Jump to content
purple-eyes

Robert rebellion was based on a lie, by whom?

Recommended Posts

Just now, lancerman said:

Does Sam count as a main character?

Let's assume he does. He's the only main character who you could put near Jon in terms of any type of rankinh

Regardless of how low he starts off, check the rest of my post. It undermines everything Jon's arc stands for if he gets a better life for himself because of who he is, rather than what he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 10:13 AM, Beardy the Wildling said:

Regardless of how low he starts off, check the rest of my post. It undermines everything Jon's arc stands for if he gets a better life for himself because of who he is, rather than what he does.

Not really. He already did that. He joined the Night's Watch, he became Lord Commander, he saved the Wildlings, he retook Winterfell, he became King of the North, he is in a relationship with a Queen vying for the Iton Throne and likely impregnated her meaning his heir is a potential heir to the IT if Dany wins. 

At this point, he's already proven himself. It doesn't matter if he gains the other half of the country because of birthright. 

The story is Jon Snow's parents love set off a chain reaction that led to a two massive wars in Westeros and ultimately he rose up to be the savior of the continent and king. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 0:16 PM, lancerman said:

Not really. He already did that. He joined the Night's Watch, he became Lord Commander, he saved the Wildlings, he retook Winterfell, he became King of the North, he is in a relationship with a Queen vying for the Iton Throne and likely impregnated her meaning his heir is a potential heir to the IT if Dany wins. 

At this point, he's already proven himself. It doesn't matter if he gains the other half of the country because of birthright. 

The story is Jon Snow's parents love set off a chain reaction that led to a two massive wars in Westeros and ultimately he rose up to be the savior of the continent and king. 

:agree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have already said, Bran's little exposition bomb was a stupid. Firstly, Robert's Rebellion wasn't "built on a lie" - it was, at best, built on a misunderstanding. Even then, had Rickard Stark and Brandon Stark known that Lyanna went with Rhaegar willingly, was that unbelievably stupid action by the two of them - Rhaegar in particular - ever going to end well.

In the show, they went as far as to have Rhaegar annul his marriage to Elia so he could marry Lyanna. While it is implied that kings (so, maybe princes) can put aside their wives if they so desire, as Renly and Loras hoped Robert would do with Cersei for Margaery, that marriage was part of an important Dornish alliance. Would Doran Martell have taken such a slight against his sister and her children lightly? Very unlikely. Thus, the choice would have likely provoked war regardless. I also have my doubts that knowing Lyanna ran off with Rhaegar willingly would have stopped Brandon Stark for bursting a gasket on the steps of the Red Keep because Lyanna was a, what, fifteen-year-old girl? Betrothed to another, no less? No, I reckon he still would have gone in there, sword swinging. He was the "wild wolf", after all.

So...yeah, I doubt anyone needed to lie. Even if the truth was widely known - in the books, Dany and Viserys seem to be under the impression Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love, after all - the fact they absconded together would have set the wheels in motion.

As to who might have spilt the beans that Rhaegar made off with Lyanna, they only had to have been seen by someone who then told someone else and word and gossip spread. For all we know, little Benjen did it, or even just a servant at Winterfell.

Edited by Faera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2017 at 10:56 AM, mankytoes said:

That wasn't the case in feudal England. Edward the Fourth had a secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, which had huge historical consequences (this was probably an influence on Robb's marriage and downfall, seeing as it was in the Wars of the Roses. Also, if you've read the Princess and the Queen, he pissed off the real life "Kingmaker"). http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/berkshire/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_9228000/9228953.stm

Obviously someone knows they're married- the septon, who recorded it with the Citadel (I guess a Westerosi marriage doesn't require witnesses? I can't recall any being mentioned in book or show).

In any case, you could say Robert's rebellion was caused by a lie- as in Brandon demanded combat because he thought Lyanna was abducted, which caused his and Rickard's deaths, which caused the demand for Ned and Robert's head, which caused Jon Arryn's rebellion (as I've always thought it should be called). But it wasn't really based on a lie.

Which makes Bran a liar. As the Three-Eyed Raven, he would know these things.

