Jump to content
Angel Eyes

If Robert’s Rebellion was built on a lie,

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Angel Eyes said:

I wouldn't mind reading an epic rebuttal to be honest. 

Well, since you asked...

 

First off, the rebellion was not based on a lie. Lyanna disappeared. She was engaged to Robert and she disappeared with Rhagar. Her brother went to King's landing and demanded the King release Lyanna. He was arrested. His father came to King's landing at the King's command and they were both burnt alive in the throne room without trial. The King then commanded Jon Aryn to surrender both Robert Baratheon and Eddard Stark for execution. What the fuck are people supposed to think!!!!! Robert didn't lie. He had very good reason to believe Rhagar kidnapped his fiance'. Compound that with the Mad King burning people alive for no reason and threatening the populus and you have a rebellion.

 

Futhermore, in digging deeper you will find that the Rebellion was not only a long time coming, but a natural reaction to perpetuated abuse at the hands of Targarians monarchs.

 

Put simply, the problem with Targarian rule is systemic. Their incestuous practices breed madness. It's a diseased bloodline. They are either willfully sadistic or woefully incompetent in letting the incest practice pervail and subjecting their people to even the possibility of an insane monarch (and there have been many "Each time a Targarian is born the gods flip a coin"). If these King's were good Kings they would have safeguarded their people's future by outlawing the practice. They either liked the idea or didn't care enough to stop it. Either way they failed.

 

Moreover, they lost their right to the throne when the people became strong enough to push back and say "No more!". No more needless massaceres. No more innocent lives put at risk. Robert was not a great King but he freed the people from tyranny. He kept them safe and happy for 20 years. Stannis sacrificed everything he had to save the people. His life, his family's life, his army and his House. He was selfless. All Rhagar could think of is his love. Not realizing at all the political ruin it would bring. His duty was to the kingdom as a whole, to the people, his wife and his children. And Jon Snow? He's making the same mistakes his ancestors did!!! He just fucked his Aunt!!!! If he were to take the throne. He MIGHT be a good King (I don't think so, but that's another argument all together). But even if he was can you say the same for his children? Or that he himself won't succomb to madness? Aries II wasn't always crazy. Who knows when or if it could present it's self. The Kingdom could be at the mercy of another madman in twenty years. No. The Targarians lost any claim they had. The true King bears the name Baratheon.

Share this post


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

I mean it kinda did. Brandon went to King’s Landing on the conceit that Rheagar kidnapped his sister which put everything in motion. If not for the idea that Rheagar kidnapped Lyanna the war doesn’t happen. 

Several other things happened to officially start the war, but the snowball started with that.

Yeah, I don't get this fuss about that line. I just started a re-watch and in Episode One Robert and Ned are talking about Lyanna's death & burial in the crypt in one of the very first scenes...

While touching Lyanna statue's face, Robert: "In my dreams I kill him every night".
Ned: "It's done Your Grace. Targaryens are gone"  [because of the rebellion]
Robert: "Not all of them"

It's our first bit of historical lore we learn. It's obviously expanded on later, but it's planted in the wider history right there at the very beginning - he killed Rhaegar because of his own love for Lyanna. He is still burning with hatred for Targaryans even years later. The murder of the Starks may have kicked off the war itself, but Lyanna & Raeghar is what stoked the hatred in Robert.

So I don't think it's wrong at all to say Robert's rebellion was 'built on a lie'. The thing here I am unsure about is whether the word lie is being used in a bit of flowery way meaning 'misconception', or more literally to mean a 'known falsehood'. If Robert knew how they felt about each other and was intentionally lying about it to Ned and others because he couldn't face the truth himself then that is nasty and paints his character in a much darker light. Yeah, I would call him a villain in this case.

I think it's clear this is not something Ned would do, so don't see him as a villain here; he had no reason to doubt Robert.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

Robert didn't lie.

When Bran says 'built on a lie', are you sure it means a literal lie by Robert?

It could be a turn of phrase to just mean it wasn't true, which is what I took it to mean when first watching.

Edit: e.g. as in this randomly copied sentence... "The fact that the empire of Japan was training schoolchildren to attack soldiers with sharpened sticks lends lie to the thought they would have surrendered."

