So was Lyanna stupid or something?

[Ray192]

You know, Dragonfish, you seem to have gotten this idea that I set out to prove, AND ONLY prove that willingly eloping is impossible. That's only part of my argument, and that was addressed specficially in one paragraph. Let me summarize my ideas for you:

1. Descriptions of Rhaegar are either faulty or tell you nothing about the things he's willing to do. Without the support of characterizations of him made by secondary characters, we having nothing to support the idea that he's too good for sins.

2. Rhaegar's actions reveal a man who is fully capable of misdeeds.

3. The story of a CROWN PRINCE having to elope is ridiculously fafetched.

4. The various implausibilities in Lyanna and Rhaegar having a normal, consented relationship.

5. The story makes MORE sense if you don't portray him as mute, deaf (figuratively speaking), stupid and irresponsible.

You know what these points combine to say? First I disprove the notion that Rhaegar can only be a great person. Second I showed the numerous holes in the idea that he just ran away with his willing lover and had a grand ol' time. Third I described a possible alternative scenario. The goal is to show the IMPLAUSIBILITY of this being a simple lovers eloping story.

Now of course, you somehow keep repeating I have to PROVE BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that something happens. First of all, this isn't math/philosophy we're talking about here, this is a simple book, and if there was a way to show anything beyond a doubt there wouldn't be this topic. Second of all, showing anything is impossible in a fictional story is nonsense because there's a nonzero chance of plot holes. What I am showing is that the story would be full of inconsistencies if Lyanna actually did willingly elope and stayed with him in a typical romantic fashion. Capiche?

Obviously my use of the word "impossible" threw you off. Treat that as hyperbole, mmmk?

[Dragonfish]

The ONLY thing we hear is that Ned doesn't think he goes to brothels. Doesn't say anything else...

It shows that Ned's perception doesn't prove anything. That Rhaegar isn't brothel-proof just because Ned couldn't imagine it.

You're clearly confused. The quote is important not because it somehow proves that Rhaegar never frequented brothels; it's important because it gives insight into Ned's thoughts on Rhaegar. Similarly, if Ned thought the same thing about Pycelle, it wouldn't actually demonstrate that Pycelle didn't frequent brothels, it would demonstrate that Ned thought highly enough of Pycelle to think he wouldn't visit brothels.

Why do you think he was there directly when Brandon demanded to meet Rhaegar? Where was that stated?

Jaime was a member of the Kingsguard, and Aerys liked to keep him around. Where else would he have been?

That could easily have a second-hand account relayed to him while Aerys passed the sentence. Being a hothead does not imply you deterministically call for the crown prince to come out and die. And he could easily be making a simple hyperbole. A demand for a duel turns heated, gets warped into demanding to die. Ever heard of the telephone game?

Everything that Jaime describes is consistent with Brandon's character as described by others. Ned says he had "more than a touch of the wolf's blood." Catelyn remembers her father calling him a "gallant fool" after he charged into King's Landing. And in Jaime's conversation with Cat, he answers her questions truthfully and matter-of-factly. And if he really wanted to taunt Cat, then he would have rubbed things in a bit more, rather than simply stating, again matter-of-factly, that Brandon strode into the throne room and demanded that Rhaegar come out and die. So there's really no cause to question his version of events here. Cat certainly doesn't.

Seriously, why do you care so much about "proving" that Brandon didn't act as stupidly as everyone in the story believes he acted?

I have provided reasons. He's not a primary source for the incident. He's mentioning things in passing to CATELYN of all people (hey you're previous lover was an absolute idiot!). He didn't not mention any of the details. He's widely known to be sarcastic and prone to all manners of exaggerations and hyperboles. Why do you think things are as simple as Brandon swaggering into the court and just says "Rhaegar must die in my hands!"?

Because I have no cause to think otherwise. What exactly would be GRRM's purpose here, giving faulty info on Brandon's actions and presumably correcting it much later down the line? How exactly does that make the story better?

Because consensual sex doesn't get Rhaegar off. Because Rhaegar doesn't believe in paying for what he can take in force. Because Rhaegar hates "impure blood" and only believes in bedding high-born women. Because he only has sex with people he really likes, which of course, does not prevent rape. The point is, not going to brothels doesn't say anything important.

Massive, massive fanwanking. None of that is consistent with what we've been told about Rhaegar by reliable sources.

