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

12 minutes ago, falcotron said:

We have lots of examples (in the books, at least) of princes who ran off and eloped and their fathers demanded that they set aside the spouse. Sometimes the princes stood their ground and prevailed, but it was always a struggle. But if you come back with a legitimate baby, it's basically fait accompli; there's nothing dad can say.

How ironic to argue that having children basically prevents the annulment of a marriage. ;)

Anyway, while I agree that in such a case the marriage itself would be "fait accompli," dad can still choose another heir. Something which Aerys would have done in a heartbeat, since in the books he was considering doing that anyway.

That's actually how elopement worked in real life: you could choose your spouse, but by giving up all your rights to inheritance. That's actually the true meaning of "to elope": to run away... and not come back.

Here, we even have the added problem that the annulment is supposed to have been granted by no less than the High Septon, the highest religious authority of the land. How did Rhaegar convince the HS to do that exactly? Are we to suppose that the HS did it without consulting the king? It's all bloody ridiculous.

Generally speaking, secretly annuling the marriage to Elia in order to make Lyanna's children legitimate was a stupid idea that could backfire spectacularly. It's dumb to have used it on the show, plain and simple.

 

12 minutes ago, falcotron said:

And, likewise, it affects what the Martells can do. They can't demand that the events be undone when there's already a baby; the only thing they can do is ask for some kind of compensation for having used and wasted such a prime daughter.**

<snip>

** And if they're smart, they'll try to make a deal with Rhaegar instead of making a demand to Aerys. Having soon-to-be-King Rhaegar in your debt, with your grandson still as his heir, is probably worth a lot more than pissing off the Mad King and who knows what happens. And if Elia and Doran's mother wa anything like show!Doran, she'll be able to calm down and be smart.

The Martells are a two-edged sword -as an argument.
On the one hand, hiding the annulment from them makes a lot of sense, because such an offense would likely anger them. On the other hand, hiding it from them, thus tricking them into fighting the rebels, basically makes it an irredeemable offense. Once Elia is no longer queen and her children no longer royal prince and princess there's really nothing Rhaegar can offer them to make up for it. Not to mention that if Aerys disinherits him, Rhaegar is in no position to offer any deal at all.

I think whichever way you spin it, the show's decision to talk about annulment is terribly stupid.
Repudiation would have been considerably better. I'm pretty confident that's how it'll be in the books -if Jon is to be legitimate in the books, which I'm still not 100% convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 10:22 AM, LastManStanding said:

That's the point. No one thought she ran away with him. They thought he took her, possibly raped her. That is the lie that the rebellion was based on.

That's NOT a lie. You keep saying that, but you don't seem to understand what constitutes a lie. Operating on an erroneous assumption isn't a lie, it's a mistake. A lie is a willful distortion of the truth. If someone had known straightaway what happened, and said otherwise, then yes, it would be a lie. We have no proof whatsoever that anyone lied at any point, though.

1) Lyanna disappears: Everyone believe Rhaegar abducted her. That was a sincere belief, and seemed the most logical conclusion based off the available evidence at the time. If the people who repeat that story honestly believe it, then no, it's not a lie.

2) Brandon goes to King's Landing: Brandon went to King's Landing on the mistaken assumption that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna. Again, if he sincerely believed that, then it wasn't a lie, but an erroneous conclusion.

3) Aerys calls for the heads of Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon: That was something that most assuredly happened, which left them with only two choices, rebel or die. so where's the lie there? 

There are a lot of incorrect assumptions, but that's nowhere near the same as the rebelling beginning with a lie.

Share this post


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

How ironic to argue that having children basically prevents the annulment of a marriage. ;)

Well, it doesn't really prevent the annulment of a marriage, it just takes away the main motive for someone to demand an annulment.

But yeah, people have pointed out a similar irony in Anne Boleyn being desperate to produce an heir, which I'm sure GRRM has thought of…

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Anyway, while I agree that in such a case the marriage itself would be "fait accompli," dad can still choose another heir. Something which Aerys would have done in a heartbeat, since in the books he was considering doing that anyway.

That's actually how elopement worked in real life: you could choose your spouse, but by giving up all your rights to inheritance. That's actually the true meaning of "to elope": to run away... and not come back.

It didn't always go that way in real life. And, more to the point (at least in the books), it definitely didn't always go that way in Westerosi history. We have multiple stories of Targaryen princes whose fathers tried to order them to set aside their inappropriate wife, but didn't disinherit them.