This isn't saying that the historians are intentionally lying, but rather that the author believes they were under a misapprehension.

 

Edited by Daske

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Except that they only rebelled after King Aerys called for Robert and Ned's heads on trumped-up charges. And that was after he had Lord Rickard burned alive, in a mockery of trial by combat, just because he gets off on watching people burn alive. He didn't even have the decency to do it himself. And Rickard had come to King's Landing in good faith, to pay a ransom. Brandon may have messed up by calling for Rhaegar's death when he arrived in King's Landing, but he didn't deserve to be made to strangle himself to death in a vain attempt to free his father.

Technically, Jon Arryn started the rebellion by refusing to give up his charges to be murdered. I"m surprised D&D didn't find this compelling, since a mentor refusing to give up his charges to death and figuratively putting himself in the line of fire is a common trope throughout fiction; Ben Kenobi gave his life to help Luke escape the Death Star and Gandalf the Grey held off the Balrog so the Fellowship of the Ring could escape Moria. This also appears in Game of Thrones; Syrio Forel held off Meryn Trant so Arya could escape while Qhorin Halfhand allowed Jon Snow to kill him so the wildlings would accept him and Jon could infiltrate them.

"Robert's Rebellion was built on a lie" justifies the Mad King's horrific actions. That is the lie.

Edited by Angel Eyes

Share this post


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

It's our first bit of historical lore we learn. It's obviously expanded on later, but it's planted in the wider history right there at the very beginning - he killed Rhaegar because of his own love for Lyanna. He is still burning with hatred for Targaryans even years later. The murder of the Starks may have kicked off the war itself, but Lyanna & Raeghar is what stoked the hatred in Robert.

 

You are right in that Robert hated the Targarians. You are also right that one of his primary motivations was selfish. He even admits later that he was more in love with the idea of Lyanna than the individual. He was so consumed with retrieving this thing that had been taken from him that her loss created a hole seven kingdoms couldn't fill. I'm paraphrasing here but the point is clear. 

I will however also mention that Robert, regardless if his selfish motivation, did have a duty to protect his betrothed. He was also proclaimed a traitor and sentenced to execution without trial for simply being engaged to Lyanna. 

The truth is Robert was duty bound to find and protect Lyanna (who to the best of anyone's knowledge was a Targarian prisoner) and to fight the injustices visited upon himself and his fellow countrymen. Just because Robert fought with selfish motivations does not preclude the fact that he had rightous motivations as well. The Rebellion was Just. It started for very good reasons.

Share this post


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

I mean it kinda did. Brandon went to King’s Landing on the conceit that Rheagar kidnapped his sister which put everything in motion. If not for the idea that Rheagar kidnapped Lyanna the war doesn’t happen. 

Several other things happened to officially start the war, but the snowball started with that.

Or Howland Reed is the one to blame - if he hadn't been at the Tourney at Harrenhal, Lyanna would have never been the Knight of the Laughing Tree, and wouldn't have met Rhaegar and gotten close to him.

Or Rickard and mama Stark started it all by conceiving Brandon. If they hadn't, Ned would have been the eldest brother and, not being a hothead, would have never gone to King's Landing to challenge Rhaegar. 

Or it's all the fault of Aegon, Visenya and Rhaenys - if they hadn't conquered Westeros and established the Targaryen royal dynasty, none of it would have happened.

 

:rolleyes:

Yes, that's how freaking dumb all those rationalizations are. Aerys was the one to blame for the rebellion, and Jon Arryn started it. That's the fact. I can't believe the amount of nonsense people are posting here just to try to justify an idiotic line from the show.

 

Oh and BTW, there's no reason to think Brandon wouldn't have reacted the same way if he thought Lyanna had gone willingly. We don't even know what he thought. Patriarchal dudes from a feudal society aren't known to appreciate the sexual agency of the womenfolk from their family and to be OK with them going against their father's decisions who they would marry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

You are right in that Robert hated the Targarians. You are also right that one of his primary motivations was selfish. He even admits later that he was more in love with the idea of Lyanna than the individual. He was so consumed with retrieving this thing that had been taken from him that her loss created a hole seven kingdoms couldn't fill. I'm paraphrasing here but the point is clear. 

