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
Posted (edited)

This is one of the plot arcs that I really despise as much as I enjoy the books and the show as separate media telling a similar story, both written and controlled by GRRM. It's another deus ex machine by which Jon goes from bastard to legitimate claimant to the Throne. Really? Such a cliché writing is considered "better"?

1. Obviously Lord Rickard had a plan. Think about it. He marries the North into alliances with the River Lands and the Storm Lands, isolating the Crown Lands and King's Landing from the Westerlands, the Reach and Dorne. He is BFF with Lord Jon Arynn, where the Vale out-flanks the approaches to King's Landing. He now gathers four of the nine power centers in the Seven Kingdom's into a bloc. He can seal the deal with a final marriage alliance, offering Edard and/or Benjen to Lord Tywin Lannister for Cersei and Lady Ohlena Tyrell for Margaery. If this happened he could stare down the "Mad King" and perhaps force his abdication.  Lyanna's and Prince Rhaegar's actions disrupt this plan. Did Prince Rhaegar consider this in his actions? His actions were disputably illegal. He did not have the permission of Lyanna's father and Lord to marry nor that of his father and King to divorce Elia Martell. It could reasonably be argued that Jon was a bastard, who could only be legitimized by the head of House Targaryan and the King.

2. Now take this plan and substitute Lyanna marrying Prince Rhagar. A Targaryan-Stark alliance on these terms could bond all the Seven Kingdoms except the Storm Lands and Dorne through Stark blood. Imagine Edard marries Cersei. Lord Tywin now has someone other than his one son that had foresworn his inheritance and his other son he despises. Lady Ohlenna is now bound to the Starks through Benjen and Marjorie. Prince Rhaegar would have the power to force his father's abdication and he would reign over the Seven Kingdoms. The only other fly in this ointment would be that like the Earl of Warwick, Lord Rickard would be "Kingmaker". With her divorce, the children are removed from the succession and Jon/Aegon (why Aegon, Prince Rhaegar already had an Aegon?) would have been the legitimate heir.

3. If Rhagar's objective was fulfilling the prophecy was to create a third "Dragon", why didn't he just divorce Elia and bargain with Lord Rickard for Lyanna? Certainly this would anger his father, but he wouldn't take his anger out on Elia and the children, so they were protected. If he married Lyanna, he would have Lord Rickard and the North as allies. The whole secret divorce and elopement was, I supposed, done because they King himself would have opposed such a course of action. But what did the Prince think was going to happen? The King would be mad whenever he found out. Prince Rhaegar had destroyed the Targaryan alliance with Dorne and disobeyed his father. So why not do this publically with Lord Rickard's support? I don't doubt Lord Rickard wouldn't trade Prince Rhaegar for Lord Robert Baratheon and a grandson who would inherit the Iron Throne. In the world of Item 2 and 3, Jon could be fostered by his grandfather in the North and then brought south for his final education and assumption of the responsibilities of Heir at his arrival at manhood.

4. Even if Prince Rhaegar had acted publically there could still have been a civil war. Consider, Prince Rhaegar marries Lyanna and gains Lord Rickard's support. Lord Rickard has the support of Lord Hoster of the River Lands and of Lord Jon of the Vale. Lord Robert would be torn between anger over his betrothal being set aside and his love for his foster brother and BFF, Edard. The King would have the resources of the Crown Lands and King's Landing, and the support of Dorne. The swing votes would be Lord Tywin and Lady Ohlenna. The King would reject the divorce and marriage and command the Prince to obey him. The Prince would refuse. The King would order the arrest of the Prince. The Prince would raise the banners of rebellion. If Lord Rickard and Prince Rhaegar promise Danerys (once born), Edard and Benjen in marriage to Robert, Tywin (for Cersei) and Ohlenna (for Loras or Margaery), then they sway the Lannisters and Tyrells to their side. They defeat the Royal forces, King Aerys II burns down King's Landing, along with Elia Martell and the children and Rhaegar's brother and sister end up on Dragonstone.

5. Prince Rhaegar divorced Elia Martell. An annulment applies only to marriages which are not consummated or from which there have been no issue. That is certainly not the case in the marriage of Prince Rhaegar and Elia Martell.

6. In a feudal society with inheritance by the eldest male child or surviving relative, younger sons depended on the largesse of their eldest siblings. In European society, youngest sons could be sent into the Church to pursue a career full of opportunity for advancement and wealth. They could join the military orders of the Church. They could attach themselves to a lord or follow him in a war of conquest (think William of Normandy) where they might expect being rewarded with lands. As a third son, Benjen, unless he was bethrothed into another family, had little prospects except to serve his older brother. Joining the Watch was an acceptable alternative in the North.