Anyway, in the books, Aerys was considering disinheriting Rhaegar, but at the same time Rhaegar was considering calling a Great Council to either depose Aerys or force him to accept Rhaegar as a regent, and it's not entirely clear who would have prevailed. Rhaegar definitely had more of the lords on his side, but he'd ceded both the momentum and the higher ground to his father when he ran off for a few months instead of trying again after Varys screwed up his tourney plan, so there definitely was a risk here. (And yes, that does mean he was putting Elia's children's future at risk too, because Aerys could have named Viserys just as easily as he could have skipped Rhaegar and named Aegon.)

But, even if the same is true in the show, that's the risk of running off with Lyanna in the first place; the annulment doesn't add anything to the risk, and since the annulment does solve a different problem (that of Aerys and/or the Martells demanding that Lyanna be set aside), it still makes sense.

22 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Here, we even have the added problem that the annulment is supposed to have been granted by no less than the High Septon, the highest religious authority of the land. How did Rhaegar convince the HS to do that exactly?

Well, we don't know the answer to that. We know nothing about that High Septon, very little about the prevailing situation in the show, and almost nothing about what he and Rhaegar talked about. All we do know is that the High Septon did agree to it, which implies that it wasn't actually ridiculous, because it's unlikely a High Septon would agree to something ridiculous.

23 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Generally speaking, secretly annuling the marriage to Elia in order to make Lyanna's children legitimate was a stupid idea that could backfire spectacularly. It's dumb to have used it on the show, plain and simple.

Generally speaking, running off with Lyanna to produce another child was a stupid plan. Whether you add an annulment or some other alternative or nothing at all, it really doesn't make it any stupider, or more likely to backfire.

So, this is a problem taken straight out of the books. Of course the books may do more to justify it, or they may openly paint Rhaegar as having gotten irrational out of desperation over the prophecy, or they may set up some complicated circumstances that make it more sensible in context, but the problem is going to be there; it wasn't invented by D&D.

26 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

The Martells are a two-edged sword -as an argument.
On the one hand, hiding the annulment from them makes a lot of sense, because such an offense would likely anger them. On the other hand, hiding it from them, thus tricking them into fighting the rebels, basically makes it an irredeemable offense.

Yes, but it's only an irredeemable offense if the whole thing blows up into a rebellion. And I don't think Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna expecting it to lead to a rebellion. He may have thought it was a possible risk, but it's surely not what he was counting on. So, in the worst case scenario—where everyone is pretty much fucked anyway—he's made things worse, but otherwise, he's made things better. That's a sensible decision to make.

29 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Repudiation would have been considerably better.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by repudiation. Like a traditional Islamic talaq? I'm not sure Westeros even has such a concept, but even if they do, what does it change? Rhaegar ends up not married to Elia. The children are still legitimate. Elia is "ruined", for which he may be expected to compensate her parents. Exactly the same as with an annulment. Except that he doesn't have the Faith's approval in advance to back him up. And, worse, unlike annulment, repudiation is makruh—not forbidden, but reprehensible, meaning it demands justification and/or atonement to repair his reputation. So, to the extent that it's different at all, it seems worse, not better.

I think what the books are most likely to go with is a bigamous marriage. Which would bring up all kinds of problems, because the only Targaryens who've tried that since the time of Maegar have been forced by their fathers to back down, because nobody wants to fight the Faith over it, especially in the post-dragon era. Unlike an annulment, repudiation, or divorce, it will definitely leave Jon's legitimacy open to challenge. If Rhaegar survived and took the throne, he could deal with that, but since he didn't, the question still stands. Which I think will turn out to be very important to Dany's story, in coming to rethink what her birthright and her claim really mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Well, it doesn't really prevent the annulment of a marriage, it just takes away the main motive for someone to demand an annulment.

Not exactly. A marriage is easily annuled if it hasn't been consummated. Children are obvious proofs of consummation.

34 minutes ago, falcotron said:

It didn't always go that way in real life. And, more to the point (at least in the books), it definitely didn't always go that way in Westerosi history. We have multiple stories of Targaryen princes whose fathers tried to order them to set aside their inappropriate wife, but didn't disinherit them.

We have *some* stories. Egg marrying for love because he was far in the line of succession, and then being lenient on his children because he found it hard to blame them for doing what he'd done. I recall a Targ prince and princess marrying each other for love in spite of their father's wishes ; but they were both Targaryens and this was kind of the family tradition. I'm not sure we have anything even remotely comparable to what Rhaegar did, especially with such a father as Aerys. And on the other hand, we have counter-examples with Tyrion and Lysa.