I will however also mention that Robert, regardless if his selfish motivation, did have a duty to protect his betrothed. He was also proclaimed a traitor and sentenced to execution without trial for simply being engaged to Lyanna. 

The truth is Robert was duty bound to find and protect Lyanna (who to the best of anyone's knowledge was a Targarian prisoner) and to fight the injustices visited upon himself and his fellow countrymen. Just because Robert fought with selfish motivations does not preclude the fact that he had rightous motivations as well. The Rebellion was Just. It started for very good reasons.

Let's say for a moment that Robert did know that Lyanna was in love with Rhaegar and purposely lied about it, is there anything in the show that disproves this? I realise nothing shows it - even Bran didn't see it happen, he just extrapolated it from the fact that they were in love and got married willingly.

If I try to fill in the gaps, Lyanna tells Robert she loves another (or Robert sees them stealing a kiss, or whatever), Roberts says balls to that you're going nowhere, Rhaeger rescues her, and Robert just can't see beyond the fact that his one true love has been 'kidnapped', and has to get her back my whatever means necessary. And consciously or subconsciously lies about it to get support. I mean if Ned knew his sister was in love would he have gone to war on that alone? I dunno, can't see it. So Robert would have had to lie to him. And then the Stark deaths sealed it. That sounds like a lot of putty filling holes but it would be fairly normal fantasy fare if that version was told up-front (The Princess Bride is pretty close for example).

(I still think 'built on a lie' may just mean 'built on a misapprehension' though).

 

3 hours ago, Angel Eyes said:

Except that they only rebelled after King Aerys called for Robert and Ned's heads on trumped-up charges. And that was after he had Lord Rickard burned alive, in a mockery of trial by combat, just because he gets off on watching people burn alive. He didn't even have the decency to do it himself. And Rickard had come to King's Landing in good faith, to pay a ransom. Brandon may have messed up by calling for Rhaegar's death when he arrived in King's Landing, but he didn't deserve to be made to strangle himself to death in a vain attempt to free his father.

Technically, Jon Arryn started the rebellion by refusing to give up his charges to be murdered. I"m surprised D&D didn't find this compelling, since a mentor refusing to give up his charges to death and figuratively putting himself in the line of fire is a common trope throughout fiction; Ben Kenobi gave his life to help Luke escape the Death Star and Gandalf the Grey held off the Balrog so the Fellowship of the Ring could escape Moria. This also appears in Game of Thrones; Syrio Forel held off Meryn Trant so Arya could escape while Qhorin Halfhand allowed Jon Snow to kill him so the wildlings would accept him and Jon could infiltrate them.

"Robert's Rebellion was built on a lie" justifies the Mad King's horrific actions. That is the lie.

How does it justify the Mad King's actions? Robert can be lying or mistaken and the Mad King can be well, mad and murderous. But without the 'lie' then the following murders and demands wouldn't have happened. Or at least not followed on in the same way. But for certain Robert would have been nowhere near as pissed at the Targaryans. Bran only says 'built on a lie', not 'this and only this is what caused it'.

Also, are you adding some book stuff detail in there around who exactly did what and when? The show is a bit vaguer than that isn't it? (I could be wrong; haven't re-watched the later stuff recently, but I don't recall the precise historical events being detailed to that level in the show).

I do agree that another explanation could have also been compelling. I don't see any harm with this route either though. We know Robert was pretty serf-serving and exceedingly ruthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Annara Snow said:

Yes, that's how freaking dumb all those rationalizations are. Aerys was the one to blame for the rebellion, and Jon Arryn started it. That's the fact. I can't believe the amount of nonsense people are posting here just to try to justify an idiotic line from the show.

Except that the biggest and first reference to all this is about how much Robert really loved Lyanna and about how much he really hates the Targaryans. And Ned immediately ties that in with the rebellion. As a viewer you are meant to pick up that Lyanna-Targaryan-Rebellion vibe in the very first episode (and remember it has to be on the nose because at this point the viewer does not know the history at all).