Her clutching isn't a fact,

You know, I was prepared to contest this, but it turns out you're essentially right. The only quote I can find refers to her clutching rose petals, not a crown of roses. Other quotes do refer to her wearing the crown of roses, but they're more poetic descriptions than first-hand memories.

...and her crying tells us nothing about whether or not she went willingly.

No, but taken in conjunction with other facts, such as her reluctance to marry Robert and her independentness/impulsiveness, it does create solid ground on which to base conjecture.

And the theory does rely on personalities, because each one of Rhaegar's actions makes him seem to a total douche who is perfectly capable of rape.

Name one of Rhaegar's actions that shows he's capable of rape. Seriously, name one. All you've demonstrated is that Rhaegar is capable of doing scandalous things, like snubbing his wife at Harrenhal and running off with the betrothed daughter of a Great House. I've never said he wasn't capable of making bad decisions. But doing scandalous acts do not demonstrate that one is capable of something as heinous as rape. Only your wishful thinking leads to that conclusion.

The only sources that tell us that Rhaegar is somehow a decent person rely on simple descriptions of how honorable or kind, dutiful he is.

True, but they come from people who actually knew him (Barristan) or have no reason to lie (Jorah), or have every reason to think of him negatively if he raped her (Eddard).

Being "a bit of a romantic" doesn't stop anything. Joffery viewed himself VERY romantically (I'm the best, I'm a hero, all the ladies love, I will be the great king ever, etc etc etc), does that mean he was a good guy?

Joffrey could be gallant in public, but was often cruel in private, including around his Kingsguard. Barristan never describes Rhaegar as cruel, and I've already explained why he has no reason to lie.

Being crazy makes you justify things. He could have easily rationalized that Lyanna would come around soon enough and poets would sing of how he tamed this wild she-wolf. In bed. The point being, being a romantic doesn't tell you anything.

Name one person who describes Rhaegar as crazy. Seriously, name one. You literally cannot do it, because it never happens. You have absolutely zero textual support for the idea that he was crazy.

Oh please, this entire topic has been about how Rhaegar is utterly without fault.

Name one person who's said that. Go ahead. Name one. Go scour the topic and find someone who has said that. You certainly can't say that I've said that, as I've already admitted that Rhaegar deserves some share of the blame for the war, as does Lyanna.

It's not his fault that Brandon is a hothead, it's totally Brandon's fault!

What? Now we're blaming Rhaegar for Brandon's hotheadedness as well?

And Aerys' fault! It's not his fault he couldn't forsee his dad acting crazy! It's not his fault he didn't foresee the Starks getting mad! Every step of the way he has been stripped of any shame or fault. If that's not driven by belief that he's perfect, I don't know what is.

I've never said he's perfect, all I've said is that he shouldn't be saddled with the full blame for the war, because it's unreasonable to expect him to have predicted what the numerous different actors involved would have done. You yourself admitted that a previous Targaryen was able to "violate" highborn women without causing a rebellion, so why should Rhaegar have expected a rebellion to result from a consensual liaison?

Oh, we're arguing it's impossible for Lyanna to go willingly in the beginning? I do not believe we've gotten to that part yet. I was arguing that it's stupid to assume that this romance is somehow entirely willing and devoid of rape.

Here's how you summarized your own argument: "Rhaegar's actions contradict the way he's described in the book, and it's impossible this is a simple "lovers eloping" story." What exactly do you think eloping is?

But you know, this guy is the crown prince. By all accounts, smarter than Shaggydog. Do you really think he would disappear with the daughter of a major house and not bother keeping track of what happened to the realm? Do you believe he is stupid as well as incredibly irresponsible?

He and Lyanna both were definitely irresponsible. But that doesn't demonstrate that Rhaegar was capable of rape. People do stupid things out of love, it's a common theme in the book.

Because if that's true, then you admit that all the descriptions that paint him otherwise are contradictory, and thus by implication, you CANNOT use Barristan's and anybody's simple characterizations of him in your arguments. And then what sources do you have to support the idea that he's a good guy?

Ultimately all people, even great people, are capable of doing stupid things, especially when it comes to subjects (like prophecies) that they have the most invested in. Would you describe Robb as a terrible person, even though he did something very stupid by marrying Jeyne Westerling? Would you say that the opinion of any person who spoke highly of his character should be invalidated because of his stupidity?