34 minutes ago, falcotron said:

But, even if the same is true in the show, that's the risk of running off with Lyanna in the first place; the annulment doesn't add anything to the risk, and since the annulment does solve a different problem (that of Aerys and/or the Martells demanding that Lyanna be set aside), it still makes sense.

Well, it does add something to the risk, since it's likely to make the Dornish extra pissed.

34 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Well, we don't know the answer to that. We know nothing about that High Septon, very little about the prevailing situation in the show, and almost nothing about what he and Rhaegar talked about. All we do know is that the High Septon did agree to it, which implies that it wasn't actually ridiculous, because it's unlikely a High Septon would agree to something ridiculous.

You're basically saying that it has to make sense because that's what the showrunners went with.

34 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Generally speaking, running off with Lyanna to produce another child was a stupid plan. Whether you add an annulment or some other alternative or nothing at all, it really doesn't make it any stupider, or more likely to backfire.

So, this is a problem taken straight out of the books. Of course the books may do more to justify it, or they may openly paint Rhaegar as having gotten irrational out of desperation over the prophecy, or they may set up some complicated circumstances that make it more sensible in context, but the problem is going to be there; it wasn't invented by D&D.

That's actually very true.
But of all the possible theories we can make about Rhaegar's plan, annulment by the HS is one of the most extraordinary.

Of course, the story has been simplified in the show. But simplifying doesn't have to be dumb. The simple introduction of Elia's barreness at some point wouldn't have taken more than 2 minutes of screen time. It would have given an explanation as to why Rhaegar could set Elia aside, though annulment would still not have been the best of terms.

34 minutes ago, falcotron said:

Yes, but it's only an irredeemable offense if the whole thing blows up into a rebellion. And I don't think Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna expecting it to lead to a rebellion.

If he didn't, he was a fool. Lyonel Baratheon was enough of a warning, I'd say. But the problem about the annulment lies with the Martells: there was no way they could let that slide.

34 minutes ago, falcotron said:

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by repudiation. Like a traditional Islamic talaq? I'm not sure Westeros even has such a concept, but even if they do, what does it change? Rhaegar ends up not married to Elia. The children are still legitimate.

Ah, yes. I tend to see annulment as affecting the children's legitimacy. That is a mistake of mine, I have to admit. Is you consider that annulment doesn't have any impact on the children, then it's much better for everyone.

Still, annulment means a marriage is considered as having never happened. Rhaegar had no reason to ask for that. It's an extra slight on Elia's honor, and one that the Martells wouldn't let slide imho.

Anyway, what's done is done, I'm just ranting at this point.

 

Share this post


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

Frankly speaking I think the time for that reasoning was already over and offing more people was the only reasonable thing left to do. Wiping enemy out was the most sane decision.

You know what Machiavelli said about those things: "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared".

Well it didn't quite work out, did it? Because Viserys and Daenerys got away and in fourteen years Robert was crapping his pants that Drogo might sail over his Dothraki screamers.... oh man, I still wish that had happened :( 

Share this post


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

Not exactly. A marriage is easily annuled if it hasn't been consummated. Children are obvious proofs of consummation.

Sure, but… how is that even relevant here? That's one of many reasons for annulment in the real world, and it's presumably one of many reasons for annulment in Westeros, but it's obviously not the reason for annulment in this case, so… why are you even bringing this up?

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

We have *some* stories. Egg marrying for love because he was far in the line of succession, and then being lenient on his children because he found it hard to blame them for doing what he'd done. I recall a Targ prince and princess marrying each other for love in spite of their father's wishes ; but they were both Targaryens and this was kind of the family tradition. I'm not sure we have anything even remotely comparable to what Rhaegar did, especially with such a father as Aerys. And on the other hand, we have counter-examples with Tyrion and Lysa.

Egg didn't demand any of his children set aside their wives, so I'm not sure why you're even bringing him up here. He's not relevant.

And meanwhile, how are Tyrion or Lysa counterexamples to anything relevant?

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Well, it does add something to the risk, since it's likely to make the Dornish extra pissed.

An annulment would make the Dornish a lot less pissed than the repudiation you suggested, at least if repudiation is a thing in their world and even remotely like the equivalent concept in our world.

More to the point, the Dornish are going to be pissed that Elia was set aside, no matter how it happened. What does annulment add to that? Are they going to be extra pissed because Rhaegar found a way to do it that doesn't add any dishonor to her? That doesn't make any sense.