But you know, you don't have to throw around words like dumb and nonsense. There is usually more than one way to read things in shows like this. It's ok to respect other people's opinions without agreeing at all with them. And even if you don't respect their opinions you don't have to be rude. It's stuff like that that stops me (and others I have talked to) posting here. You may think you're just being blunt, or forthright, or just pushing away the pretend fans who don't know every word of the books, but noone here has kicked your dog, it's a TV show and you're just being rude because you feel like it. Anyway, whatever. Rule the board or whatever you are trying to do.

Edited by Daske

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Daske said:

Let's say for a moment that Robert did know that Lyanna was in love with Rhaegar and purposely lied about it, is there anything in the show that disproves this? 

The only thing that disproves it is Robert's conversation with Cersei about Lyanna. He seems to genuinely believe she was murdered by the Targarians. Other than that, It's impossible to prove a negative.

 

However I will say that Robert isn't devious or subtle. He's not like Little Finger, Varys or Cersei. He confronds his problems like a blunt instrument destroying anything in his path while screaming "Hear I am! Do your worst!!". That's just who he is. Sure he's selfish and has many vices but there's an honesty to him. He doesn't lie. He'll tell you your wrong right to your face and expect you to do the same. That's why Robert and Ned were such great friends. This whole theory is completely out of character for Robert Baratheon.

Edited by Lord Stannis-The True King
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Daske said:

Except that the biggest and first reference to all this is about how much Robert really loved Lyanna and about how much he really hates the Targaryans. And Ned immediately ties that in with the rebellion. As a viewer you are meant to pick up that Lyanna-Targaryan-Rebellion vibe in the very first episode (and remember it has to be on the nose because at this point the viewer does not know the history at all).

But you know, you don't have to throw around words like dumb and nonsense. There is usually more than one way to read things in shows like this. It's ok to respect other people's opinions without agreeing at all with them. And even if you don't respect their opinions you don't have to be rude. It's stuff like that that stops me (and others I have talked to) posting here. You may think you're just being blunt, or forthright, or just pushing away the pretend fans who don't know every word of the books, but noone here has kicked your dog, it's a TV show and you're just being rude because you feel like it. Anyway, whatever. Rule the board or whatever you are trying to do.

"You don't have to be so rude to people who believe the Earth is flat! Viewpoints other than yours may be valid!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

The only thing that disproves it is Robert's conversation with Cersei about Lyanna. He seems to genuinely believe she was murdered by the Targarians. Other than that, It's impossible to prove a negative.

 

However I will say that Robert isn't devious or subtle. He's not like Little Finger, Varys or Cersei. He confronds his problems like a blunt instrument destroying anything in his path while screaming "Hear I am! Do your worst!!". That's just who he is. Sure he's selfish and has many vices but there's an honesty to him. He doesn't lie. He'll tell you your wrong right to your face and expect you to do the same. That's why Robert and Ned were such great friends. This whole theory is completely out of character for Robert Baratheon.

Thanks, I will try to find that scene.

I agree with you about that with Ned and their friendship. And lying is not his way.

But love can make you act in crazy ways (especially if you like a drink!). And make you blind to other obvious things. People can twist things in their heads to make them believe they are in the right if they are not seeing things straight. And Robert is proud. And handsome and strong. And hot-headed. She must love him, how could she not?

I think Ned sees that Robert is overly obsessed with the Targaryans because of Lyanna in that scene in the field where Robert says he wants Dany dead. I'm sure Ned there believes that his friend has crossed a moral boundary in wanting this 'child' dead. Robert it must be said is right about the danger but he's also burning with intense hatred in that scene, considering she personally has done nothing to him. That doesn't mean much in itself with regard to did he lie, but I think it's clear his passion could overcome reason when he has his mind on Lyanna.

 

Edited by Daske

Share this post


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

Let's say for a moment that Robert did know that Lyanna was in love with Rhaegar and purposely lied about it, is there anything in the show that disproves this? I realise nothing shows it - even Bran didn't see it happen, he just extrapolated it from the fact that they were in love and got married willingly.