[Dragonfish]

Sorry, but "bias" or "subjectivity" doesn't make the witnesses unreliable.

But the theory relies only on Bran and Robert's statements, and nothing else. The fact that the former likely heard things from unreliable rumors (like Ray says, ever heard of the telephone game?) and that the latter has an almost irrational hatred of Targaryens just makes the evidence even flimsier.

[DurararaFTW]

But the theory relies only on Bran and Robert's statements, and nothing else. The fact that the former likely heard things from unreliable rumors (like Ray says, ever heard of the telephone game?) and that the latter has an almost irrational hatred of Targaryens just makes the evidence even flimsier.

I gotta ask. What do you think the public opinion on the thing is?

[Dragonfish]

I gotta ask. What do you think the public opinion on the thing is?

We don't know, there's nothing that indicates what the realm as a whole believes. It's plausible that Winterfell or indeed most of the North believes she was raped, but then again most of King's Landing thought Tyrion was a twisted little monkey demon who was responsible for all their problems. Public opinion matters little in this scenario.

[DurararaFTW]

We don't know, there's nothing that indicates what the realm as a whole believes. It's plausible that Winterfell or indeed most of the North believes she was raped, but then again most of King's Landing thought Tyrion was a twisted little monkey demon who was responsible for all their problems. Public opinion matters little in this scenario.

Most of starving to death/having seen their friends and family starve to death people trapped inside King's landing lash out at the person governing the city, how unreasonable of them. That's not what i was asking. Where do you think Bran got these "unreliable rumors", do you know?

[Salander]

But the theory relies only on Bran and Robert's statements, and nothing else. The fact that the former likely heard things from unreliable rumors (like Ray says, ever heard of the telephone game?) and that the latter has an almost irrational hatred of Targaryens just makes the evidence even flimsier.

It also relies on Ned not dismissing Robert's statements out of hand (and there could be a myriad of reasons for this - both for and against). There's also the character of Howland Reed who has yet to come into play and Benjen Stark (who has disappeared) that maybe able to provide accounts of what they think happened or witnessed.

I'm loathe to say that someone's account is "unreliable" or "biased" (and therefore, should be disqualified) because they have some kind of personal bias or that some second hand accounts are more reliable than others (and therefore, should be believed over others). Just like I'm loathe to discuss as fact the chain of events surrounding Lyanna as a love story gone wrong. The thing is, we just don't know (yet, but hopefully we will soon!).

I just hold a more circumspect position on events and I get a little bit disappointed when people willfully misread my posts to assert a position I never argued for in the first place.

[JJxvi]

But the theory relies only on Bran and Robert's statements, and nothing else. The fact that the former likely heard things from unreliable rumors (like Ray says, ever heard of the telephone game?) and that the latter has an almost irrational hatred of Targaryens just makes the evidence even flimsier.

Anything Bran says can obviously be dismissed out of hand. Not only is the information he has access to likely to be suspect because of his age. But its right there in the text that he was also apparently completely unaware of the events that occurred at Harrenhall, which is where everything began from the Lyanna-Rheagar shock tourney ending to Jaime Lannister taking his vows while Tywin stewed in outrage at The Rock. It's clear in the text that Bran has been kept in the dark when he doesn't recognize the KotLT story.

[unbeliever]

I have two minor thoughts to add here. Over the last 7 pages, I have seen several people talk about the differing motivations of Brandon and Rickard and their separate journeys to King's Landing. The basic facts are not in dispute; Brandon is taken (along with others), Rickard is summoned (also with others). Brandon wants to kill Rhaegar. Various reasons why have been postulated, but all agree on Lyanna as the root cause. I find the discussion fascinating, and very thought provoking, but ultimately unsolvable until GRRM spills it.

My read on Rickard is a bit different, though. My first minor bone of contention, and I can't really back this up with canon, is that Rickard, knowing Aerys, would know that the mad king would not be satisfied without blood. I think Rickard went there with the hope of trading his life for Brandon's. I don't think he would have even entertained the possibility of both he and his son leaving King's Landing alive. And the sad thing, to me, is that he was successful.

All Brandon had to do was watch his father burn to death, and he would be riding back to Riverrun and Cat. But I think we all can agree that Brandon, being Brandon, would (and did) find this utterly impossible, and then killed himself trying to save his dad. That is not to say that Aerys wouldn't have had him killed anyway, but as it turned out, he didn't have to. And that is the second point I wanted to make. Brandon was not killed by Aerys directly (several posts have referred to his "execution"), but by his own direct action.