I think Westerosi marriages do not require witnesses. Just look at Robb and Talisa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the original question, but a lot of great points in this thread. Robert's Rebellion wasn't based on a lie (this is from mainly a book perspective). It was in the works for a while and I think everyone kinda knew it was coming. Lyanna Stark was used as a political marriage for the Starks and Baratheons as they were joining a bunch of the houses together to overthrow the mad king. Even Rhaegar I believe wanted to overthrow him (I have to double check that, though). 

Lyanna and Rhaegar hooking up and having a kid didn't start the rebellion, but it may have spurred it on a little faster.

Also, completely off topic because I saw it brought up a few times, Rhaegar is/was TPTWP/AA in my opinion, Jon is Lightbringer. I don' think the show will do it that way, but the books I think will. Just my thought!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2017 at 8:01 AM, Beardy the Wildling said:

All right, R + L = J is almost certainly true, as even GRRM is hamfisted in its foreshadowing. But why is there a need for Jon to be legitimate? Unlike the show, the books don't make Jon out to be the perfect action hero mary sue protagonist bailed out by five Deus ex Machinas a season.

Because Rhaegar believed he needed three children to fulfill the prophecy, and he would logically want them all to be legitimate. But since there's a history of Targaryen polygamy, I think that, rather than the show's neat annulment, in the books he will have married Lyanna while still remaining married to Elia. Which makes Jon's legitimacy easy to contest, since the tradition of polygamy hadn't been practiced in generations. And it's less likely in the books that someone will neatly stumble upon the information that shows Jon is the hidden prince or that he'll neatly become king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2017 at 11:00 AM, btfu806 said:

To answer the original question, but a lot of great points in this thread. Robert's Rebellion wasn't based on a lie (this is from mainly a book perspective). It was in the works for a while and I think everyone kinda knew it was coming. Lyanna Stark was used as a political marriage for the Starks and Baratheons as they were joining a bunch of the houses together to overthrow the mad king.

Never directly indicated, but some readers think this based on Lady Barbrey Dustin's comment about Lord Rickard Stark's "Southron ambitions".

On 11/29/2017 at 11:00 AM, btfu806 said:

 Even Rhaegar I believe wanted to overthrow him (I have to double check that, though).

He said to Jaime that things might change after the war was won, indicating that he regretted having not done anything about his father's misrule for so long and would quietly have Aerys removed from power.

On 10/2/2017 at 11:37 AM, Faera said:

As others have already said, Bran's little exposition bomb was a stupid.

Yeah, it was a vast oversimplification for the sake of the audience, whom they apparently think need things simplified.

Edited by Noneofyourbusiness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎19‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 8:25 AM, Beardy the Wildling said:

One: Lowest main character my arse. Jon was raised alongside his cousins as one of Ned Stark's own, he regularly acted like a spoilt idiot both in the show and in the early books pre-character development. In terms of how he was treated by his family, Sam was worse off than him.

And honestly, if Jon rises to power not because of his actions but just a contrivance of who he is, it goes against his entire arc. His rise to prominence in the Night's Watch shows him that it doesn't matter who he is, but what he does with his time. That's kind of undermined by going 'but who you are does matter lol you're secretly the king aren't you happy lol'?

I'm also somewhat confused as to why you think Jon being king is inherently good and satisfying, especially in the show verse. In the show verse, Jon's a bloody moron. He doesn't deserve any of the lucky breaks the universe throws at him, yet it happens anyway. Once again, undermining the whole 'not who you are, but what you do' theme because obviously, to the universe, it does matter that he's a Michael Bay invincible action hero.

But hey, what do I know, I'm not an emmy-winning writer, and themes are for eighth-grade book reports.

I think both in the show and book if he ends up as king it would be because of who he is/has achieved. 

Jon's arc in the show is about how he got into positions of power because of his actions despite being a bastard. I could totally see in the books jon having a sarcastic conversation with someone about he still ended up as king despite no one knowing who his parents really were. Despite the rebellion, the war of the 5 kings, danny and ww the rightful heir still ended up as king by his action without anyone knowing it is his birthrigth. It gives a sense of how all these wars and death were meaningless...

Edited by divica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2017 at 7:57 PM, Noneofyourbusiness said:

He said to Jaime that things might change after the war was won, indicating that he regretted having not done anything about his father's misrule for so long and would quietly have Aerys removed from power.

Excellent thank you for knowing that. I knew it was something kinda like that, but couldn't remember off the top of my head. Should probably read the books again :/ 

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

×