If I try to fill in the gaps, Lyanna tells Robert she loves another (or Robert sees them stealing a kiss, or whatever), Roberts says balls to that you're going nowhere, Rhaeger rescues her, and Robert just can't see beyond the fact that his one true love has been 'kidnapped', and has to get her back my whatever means necessary. And consciously or subconsciously lies about it to get support. I mean if Ned knew his sister was in love would he have gone to war on that alone? I dunno, can't see it. So Robert would have had to lie to him. And then the Stark deaths sealed it. That sounds like a lot of putty filling holes but it would be fairly normal fantasy fare if that version was told up-front (The Princess Bride is pretty close for example).

(I still think 'built on a lie' may just mean 'built on a misapprehension' though).

 

How does it justify the Mad King's actions? Robert can be lying or mistaken and the Mad King can be well, mad and murderous. But without the 'lie' then the following murders and demands wouldn't have happened. Or at least not followed on in the same way. But for certain Robert would have been nowhere near as pissed at the Targaryans. Bran only says 'built on a lie', not 'this and only this is what caused it'.

Also, are you adding some book stuff detail in there around who exactly did what and when? The show is a bit vaguer than that isn't it? (I could be wrong; haven't re-watched the later stuff recently, but I don't recall the precise historical events being detailed to that level in the show).

I do agree that another explanation could have also been compelling. I don't see any harm with this route either though. We know Robert was pretty serf-serving and exceedingly ruthless.

I got the other parts from the History and Lore, particularly Season 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Daske said:

I think Ned sees that Robert is overly obsessed with the Targaryans because of Lyanna in that scene in the field where Robert says he wants Dany dead. I'm sure Ned there believes that his friend has crossed a moral boundary in wanting this 'child' dead. Robert it must be said is right about the danger but he's also burning with intense hatred in that scene, considering she personally has done nothing to him. That doesn't mean much in itself with regard to did he lie, but I think it's clear his passion could overcome reason when he has his mind on Lyanna.

 

Well yah. That's actually a major plot point in season 1. Robert sees any Targarian as a threat and Ned sees innocent children. They argue about it to the point that Ned resigns. Robert eventually comes around to Ned's perspective on his deathbed too. "Let her live." He said. He gave up his hate in the end. It's actually quite beautiful.

Edited by Lord Stannis-The True King
Grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I never got why this line bothered so many people. It's not like Jon's heritage invalidated the rebellion. Only the catalyst that caused it was mistaken and "built on a lie." If not the catalyst of Lyanna's "kidnapping" the mad king would've spawned another very easily. Even Rhaegar was plotting against him.

Share this post


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

Eh, I never got why this line bothered so many people. It's not like Jon's heritage invalidated the rebellion. Only the catalyst that caused it was mistaken and "built on a lie." If not the catalyst of Lyanna's "kidnapping" the mad king would've spawned another very easily. Even Rhaegar was plotting against him.

It's not just the implication of the line but that it was immidiatly followed by Bran proclaiming Jon the true King. Very not ok. Also, very innacurate and obviously biased. Not a good look for a supposedly omniscient character with no personal stakes.

Oh, and when was it ever stated that Price Rhaegar was plotting to overthrow the King? It's ok if that a theory you have but you state it as fact. What evidence is there? Because he had ample time before the Rebellion and his ill-concieved romance to take such action. Rhaegar's Rebellion never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

It's not just the implication of the line but that it was immidiatly followed by Bran proclaiming Jon the true King. Very not ok. Also, very innacurate and obviously biased. Not a good look for a supposedly omniscient character with no personal stakes.

Oh, and when was it ever stated that Price Rhaegar was plotting to overthrow the King? It's ok if that a theory you have but you state it as fact. What evidence is there? Because he had ample time before the Rebellion and his ill-concieved romance to take such action. Rhaegar's Rebellion never happened.

In the novels, Varys warned Aerys that Rhaegar was planning to call a Great Council at the tourney at Harrenhall. That's why Aerys left to Red Keep for the first time in years to make that impossible. If that's not enough, Rhaegar flat out told Jaime that he planned on calling a council once Robert's Rebellion was crushed. Which never happened.

