Could Rhaegar have fought for the other side?

[sansalittlebird]

One thing that I find to be pretty messed up for the whole R/L “romance” is that he fought for the man that murdered her father and brother, and fought against her other brother while she was locked up in a tower in Dorne. And unless I’m mistaken, Rhaegar had been thinking of overthrowing Aerys hadn’t he, and of course he would have known that his father was an awful king who liked to burn people alive, if he was good as people say wouldn’t he want to spare his people of this?? So my question is would he have been able to join the forces on the other side of Robert’s Rebellion? Ned and Robert would probably not like that very much but I can’t inagine anybody else having a problem with it, especially since it would create more stability to have the next in line on the throne instead of Robert who never even wanted it. Would they have accepted him as their leader? 

[TMIFairy]

No.

Not after abducting and raping Lyanna.

If Ned and/or Robert do not kill him he might be allowed to join the Rebellion to overthrow Aerys.

And to take the Black immediately afterwards. No way he is accepted as leader of anything.

[theMADdestScientist_]

38 minutes ago, sansalittlebird said:

One thing that I find to be pretty messed up for the whole R/L “romance” is that he fought for the man that murdered her father and brother,

Her brother wanted to kill Rhaegar, do you understand what this means? what was done to Brandon and Rickard Stark was an atrocity. But Brandon wanted Rhaegar dead, got it? even in his utter madness, Rhaegar can't even blame Aerys for killing a man that wanted to kill him. That nonetheless, was enough for Rhaegar to realize his father was insane, and that's why he said what he said to Jaime.

41 minutes ago, sansalittlebird said:

and fought against her other brother while she was locked up in a tower in Dorne.

Her "other" brother wanted Rhaegar dead as well, and Rhaegar's death means his children's death, you got this as well right? you can't blame Rhaegar for fighting for his family, which wasn't simply composed by him and his father. There was his two kids as well, and his mother and his brother.

As for Lyanna, remember, she was afraid, even after Ned was there for her. Which means she was afraid of Ned as well, and that fear only went away after Ned promised her that he would take care of Jon. She knew that if Robert and Ned won and came for her, Jon would be killed, and god knows what would have been done to her if Robert found out about what she did. But she was lucky, Robert didn't come for her, and Ned found it in himself to take care of Jon, something she didn't knew he would do. Hence why she was afraid until the moment Ned promised her.

That pretty much tells you she wasn't locked in any tower, she was afraid for her son's life, and that's why she stayed at the tower, because that was the safest place for her. Her family though, it wasn't safe to be around them no longer, because she basically run away from them, she insulted them.

44 minutes ago, sansalittlebird said:

if he was good as people say wouldn’t he want to spare his people of this??

Did the rebels spare anyone? no, they started a rebellion and tore the realm apart, killing many people left and right. They won, so their killing goes as something that was necessary, they can write whatever they want in the books. Don't go for the one side was right and one was wrong, war is always bullshit that only serves to make others suffers. See how Barbrey Dustin hates Ned with a passion for taking her husband to war and have the courage to bring back his horse, but not her husband.

If you want an honest opinion about the rebellion, just look at what Jaime thinks of both Aerys and Robert.

Quote

The Kingslayer, yes. The oathbreaker who murdered poor sad Aerys Targaryen.” Jaime snorted. “It’s not Aerys I rue, it’s Robert. ‘I hear they’ve named you Kingslayer,’ he said to me at his coronation feast. ‘Just don’t think to make it a habit.’ And he laughed. Why is it that no one names Robert oathbreaker? He tore the realm apart, yet I am the one with shit for honor.”

 

1 hour ago, sansalittlebird said:

So my question is would he have been able to join the forces on the other side of Robert’s Rebellion?

This is insane. The rebellion was started to kill the Targaryens and take them out of the throne(the rebellion is what Robert says it is, not what Ned says). And Rhaegar was a Targaryen.

[Kandrax]

1 hour ago, sansalittlebird said:

One thing that I find to be pretty messed up for the whole R/L “romance” is that he fought for the man that murdered her father and brother, and fought against her other brother while she was locked up in a tower in Dorne. And unless I’m mistaken, Rhaegar had been thinking of overthrowing Aerys hadn’t he, and of course he would have known that his father was an awful king who liked to burn people alive, if he was good as people say wouldn’t he want to spare his people of this?? So my question is would he have been able to join the forces on the other side of Robert’s Rebellion? Ned and Robert would probably not like that very much but I can’t inagine anybody else having a problem with it, especially since it would create more stability to have the next in line on the throne instead of Robert who never even wanted it. Would they have accepted him as their leader? 