In real life, people tend to be angrier if you divorce their daughter, or repudiate your marriage to her, than if you annul your marriage to their daughter. Annulment is the only major option that doesn't automatically leave her as a "ruined woman". And there's no reason to believe Westeros is any different.

8 hours ago, Rippounet said:

You're basically saying that it has to make sense because that's what the showrunners went with.

No, but I am saying that if they're a simple way to interpret things that's simple and that makes sense, vs. a way to interpret things that's much more complicated and doesn't make sense, then you should probably interpret things the simple way.

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Of course, the story has been simplified in the show. But simplifying doesn't have to be dumb. The simple introduction of Elia's barreness at some point wouldn't have taken more than 2 minutes of screen time. It would have given an explanation as to why Rhaegar could set Elia aside, though annulment would still not have been the best of terms.

In our world, barrenness has rarely been a justification for annulment. (That's basically why the Anglican Church exists today.) And there's no evidence that it's a justification for annulment in Westeros. So… why do you think they should bring it up?

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Ah, yes. I tend to see annulment as affecting the children's legitimacy. That is a mistake of mine, I have to admit. Is you consider that annulment doesn't have any impact on the children, then it's much better for everyone.

Still, annulment means a marriage is considered as having never happened. Rhaegar had no reason to ask for that. It's an extra slight on Elia's honor, and one that the Martells wouldn't let slide imho.

No, it's much, much less of a slight—at least in Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and Islam, and as far as we know in Westeros as well—than any of the other options.

Meanwhile: If I believe the word "fire" means "something teal" and criticize the show because Sandor's vision is red instead of teal, I suppose I'm allowed to do that, but it's not an interesting criticism of the show. Likewise, if you believe the word "annulment" means something completely different from its actual meaning, I suppose you're allowed to do that, but the conclusions you reach as a result are not an interesting criticism of the show.

Share this post


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

Meanwhile: If I believe the word "fire" means "something teal" and criticize the show because Sandor's vision is red instead of teal, I suppose I'm allowed to do that, but it's not an interesting criticism of the show. Likewise, if you believe the word "annulment" means something completely different from its actual meaning, I suppose you're allowed to do that, but the conclusions you reach as a result are not an interesting criticism of the show.

Fair enough, I guess. But, if there's something stupid on the show and you say it can't actually be ridiculous because it was on the show, then your defense of the show is pretty much worthless.

You've refused to aknowledge a very simple fact: using the real-life definition of annulment, Rhaegar couldn't get one. There is no reason for annuling marriages that could apply here. That's why it's so dumb that the showrunners went with that.
In order to get an annulment, Rhaegar would have had to lie, or at least act in bad faith. That's why I was arguing that the HS wouldn't have granted it, and that the Dornish would have been mightily pissed (at Rhaegar's bad faith, that is). But it seems I was being a bit too subtle.

But hey, the thing about "annulment" is that it's one of these words that everybody kind of knows what it means, but doesn't really, know what I mean? Like, I keep forgetting that the children of an annuled marriage are generally still considered legitimate, and you obviously don't know what the argument for an annulment is supposed to look like. So perhaps it wasn't so dumb a choice after all. And given the overall quality of the show's writing, this is probably one of the smartest choices they made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1.09.2017 at 9:32 AM, RhaenysB said:

Well it didn't quite work out, did it? Because Viserys and Daenerys got away and in fourteen years Robert was crapping his pants that Drogo might sail over his Dothraki screamers.... oh man, I still wish that had happened :( 

Well he did his best and I can't blame him for trying.

Even more interesting that Ned had objections, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1.09.2017 at 0:26 AM, falcotron said:

I know people like to describe characters like Tywin as Machiavellian, but you can only take that so far.

Machiavelli was a Renaissance writer looking back on the common wisdom that everyone believed from the medieval era to identify things that everyone had gotten wrong. And much of he came up with was kind of shocking even in his era. To anyone living in the medieval era, some of his ideas were literally almost unthinkable.

That's probably because Machiavellianism has two meaning that are often confused.

Machiavelic (Machiavellian) person is someone who is very efficient in adjusting his/her behavior to your expectations in hopes of obtaining certain award from you. Unlike manipulative people who might often fail, machiavelics mostly succeed. It takes specific set of skills to be machiavelic. Littlefinger is certainly machiavelic, Tywin not so much.

Machiavellianism might be also understood as a political doctrine based on pragmatic use of deceit, duplicity and violence to forward political goals. Here Tywin is a master beyond compare, as you can point out that "The Prince" was a direct inspiration for GRRM. You could say that Tywin literally does things "by the book".