That's all.

Though tbh, I don't see how anyone even after only one reading (I'm on my seventh) could dispute R+L=J. To me it's clear: the Blackfish is gay, and Jon should have been calling Eddard "nuncle".

[Dragonfish]

1) Now that is total speculation because we know nothing about Rickard. There's nothing to say he's honorable to a fault. There's also nothing that say's he's an incredible idiot who refuses to have his daughter to marry the crown prince (???).

Wait, so now not breaking betrothals is idiotic? Giving his daughter away to someone who the realm thinks treated his last wife like crap is smart now?

He's apparently also a sadistic bastard because he would force Lyanna to marry a guy who she she hates AND is less powerful.

There's no evidence she hates Robert, just that she's not very happy with the choice. And if Rickard is a sadistic bastard for making Lyanna marrying someone she didn't choose to marry, then every father in the story is sadistic, including Ned, who betrothed his daughter to someone even worse than Robert.

People in the realm treat betrothals seriously. Sansa's betrothal was only able to be set aside because she had "traitor's blood." So really, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Rickard wouldn't refuse a betrothal offer from Rhaegar.

2) No, the point is why would he HIDE when he can do it easily in the open, ASSUMING Lyanna was willing. Give me one good reason.

Rhaegar often liked to go off on his own to places like Summerhall. And the Tower of Joy was called the Tower of Joy for a reason, it had positive and maybe even romantic connotations for Rhaegar.

This entire topic people have been talking about how unreasonable it is to expect Rhaegar to see the rebellion coming. His intelligence has been defended every step of the way.

I doubt any one person has argued both those things, as they're contradictory ("Rhaegar couldn't have seen the rebellion coming because he was smart!") I have certainly argued that it's unreasonable to have expected him to see the rebellion coming, for reasons I've already articulated. But I've also admitted that he was irresponsible nonetheless, and deserves some share of the blame for what happened (along with Lyanna). So explain to me how I'm positing that Rhaegar was perfect?

But if you haven't noticed yet, I'm discrediting every single positive mention of him made by characters. If he's stupid, then what other descriptions of him would be wrong? And, GASP, what if he's not as honorable as Barristan claims he is?

You are not discrediting everything they say. Even "great men" can do irresponsible things. I put "great men" in quotations there, because I don't really think it's possible for person to be simply "good", "great", or "bad." We're all capable of each to differing degrees. It's not at all contradictory for people to mostly "great" and still do irresponsible things, especially when they have blinders on about an issue, as Rhaegar did about the prophecy.

What makes you think this part was about willingness? No, this part shows that Rhaegar can be total douche who is capable of rape and kidnapping.

None of your examples prove that Rhaegar is capable of rape and kidnapping.

No, I set out to prove "it's impossible this is a simple "lovers eloping" story." Obviously you can't prove Rhaegar raped anybody, or willingly had sex with anybody until the book says. What I am proving that if it's as simple as lover eloping and living happily, this story would make make zero sense.

When have I ever described this as a story of lovers eloping and "living happily?" I've described it as irresponsible and rash love, I've described it as tragic love, but I've never described it in these fairy tale ways. Once again, you're mischaracterizing your opponents' position.

So she buys into Rhaegar's private prophecy... and that means Rhaegar can humiliate her in front of everybody? She isn't stupid. If Elia supported this prophecy and love affair, why would Rhaegar feel the need to abandon her and the children? Hell, the two could've petitioned together for a divorce or a polygamy. You know, the motives behind eloping don't usually involve an accepting family.

What makes you think Rhaegar needed to petition to restore polygamy? Perhaps he just restored it himself. AFAIK, there's no evidence that polygamy was outlawed, just that it fell out of practice.

Ok, which of actions show that he's a great guy? Do you have any proof?

You know, I guess I don't have any evidence based on any specific actions. But neither do you have evidence that he's capable of rape.

<sigh>, no no no. The former is implausible because Ned is honorable and would not desert his family, because he's dutiful and would not desert his lands and legacy. Or, does Ned eloping with Ashara Dayne BEFOREHAND and then coming back to kill Arthur sound plausible to you? Or for that manner, if Rhaegar won at the trident, killed off all the Starks, and then went back to TJ and Lyanna, what would you say? "Not plausible"? Indeed.