Edited by Lord Lannister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Lord Lannister said:

In the novels, Varys warned Aerys that Rhaegar was planning to call a Great Council at the tourney at Harrenhall. That's why Aerys left to Red Keep for the first time in years to make that impossible. If that's not enough, Rhaegar flat out told Jaime that he planned on calling a council once Robert's Rebellion was crushed. Which never happened.

Interesting. I've never heard that before. I looked on the book wiki and all it said is that Prince Rhaegar confided in Ser Barriston Selmy that there would be "changes" in the future. That of course could allude to Rhaegar wanting to prosecute his father for his crimes. However, that only treats a symptom of the larger problem. Ares II wasn't the first mad King and likely won't be the last. Rhaegar didn't even acknowledge the danger present in his theoretical reign. The he could develop madness just as his father did. Or even that he could pass such illness to his children. Rhaegar was still irresponsible to the core with little care what happened to the realm or the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2018 at 1:44 PM, Lord Stannis-The True King said:

Futhermore, in digging deeper you will find that the Rebellion was not only a long time coming, but a natural reaction to perpetuated abuse at the hands of Targarians monarchs.

Put simply, the problem with Targarian rule is systemic. Their incestuous practices breed madness. It's a diseased bloodline. They are either willfully sadistic or woefully incompetent in letting the incest practice pervail and subjecting their people to even the possibility of an insane monarch (and there have been many "Each time a Targaryen is born the gods flip a coin"). If these King's were good Kings they would have safeguarded their people's future by outlawing the practice. They either liked the idea or didn't care enough to stop it. Either way they failed.

Well, I guess the incestuous practice is Awesome but Impractical. The Awesome part is being able to control dragons, from what I've heard. The impractical part is sometimes resulting in cruel psychopaths like Maegor the Cruel, Aerion Brightflame, and Aerys II the Mad King, while Baelor the Blessed was an eccentric who starved himself to death by accident (presumably) and Rhaegal (or Rhaegel?) was prone to dancing naked through the Red Keep. 

Aegon V, aka Egg, tried to outlaw the incestuous practices, but his second son Jaehaerys married his own sister Shaera after Aegon allowed his children to marry for love after his eldest son Duncan the Small married Jenny of Oldstones. Aegon himself had married Betha Blackwood out of love. Jaehaerys subsequently forced Aerys and Rhaella to marry because of a prophecy, although Aerys would have liked to marry Joanna Lannister and Rhaella liked Bonifer Hasty (though that wouldn't have gone anywhere as a landed knight). 

So I guess it's liking the idea because of the possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2018 at 11:12 AM, Daske said:

Yeah, I don't get this fuss about that line. I just started a re-watch and in Episode One Robert and Ned are talking about Lyanna's death & burial in the crypt in one of the very first scenes...

While touching Lyanna statue's face, Robert: "In my dreams I kill him every night".
Ned: "It's done Your Grace. Targaryens are gone"  [because of the rebellion]
Robert: "Not all of them"

It's our first bit of historical lore we learn. It's obviously expanded on later, but it's planted in the wider history right there at the very beginning - he killed Rhaegar because of his own love for Lyanna. He is still burning with hatred for Targaryans even years later. The murder of the Starks may have kicked off the war itself, but Lyanna & Raeghar is what stoked the hatred in Robert.

So I don't think it's wrong at all to say Robert's rebellion was 'built on a lie'. The thing here I am unsure about is whether the word lie is being used in a bit of flowery way meaning 'misconception', or more literally to mean a 'known falsehood'. If Robert knew how they felt about each other and was intentionally lying about it to Ned and others because he couldn't face the truth himself then that is nasty and paints his character in a much darker light. Yeah, I would call him a villain in this case.

I think it's clear this is not something Ned would do, so don't see him as a villain here; he had no reason to doubt Robert.

 

Your analysis seems on point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, neither were villains if they were going on they "knew" at the time; I could see Robert as a more likely candidate for villain, if Lyanna had told him outright that she didn't want him and he went to war to get her back.  By the time Ned discovered the truth, he also knew the truth of Robert's vengeance and concentrated only on protecting his nephew and fulfilling a brother's promise.

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

×