What I've meant to say when I quoted Machiavelli is that making insults and injuries that can be avenged makes no sense at all. Once Aerys murdered the Starks, he also had to kill Ned. This because Ned would be forced by his bannermen to exact vengeance even if he didn't intend to. Besides Aerys could never trust him afterwards. Even Rhaegar didn't question this logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2017 at 7:03 AM, falcotron said:

More to the point, the Dornish are going to be pissed that Elia was set aside, no matter how it happened. What does annulment add to that? Are they going to be extra pissed because Rhaegar found a way to do it that doesn't add any dishonor to her? That doesn't make any sense.

Wouldn't the annulment, which leads to a second marriage, make the Dornish angrier because Rhaegar can now have legitimate children which will threaten the future of Elia's? Taking Lyanna as mistress might be humiliating, but at least the children would be bastards and Elia would still be future Queen. By marrying Lyanna, Rhaegar's setting the stage for Dance of the Dragons 2.0 and declaring that Lyanna is his Queen, not Elia.

Share this post


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

Wouldn't the annulment, which leads to a second marriage, make the Dornish angrier because Rhaegar can now have legitimate children which will threaten the future of Elia's? Taking Lyanna as mistress might be humiliating, but at least the children would be bastards and Elia would still be future Queen. By marrying Lyanna, Rhaegar's setting the stage for Dance of the Dragons 2.0 and declaring that Lyanna is his Queen, not Elia.

It seems that he did that in Harrenhall already, before even marrying Lyanna. As I understood giving Lyanna the roses and naming her the queen of love and beauty instead of pregnant Elia when the whole Westeros was watching was humiliating enough. I wonder what Oberyn felt and told then. He was present there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29.8.2017 at 7:58 AM, Danny- said:

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

The show has become a pathetic joke full of modern age real world ideas such as women's rights or democracy. If we set this aside Rhaegar is still guilty of abduction. It doesn't matter if Lyanna consented or not. Her father didn't and that is what matters. One can compare the case to a minor today. Doesn't matter if she consents if she is 6. So no lie here. Rhaegar has dishonored the Houses Stark and Baratheon and their duty demanded action.

Share this post


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

Wouldn't the annulment, which leads to a second marriage, make the Dornish angrier because Rhaegar can now have legitimate children which will threaten the future of Elia's? Taking Lyanna as mistress might be humiliating, but at least the children would be bastards and Elia would still be future Queen. By marrying Lyanna, Rhaegar's setting the stage for Dance of the Dragons 2.0 and declaring that Lyanna is his Queen, not Elia.

He completly dishonored Dorne and House Martell with his actions. Setting aside his wife like a whore is the worst one could do. Straight out killing her would have been better.

 

But it's the tv show. so......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/29/2017 at 4:00 AM, falcotron said:

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.

 

Nah in the show there were also plans. 4:12 he confides in Barristan that there would be changes at court after he returned from the Trident.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hodor's Aunt said:

The show has become a pathetic joke full of modern age real world ideas such as women's rights or democracy. If we set this aside Rhaegar is still guilty of abduction. It doesn't matter if Lyanna consented or not. Her father didn't and that is what matters. One can compare the case to a minor today. Doesn't matter if she consents if she is 6. So no lie here. Rhaegar has dishonored the Houses Stark and Baratheon and their duty demanded action.

While I do not believe that RR was based on a lie, I think what the showrunners meant, when bran said it was, was that Robert and everybody else were wrong in believing that lyanna was abducted. Bran wasn't discussing the legality of it.

It's true that the events that set off RR was Aerys killing Brandon and Rickard. But the point bran was making was lyanna's abduction and rape was a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DnD pretty much loves Targaryens. There are many examples for that. The sudden change in portraying rival houses after Season 5 is pretty much an example for that. House Baratheon was pretty much made into a group of murderers, House Arryn is non existent and House Martell is a chapter better not discussed. Many interesting characters are now just subservient to the main "Hot couple" (Tyrion is one such example). Arya and Sansa until the last episode were fillers b/w all the dragon action; we don't know what is Bran doing, or what he is actually capable of. What they did with Littlefinger and Varys is really unjustified. Euron, well Euron just sucks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing can be based on lie without there being actual liars :) Though yeah, I guess Rhaegar and Lyanna might have lied (or instructed someone to lie). Rhaegar might have wanted a confrontation to get pretext to depose his daddy... Though he may have not realised how far will he go in his pyromania. After all, trying to extinguish two Paramount families at once? That is not like the aftermath of Duskendale or like burning some nobody fed to him by Varys here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×