5. The whole thing is so 20-21st century. Lady Lyanna Stark would have been willful, but she would have understood her position and its responsibilities. It went with the fine horses and education and arms training and clothes. Her place in a feudal society was to cement alliances through marriage and ensure the continuation of the family she was married into. It was a patriarchal society in which she owed obedience to her father. It was even more so for Prince Rhaegar. He was heir to the Iron Throne. everything he did could have political ramifications impacting the Targaryan rule over the Seven Kingdoms. He too owed obedience to his father. Their actions were irresponsible. Whether Lyanna was abducted or she eloped with the Prince, this act set the stage for Robert's Rebellion, which was based on the reactions of others to their action. Lie or not, yes, Lyanna and Rhaegar caused the rebellion and all that followed.

 

Edited by Michael Snyder
Got the name wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it, Bran's a liar. And he's looking the wrong way regarding what's important. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/8/2018 at 6:49 AM, Angel Eyes said:

Let's face it, Bran's a liar. And he's looking the wrong way regarding what's important. 

I think there is zero chance Bran is a liar. Makes no sense from a narrative perspective 

Share this post


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

I think there is zero chance Bran is a liar. Makes no sense from a narrative perspective 

But he is a liar. Because Robert's Rebellion wasn't built on a lie. Do you think Ned Stark wouldn't fight for his own life and getting his sister back? Or that Rickard and Brandon Stark were justly executed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

But he is a liar. Because Robert's Rebellion wasn't built on a lie. Do you think Ned Stark wouldn't fight for his own life and getting his sister back? Or that Rickard and Brandon Stark were justly executed?

The show has effectively said that Robert's Rebellion was built on the lie that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna Stark. 

Unless you think they are going to introduce a plot next year that Bran lied about that, that means that in show cannon the above statement is true. 

Will it be true in the books? Who knows. But its true in the show. Thinking that Bran the character is actually lying when the character has no motive to lie is a bit much. 

 

Share this post


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

The show has effectively said that Robert's Rebellion was built on the lie that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna Stark. 

Unless you think they are going to introduce a plot next year that Bran lied about that, that means that in show cannon the above statement is true. 

Will it be true in the books? Who knows. But its true in the show. Thinking that Bran the character is actually lying when the character has no motive to lie is a bit much. 

 

Oh it’s that lie? I thought that Robert’s Rebellion was built on the fact that Aerys called for Robert and Ned’s heads on flimsy charges and Jon Arryn refused to give them up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

Oh it’s that lie? I thought that Robert’s Rebellion was built on the fact that Aerys called for Robert and Ned’s heads on flimsy charges and Jon Arryn refused to give them up.

Sounds about as accurate as saying The War for the Five Kings was built on the fact that Catlyn Stark kidnapped Tyrion Lannister and absonded with him and conveniently ignoring all of Littlefinger’s machinations to engineer the war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How is it even a lie from Robert's perspective ? His betrothed loves another man and next the king kills her father and brother and wants to kill Robert and Ned. And this is then called a lie ?

Da fuq ?

No, Bran is called a liar because it is the only thing that holds the entire plot together. When we take away the lie, the result still has the same rebellion causes as before. It's a stupid sentence and Bran the liar, as established book liar (he was kind of a child in the first book), is at least somehow better than Bran the idiot.

Edited by SirArthur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SirArthur said:

How is it even a lie from Robert's perspective ? His betrothed loves another man and next the king kills her father and brother and wants to kill Robert and Ned. And this is then called a lie ?

lol... this is some fuzzy thing. 

one a lie can just be objective or not. is it true that Rhaegar kidnapped and raped Lyanna or not? doesn't really mater what Robert's perspective is. 

Your second question is a total straw man  because at no point is the fact that the king killed Rickard and Brandon being called a lie. 

What is being called a lie is the reason why Brandon went to KL in the first place to demand the head of the Crown Prince. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jcmontea said:

doesn't really mater what Robert's perspective is. 

It is not Lyanna's romance or Rickard's death, it is Robert's rebellion. The sentence is Robert's rebellion is based on a lie. 

And in Robert's rebellion Robert's perpective may matter. You may not like it, but when Robert feels he got cuckolded, he rebels. And it doesn't matter what lies or not lies are spread around. Lies are complete irrelevant in Robert's rebellion.

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

×