Question: when you talk about Ned deserting his lands and legacy, are you trying to compare Ned to Lyanna or to Rhaegar?

In any event, I don't see any reason for Ned to elope with Ashara, but then again Ned didn't believe in a prophecy about saving the world. That said, if Ned married Ashara using the normal channels, and then her brother rebelled against the realm, I think it would be perfectly in character for him to go fight him.

Because he was busy doing prophecy things. That's the whole point. His entire life is consumed by the prophecy, and he wants obstacles out of his way while he's busy with it, and he wants to do it NOW. How would this argument make sense if he spent all his time warring and killing?

Ok, so you admit that he may have felt a sense of urgency with regard to the prophecy? That's basically what I've been saying, and it's why I think he ran off with Lyanna rather than trying to break her betrothal through official channels.

Crying to a song now precludes rape and kidnapping?

By the same token, does snubbing one's wife proves rape and kidnapping?

Lyanna crying at Rhaegar's song indicates some plausible level of infatuation, which, when coupled with her impulsive personality and her disappointment with her betrothal, creates solid ground for speculation about her running off willingly.

First of all, Rhaegar had control. Or he would've, if he didn't abandon his post. Second of all, I didn't say anything about love. I said she would've view him favorably after all that's happened. You can love and hate people in the same time. And most of all, what she felt about him at the end says nothing about the beginning.

And how does any of this disprove the argument that she went with him willingly? Because ultimately, that's all I'm arguing. I'm not saying they had a perfect little existence playing house in the Tower of Joy; I'm saying they got caught up in their infatuation with each other and ran off.

A bit of rashness = stupidity? Let me get this straight, this person is described as slightly rash, and suddenly it's quite consistent for her to run off and abandon her family?

It's certainly more consistent for her than simply being a victim would be.

Look, she's unhappy with Robert, she chafes against the social expectations placed on women, she may have been infatuated with Rhaegar (from the song), and she was a bit impulsive. All those facts taken together lend support to the idea that she ran off with him willingly.

[DurararaFTW]

All Brandon had to do was watch his father burn to death, and he would be riding back to Riverrun and Cat. But I think we all can agree that Brandon, being Brandon, would (and did) find this utterly impossible, and then killed himself trying to save his dad. That is not to say that Aerys wouldn't have had him killed anyway, but as it turned out, he didn't have to. And that is the second point I wanted to make. Brandon was not killed by Aerys directly (several posts have referred to his "execution"), but by his own direct action.

I'm sorry, but I have no reason to believe this. Richard asked to be champion in Brandon's trail. Why would Brandon ever be set free if found guilty?

Brandon would be executed if Richard was burned by the touch of fire. Obviously that was going to happen, Brandon's life was all but forfeit, why wouldn't he try to get to his dad?

Brandon was an idiot about his initial declaration, yes, no need to make up other stuff on the side still to further empathize pointless stupidity on Brandon's part.

[Dragonfish]

Most of starving to death/having seen their friends and family starve to death people trapped inside King's landing lash out at the person governing the city, how unreasonable of them. That's not what i was asking. Where do you think Bran got these "unreliable rumors", do you know?

Can you name any rumor heard from the smallfolk in the story that is fully truthful?

I don't think Bran got the rumors from his parents, that doesn't sound like something they would tell him. So I think he must have heard from other people gossiping in Winterfell, similar to how Cat found out about Ashara possibly being Jon's mother.

It also relies on Ned not dismissing Robert's statements out of hand (and there could be a myriad of reasons for this - both for and against).

I've listed reasons why Ned wouldn't correct Robert earlier in this thread. I like to think they're pretty sound, but you can use your own judgment.

There's also the character of Howland Reed who has yet to come into play and Benjen Stark (who has disappeared) that maybe able to provide accounts of what they think happened or witnessed.

Ok, but until they actually come back onto the scene, their opinions on this matter aren't worth anything because they haven't offered any yet.

I just hold a more circumspect position on events and I get a little bit disappointed when people willfully misread my posts to assert a position I never argued for in the first place.

Sorry if I misread your posts, I was just frustrated that you seemed to be sidestepping my questions. But let's move on, this conversation has been exhausting.