Hahhaha. Had they lost their minds, they would accept him. Walder Frey would have more chance. 

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

12 hours ago, sansalittlebird said:

One thing that I find to be pretty messed up for the whole R/L “romance” is that he fought for the man that murdered her father and brother, and fought against her other brother while she was locked up in a tower in Dorne. And unless I’m mistaken, Rhaegar had been thinking of overthrowing Aerys hadn’t he, and of course he would have known that his father was an awful king who liked to burn people alive, if he was good as people say wouldn’t he want to spare his people of this?? So my question is would he have been able to join the forces on the other side of Robert’s Rebellion? Ned and Robert would probably not like that very much but I can’t inagine anybody else having a problem with it, especially since it would create more stability to have the next in line on the throne instead of Robert who never even wanted it. Would they have accepted him as their leader? 

One of the problems is that our understanding of these events is still too vague, and open to speculation and interpretation.

We don't know if Lyanna was locked in the Tower of Joy, but the majority view seems to be that she was there voluntarily. 

It certainly appears from the World Book that there was increased tension between Rhaegar and Aerys, and that he was possibly seeking some sort of Great Council to retire the loon. Whether he would have launched an armed rebellion, or supported someone else's, is a very different question.

Remember, it was Rhaegar's actions that launched the rebellion, not Aerys's. Brandon rode to KL because of his running away with Lyanna. Aerys's execution of him and Rickard may have escalated it, but in the rebels' minds, particularly Robert's, Rhaegar was at least as equal an enemy as Aerys. 

Ned and Robert having a problem with it is pretty much the end of the matter, as they are both the chief leaders. The only two of equivalent rank are Jon Arryn and Hoster Tully, neither of whom seem likely to me to insist that the guy who ran off with Lyanna should be allowed to join the rebellion. 

11 hours ago, theMADdestScientist_ said:

Did the rebels spare anyone? no

Well, in fairness Robert spared lots of enemies, and was kind of famous for it. However, that wrong was done by both sides in the war, or in any war, is a valid point. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

12 hours ago, sansalittlebird said:

One thing that I find to be pretty messed up for the whole R/L “romance” is that he fought for the man that murdered her father and brother, and fought against her other brother while she was locked up in a tower in Dorne. And unless I’m mistaken, Rhaegar had been thinking of overthrowing Aerys hadn’t he, and of course he would have known that his father was an awful king who liked to burn people alive, if he was good as people say wouldn’t he want to spare his people of this?? So my question is would he have been able to join the forces on the other side of Robert’s Rebellion?

You're missing the point. It was supposed to be "messed up" and tragic. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Could Romeo and Juliet have convinced their families to somehow get along, and let them have their happily ever after? Maybe. But then it would  be a different story.

[Corvo the Crow]

And how do you propose that would happen? Rebellion didn't happen just because Aerys liked fireworks. Ned is the quiet wolf and he may have accepted and Jon Arryn may have seen some wisdom in this despite losing his hair to Rhaegar's father but Robert would have killed him in an instant.

And who would you propose would follow Rhaegar's lead in the loyalist camp? Everyone there fought because they were on Aerys' side, who had a second unmarried son, not Rhaegar's. Only exceptions were Cunnington fighting for his love Rhaegar and Doran who sent troops much later in the war for his sister's sake.

Even if Rhaegar sided with rebels allegiences would stay the same, or worse, someone may be swayed to get a marriage with Viserys since he'll be the heir.

[Shouldve Taken The Black]

2 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Jon Arryn may have seen some wisdom in this despite losing his hair to Rhaegar's father

That chapter where Aerys forcibly shaved Jon Arryn is one of the stranger parts of the books. 

[Corvo the Crow]

1 hour ago, Shouldve Taken The Black said:

That chapter where Aerys forcibly shaved Jon Arryn is one of the stranger parts of the books. 

Indeed. I never knew until then that his long fingernails doubled as razors.

I also have a theory that Jon Arryn's lack of an heir from his body for a long time is due to the complications happened during the hair shaving of his heir making parts.

[The Sunland Lord]

7 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Could Romeo and Juliet have convinced their families to somehow get along, and let them have their happily ever after? Maybe. But then it would  be a different story.

Shakespeare must needs kills the peoples.

[Dorian Martell's son]

20 hours ago, sansalittlebird said:

Would they have accepted him as their leader? 

