so consensual why no communication of it?

I do like the theory that Lysa intercepted the raven scroll to manipulate Brandon in revenge for what he did to Littlefinger in the duel. But in no way can we believe that it was Robert's lie. And besides no arms were taken until Brandon and Rickard were killed and Aerys called for Ned and Robert to be executed by association. Also the suggestion Robert lied doesn't make sense to how he genuinely seemed broken by her disappearance. If he knew she ran off willingly I don't think he would be so sentimental. He may still blame Rhaegar but he wouldn't idolise her like he does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, AryaNymeriaVisenya said:

Also the suggestion Robert lied doesn't make sense to how he genuinely seemed broken by her disappearance. If he knew she ran off willingly I don't think he would be so sentimental. He may still blame Rhaegar but he wouldn't idolise her like he does

No way Robert knew she went willingly. One of young Robert's main traits is a (mostly deserved, apparently) belief that he was irresistible to young women (and young Neds). He just wouldn't entertain the notion that Lyanna didn't want him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know other's have made the point but the rebellion started because Jon Arryn raised his banners when Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned.  This was not a Helen of Troy incident

Share this post


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

I know other's have made the point but the rebellion started because Jon Arryn raised his banners when Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned.  This was not a Helen of Troy incident

The kidnapping of Lyanna was the icing on the cake though, i guess that Ned realised when Lyanna said that Jon's name is "Aegon TARGARYEN" that he wasn't a bastard born of a rape, but a trueborn son born out of love and a legal marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SerJeremiahLouistark said:

Had everyone known it was mutual between R+L, the events that transpired after probably would have been way different and quite possibly would have resulted in Rhaegar's rebellion.  Not Robert's.  

That's a rather modern way to see things. Westeros is a medieval-style society where noble women did not marry for love. They married the guy who their fathers chose for them for political reasons. That Lyanna agreed to eloping with Rhaegar didn't change the fact that Rhaegar's actions would be considered rape. Lyanna's family might have accepted it anyway, because of love for her (or maybe because marrying the crown prince was not such a bad deal after all), but that's in no way certain. The word rape is derived from the same root as robbery, because a "possession" or "asset" was stolen: a girl who could have been married off to her family's advantage as long as she wasn't "dishonored".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zapho said:

That's a rather modern way to see things. Westeros is a medieval-style society where noble women did not marry for love. They married the guy who their fathers chose for them for political reasons. That Lyanna agreed to eloping with Rhaegar didn't change the fact that Rhaegar's actions would be considered rape. Lyanna's family might have accepted it anyway, because of love for her (or maybe because marrying the crown prince was not such a bad deal after all), but that's in no way certain. The word rape is derived from the same root as robbery, because a "possession" or "asset" was stolen: a girl who could have been married off to her family's advantage as long as she wasn't "dishonored".

I see your point I just think that maybe if they knew Lyanna was a willing participant they may have not demanded Rhaegar be punished without first attempting diplomacy.  had they known Rhaegar annulled his first marriage and Lyanna's children could one day be in line for the iron throne that only helps the Starks and future generations. A Stark queen could mean more sympathy from the crown towards northern beliefs and ideals, and many other benefits.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Winter prince said:

I know other's have made the point but the rebellion started because Jon Arryn raised his banners when Aerys called for the heads of Robert and Ned.  This was not a Helen of Troy incident

Exactly.

Share this post


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

The rebels didn't go to war after Lyanna's kidnapping. They went to war after batshit insane Aerys roasted Rickard Stark alive and killed his heir in response for them wanting Lyanna back. And probably because of generally being fedup with the crazy tyrant.

If Aerys had not killed Rickard and Brandon, his line would likely still rule Westeros today.

Because they thought she was kidnapped and raped no? If they didn't think that, they wouldn't have gone down all swords blazing and wouldn't have died and therefore that war wouldn't have started. So it was based off a lie. There is a cause behind the thing people call the cause of the war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real question is why was Lyanna so hush hush about everything before and after the murders of her Father and Brother? Being a Stark, I highly doubt she wouldn't be upfront and honest. She was very willful, much like Arya, and would not hesitate to speak up about what she truly wanted. I dont believe Lyanna could livw qith what happened that easily, so this has Rhaegar written all over it.

Share this post


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

I think in the books its made clearer that Ned knew that Lyanna did not love Robert, and I believe that though it's never confirmed, he at least suspected that she left with him willingly. I think to be honest everybody suspected that, because after all, I'm sure the lords of Westeros were aware of what kind of persons Rhaegar and Robert were. Having said that, the Rebellion wasn't started 'on a lie' completely - that's the show being dramatic. Although Rhaegar did not kidnap Lyanna, her brother and father did fo to King's Landing, and murdered by the Mad King. That more than anything was what started the rebellion, and I'm sure that the kidnap just an excuse that many of the Westerosi lords needed to legitimize a rebellion to overthrow the King.

But if they knew Lyanna wasn't kidnapped they wouldn't ride to King's Landing to demand justice, so there would be no rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×