[Salander]

Though tbh, I don't see how anyone even after only one reading (I'm on my seventh) could dispute R+L=J. To me it's clear: the Blackfish is gay, and Jon should have been calling Eddard "nuncle".

Brilliant!

[unbeliever]

I'm sorry, but I have no reason to believe this. Richard asked to be champion in Brandon's trail. Why would Brandon ever be set free if found guilty?Brandon would be executed if Richard was burned by the touch of fire. Obviously that was going to happen, Brandon's life was all but forfeit, why wouldn't he try to get to his dad?Brandon was an idiot about his initial declaration, yes, no need to make up other stuff on the side still to further empathize pointless stupidity on Brandon's part.

Yes, your points about trial and champion are right, of course. I was remembering Jaime's version of things incorrectly, and I thank you for reminding me.

[Dragonfish]

You know, Dragonfish, you seem to have gotten this idea that I set out to prove, AND ONLY prove that willingly eloping is impossible. That's only part of my argument, and that was addressed specficially in one paragraph.

I may have addressed that argument more so than your other one, but that's because it seemed to me to be the most ludicrous.

1. Descriptions of Rhaegar are either faulty or tell you nothing about the things he's willing to do. Without the support of characterizations of him made by secondary characters, we having nothing to support the idea that he's too good for sins.

And nothing to support the idea that he's capable of rape, either.

2. Rhaegar's actions reveal a man who is fully capable of misdeeds.

I've never argued otherwise. But has anything ever shown that he's capable of heinous acts? Keep in mind, Jaime is the kind of person who threw a kid out a window, yet even he is (presumably) above rape.

3. The story of a CROWN PRINCE having to elope is ridiculously fafetched.

Well, I think I should take this as an opportunity to qualify what I mean by "elope." I don't Rhaegar ran off with Lyanna because he didn't think his father would approve or something, I think he had lofty romantic notions of his and Lyanna's role in the world, and that he felt a sense of urgency due to the prophecy.

4. The various implausibilities in Lyanna and Rhaegar having a normal, consented relationship.

What implausibilities would those be?

5. The story makes MORE sense if you don't portray him as mute, deaf (figuratively speaking), stupid and irresponsible.

So in other words, it makes more sense if he's less human?

You know what these points combine to say? First I disprove the notion that Rhaegar can only be a great person. Second I showed the numerous holes in the idea that he just ran away with his willing lover and had a grand ol' time.

God, this is annoying. Pleas, please, please, stop describing their affair as having a "grand ol' time," or something else idealistic like that. That's not what I'm arguing. I don't think they had a grand ol' time any more than Helen of Troy and Paris had a grand ol' time, or Romeo and Juliet had a grand ol' time. So please, stop mischaracterizing my position.

Now of course, you somehow keep repeating I have to PROVE BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that something happens.

Yes, generally you have to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt in order to prove that it's impossible. I recognize now that it was hyperbole, but the hyperbolic clause was paired with a rather measured clause, so in context it didn't seem hyperbolic.

[DurararaFTW]

Can you name any rumor heard from the smallfolk in the story that is fully truthful?

I don't think Bran got the rumors from his parents, that doesn't sound like something they would tell him. So I think he must have heard from other people gossiping in Winterfell, similar to how Cat found out about Ashara possibly being Jon's mother.

Or he read in a book about the rebellion? Or that's how Old Nan told the story? I dunno when it was established to be a rumor to only ever be told in whisper at all. I'm thinking the Winterfell household had some official answer for how one of it's family members died. I dunno what explanations you gave earlier in the thread for Ned not telling Robert the truth but I know he wasn't being up front with Jon either. Or Catelyn. Do we think he just casually mentions her sisters elopment to Luwin as smalltalk? I doubt it. Given that the one person left alive that was there to talk to Lyanna before she died seems to be holding his silence, why aren't we safely assuming everyone else heard the story the same way Robert and Brandon did?

[SFDanny]

2) No, the point is why would he HIDE when he can do it easily in the open, ASSUMING Lyanna was willing. Give me one good reason.