The prince would never have betrayed his family

[The Sunland Lord]

No because Rhaegar was a key figure who provoked the rebellion itself. 

Do we have info that he cared about Lyanna's father and brothers at all?

And you don't turn your cloak on your family in war.

You think little lordlings love their tight ass noble fathers so much? The vassals love fighting for their overlord?

No, it's just that family is first, and you are no man at all after pulling such a thing that the OP suggests Rhaegar would have done. 

[TMIFairy]

Without the kidnapping Rhaegar could had led a rebellion against his father - he'd not the be first nor the last son to rebel against a father-ruler.

But not after the kidnapping and its aftermath - by murdering Rickard, Brandon and the Vale nobles Aerys cleverly nailed Rhaegar's balls to the throne. The Young Mad Dragon could not go over to the rebellion after that ...

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

13 minutes ago, TMIFairy said:

Without the kidnapping Rhaegar could had led a rebellion against his father - he'd not the be first nor the last son to rebel against a father-ruler.

Wouldn't he? Now that I think of it, it seems damn rare. Brothers, uncles, cousins - sure, all over the place. Son against father? I can't recall a single case, especially where the Iron Throne is concerned.

[TMIFairy]

In OTL son vs father happened. Top of mind - Mughals? The A-name guy?

IMO the lack of such events in ASOIAF canon does not mean a thing - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and all that ... we are shown only snippets of Westeros' multi-thousand year history.

[John Suburbs]

22 hours ago, sansalittlebird said:

One thing that I find to be pretty messed up for the whole R/L “romance” is that he fought for the man that murdered her father and brother, and fought against her other brother while she was locked up in a tower in Dorne. And unless I’m mistaken, Rhaegar had been thinking of overthrowing Aerys hadn’t he, and of course he would have known that his father was an awful king who liked to burn people alive, if he was good as people say wouldn’t he want to spare his people of this?? So my question is would he have been able to join the forces on the other side of Robert’s Rebellion? Ned and Robert would probably not like that very much but I can’t inagine anybody else having a problem with it, especially since it would create more stability to have the next in line on the throne instead of Robert who never even wanted it. Would they have accepted him as their leader? 

There are too many unknowns in this whole episode to answer any of these questions reliably. Did Rhaegar really kidnap Lyanna, or did she go willingly? Were they really in love, or was their some ulterior motive at play here? If so, who is behind the abduction, Rhaegar? Aerys? Someone else? Mayhaps both Rhaegar and Lyanna were kidnapped?

Why did Rhaegar return at such a late data in the rebellion? Loyalty? Blackmail?

After so much blood had already been spilt, is it reasonable that Rhaegar would simply ride up to Robert/Ned and explain it all? Not if he was complicit in a plan to, I dunno, use the Ice/Fire blood of a newborn Stark/Targaryen to maybe hatch a dragon.

I think the only thing we know for certain is that Martin says the whole thing will be revealed by story's end.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

55 minutes ago, TMIFairy said:

In OTL son vs father happened. Top of mind - Mughals? The A-name guy?

And something closer to the Seven Kingdoms? Like Medieval Europe?

ASOIAF's inspirations are undoubtedly European, particularly Medieval and particularly English. We're not talking if it is against the laws of physics for a son to fight the father.

55 minutes ago, TMIFairy said:

IMO the lack of such events in ASOIAF canon does not mean a thing - "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and all that ... we are shown only snippets of Westeros' multi-thousand year history.

Right. And not a random, representative sample of it. We're told a meticulously built story.

[Lost Melnibonean]

23 hours ago, TMIFairy said:

No.

Not after abducting and raping Lyanna.

And not after his father did what he did to Lord Rickard Stark and Brandon. 

[Lost Melnibonean]

1 hour ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Wouldn't he? Now that I think of it, it seems damn rare. Brothers, uncles, cousins - sure, all over the place. Son against father? I can't recall a single case, especially where the Iron Throne is concerned.

Usually, there wouldn't be much reason, since the son stands to inherit, and any such challenge might undermine the son's legitimate claim. But here we got a whacko who's jeopardizing Rhaegar's rights by his actions. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

9 minutes ago, Lost Melnibonean said:

Usually, there wouldn't be much reason, since the son stands to inherit,

The eldest son stands to inherit, so, all the others would have perfectly legit reasons. But, no, nope (that I can recall). Not even Maegor the Cruel, not even Daemon Blackfyre - both made a grab at the throne, all right, but not when their father was sitting on it.