Wow, go to work and miss tons of posts, but I can't stay to enjoy this exchange. Have to run again, so I will just deal with this quote. Ray, you are missing half of the problem. We know things were not all well between Aerys and Rhaegar. We also know Aerys has a paranoid distrust of the northerners as exhibited by his orders at Harrenhal regarding the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Lyanna and Rhaegar hide because they don't have the approval of either Rickard or Aerys. Under this scenario, they obviously think they can elope and both of the families will have to come to terms with their actions and accept their relationship. They don't count on Brandon's rashness or Aerys's homicidal paranoia. Their actions also piss off the Prince of Dorne and his brother, but that's a separate question.

[JJxvi]

In my opinion, Bran's viewpoint is probably a result of the king's views becoming the realm's truth.

[Salander]

Wow, go to work and miss tons of posts, but I can't stay to enjoy this exchange. Have to run again, so I will just deal with this quote. Ray, you are missing half of the problem. We know things were not all well between Aerys and Rhaegar. We also know Aerys has a paranoid distrust of the northerners as exhibited by his orders at Harrenhal regarding the Knight of the Laughing Tree. Lyanna and Rhaegar hide because they don't have the approval of either Rickard or Aerys. Under this scenario, they obviously think they can elope and both of the families will have to come to terms with their actions and accept their relationship. They don't count on Brandon's rashness or Aerys's homicidal paranoia. Their actions also piss off the Prince of Dorne and his brother, but that's a separate question.

Now that is a really interesting and plausible argument to consider re: Rhaegar. I like it much more than what has been put up beforehand.

*I am really dubious about arguments that say so-and-so isn't capable of rape because it's out of character. There are a lot of character references from people about rapists out there that share similar sentiments - yet DNA and eye witness testimony proves otherwise.

[Luin]

1. Descriptions of Rhaegar are either faulty or tell you nothing about the things he's willing to do. Without the support of characterizations of him made by secondary characters, we having nothing to support the idea that he's too good for sins.

That doesn't prove he raped her, and note that Ned Stark has a lot of opportunities were it would be convenient for him to openly tell Robert she was raped.

2. Rhaegar's actions reveal a man who is fully capable of misdeeds.

Everyone in Westeros fits that description.

3. The story of a CROWN PRINCE having to elope is ridiculously fafetched.

Not if your familiar with medieval romances which nearly always involve a handsome prince or noblemen eloping.

4. The various implausibilities in Lyanna and Rhaegar having a normal, consented relationship.

The full and exhaustive list of evidence is

1. Robert Baratheon says so. That is not an exhaustive list. That is the only explicit statement in part because Robert is king, who would commit treason for the sake of a dead man's reputation?

5. The story makes MORE sense if you don't portray him as mute, deaf (figuratively speaking), stupid and irresponsible.

If he lived in the 21st century it would be reasonable to expect his father to call his cell phone, back in Westeros however communications are painfully slow. How is it more intelligent and responsible to kidnap and rape than elope? Rape is something evil, not having her father's permission to wed or bed her amounts to giving the Starks a few bags of gold which is nothing Rhaegar can't pay easily.

You know what these points combine to say? First I disprove the notion that Rhaegar can only be a great person. Second I showed the numerous holes in the idea that he just ran away with his willing lover and had a grand ol' time. Third I described a possible alternative scenario. The goal is to show the IMPLAUSIBILITY of this being a simple lovers eloping story.

How? Nobody said Rhaegar can only do good things, second you didn't show any holes, third yes you did describe a possible alternative, but fourth it is not in any way implausible. This way actually fits both characters better than Roberts description.

Now of course, you somehow keep repeating I have to PROVE BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that something happens.

That is what you are doing when evidence on how Lyanna felt (her clutching the crown Rhaegar gave her, her crying when listening to his music, her protesting at being betrothed against her will to Robert, Rhaegar's nearly universal depiction as a chivalric man, including the only thought about him from Ned).

First of all, this isn't math/philosophy we're talking about here, this is a simple book, and if there was a way to show anything beyond a doubt there wouldn't be this topic. Second of all, showing anything is impossible in a fictional story is nonsense because there's a nonzero chance of plot holes. What I am showing is that the story would be full of inconsistencies if Lyanna actually did willingly elope and stayed with him in a typical romantic fashion. Capiche?

No need to get snappy. You have shown no inconsistencies at all.

But you haven't proven anything.

Obviously my use of the word "impossible" threw you off. Treat that as hyperbole, mmmk?

You have shown a possible alternative point of view, except for the fact that if it was kidnapping why didn't Lyanna's father care? He doesn't negotiate her return, he doesn't mention her.