[aDwD spoilers] Revisiting Rhaegar

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

What do you think would have happened had Aerys not been insane?

[Geddus]

What do you think would have happened had Aerys not been insane?

Hard to say. No war, I think: a sane king would have addressed the fact that his son had disappeared with the betrothed daughter of the Warden of the North instead of killing everyone, in my opinion.

And maybe Rhaegar acted like he did because he knew Aerys was crazy, if the king was a normal person who knows how it would have played out.

[kg1982]

But more to the point, Barristan never states in this quote that Dany's "love" for Daario is exactly the same as Rhaegar's love for Lyanna. He's just talking about the unintended consequences of rulers choosing to be with the people they want to be with, rather than the people they need to be with for the good of the realm. That comparison is valid whether Rhaegar's love and Dany's love are exactly the same, or completely different.

Barristan is basically the elder complaining about those stupid younguns' who put their infatuations before the good of the country. Barristan does not seem to know anything about TPTWP prophecy and how Lyanna might have fit into that. He thinks that Rhaegar was superficially infatuated with Lyanna just like Dany wanted hot sex with Daario. Of course, Rhaegar inadvertently starting a war in order to force a prophecy was just as foolish... In fact, it seems like the latter Targaryen generations starting with Aegon at Summerhall really managed to screw over the realm because they were utterly obsessed with TPTWP.

[Dragonfish]

How do you know? Are you GRRM in disguise? It didn't work because it wasn't tried OR you can say it was tried and didn't work. The crucial point is tha, on evidence so far from the books, it wasn't tried. This is incredibly naive or arrogant on his part.

Personally, I think it's naive to think that Rhaegar could have ended the war simply by saying, "come on guys, quit it!" I've offered a rationale for why they wouldn't have even tried it, yet you haven't even bothered to dispute that rationale. You have no reason for saying that it was naive, other than the fact that you think he should have tried it.

I think the word you're looking for is "biased". ALL of the characters in this series are biased which doesn't automatically make them unreliable. The problem here is that you're being selective. If all Rhaegar's critics are, in your terms, "unreliable", then all of his fans are too.

No, critics of Rhaegar are not unreliable simply by virtue of being his critics. Robert is unreliable (or "biased", if you prefer) for reasons that are clear. Bran is unreliable (but I wouldn't necessarily call him biased) because he wasn't even born when these events happened, and probably doesn't even understand what he's talking about (I'm not sure he can truly understand what rape is, if he wasn't able to recognize that Jaime and Cersei were having sex when he saw them).

As for Rhaegar's "fans", some of them are undoubtedly biased/unreliable. Cersei is a good example. Maybe even Ser Jorah, to a certain extent. But Ser Barristan, I think, isn't quite biased enough to be unreliable. Yes, he's a Targ loyalist generally speaking, but he's able to recognize madness in other Targs, and was even reticent to reveal himself to Dany until he was sure that she did not have her father's madness. And on top of that, he actually knew Rhaegar personally, and is therefore able to judge his character based on first-hand knowledge. Which is why I tend to lend his "testimony" more credence than others.

Cersei isn't necessarily "unreliable". She is heavily biased and more than a little bit narcissistic and psychopathic.

Well, the point I'm making is that even though she had a positive opinion of Rhaegar, I never really "cite" her opinion because she has a warped view of reality, and may also have a nostalgia filter on with regards to the man she originally wanted to marry. So I don't find her point of view to be reliable on this, even though it supports my opinion.

You may not have directly, but you've inferred it and other posters have claimed Brandon Stark was to blame for the war.

I don't think I implied anything to that effect. You seem to be taking what other posters say and using it against me. But if you have a problem with what those other posters have to say about Brandon, you should take it up with them.

Everything I've said has challenged his interpretation as the "scumbag" and your argument, where you stated, that Catelyn and Hoster had a bad opinion of him, and then asked if I thought they were wrong.

Uh, no, I never said Catelyn and Hoster had a bad opinion of him in general or anything like that. I said that they thought his actions were rash and foolish. Seriously, here are my exact words:

"Do you think Catelyn and Hoster are unreliable for judging Brandon's reaction?"

Notice I'm talking about what Brandon did, not who he was as a person.

[iamthedave]

What do you think would have happened had Aerys not been insane?

Would have likely executed the first one and not called for the heads of all the related family members. It would have been a diplomatic disaster, but it wouldn't have gone to outright rebellion.

Given that Robert led it, overall I think calling for his head was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even if the Starks hadn't been included, they'd likely have gotten involved due to friendship.

[Dragonfish]

Well, if Rhaegar was as admired as he seems to be, it's possible that someone among the rebels could have in fact trusted him.

Some may have trusted Rhaegar, but I'll bet none trusted Aerys, who would still have been king.

Regardless, Ned would most probably have trusted Lyanna: why the hell was she sealed in the ToJ if she was (as I believe) a willing participant? I feel there's more to that, the story as it is makes little sense. And no, "she was pregnant and couldn't travel" doesn't work if she gave birth shortly before Ned found her.

Well, have you ever tried riding on horseback while pregnant?

Regardless, I've already addressed the difficulties Lyanna would have had contacting Ned. Letters are out, because they would think she was being forced to write them, so the only other option was to travel across a warzone (while pregant).

But annihilating the rebellion isn't the only way to stabilize the realm, coming to a truce with the rebels would bring the same results. I still find it really strange that Rhaegar didn't try any diplomatic solutions.

Well, as I said in a post above, even the act of proposing a truce may simply have made the crown look weak, and emboldened the rebels even more. The choice of suing for peace depends on more than just whether or not you want peace. As proof, just go back through the first three books, and look at all the times the Lannisters or the Starks or Stannis consider suing for peace, but reject that option (usually for reasons of not wanting to look weak).

But we do actually know even less about Brandon's actions, only a single line by Jaime which could mean anything.

We have a single line from Jaime, who was actually there. In contrast, we have no first-hand testimony of Rhaegar's "abduction" of Lyanna. So no, we know a lot more about Brandon's actions than we do about Rhaegar's.

Then we have other people (one person, if I'm not mistaken) describing as foolish actions they only know via hearsay, and we know how much reliable that is.

We have two people, Catelyn and Hoster. And yes, their knowledge is via hearsay, but it concerns an action that was performed very publicly, right in the middle of the Red Keep. We don't know how public Rhaegar was with his "abduction." In fact, we know almost nothing about the "abduction."

We also have characters (Barristan) talk fondly of Rhaegar and yet saying that his actions caused the war. So either both Brandon and Rhaegar are to blame, or none of them is.

They are both to blame, to varying extents.

For what it's worth, I think it's the latter: as I already said, in my opinion the only one to blame for the whole mess is Aerys.

I think Aerys is primarily to blame, but he's not the only one who's at fault.

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

Would have likely executed the first one and not called for the heads of all the related family members. It would have been a diplomatic disaster, but it wouldn't have gone to outright rebellion.

Given that Robert led it, overall I think calling for his head was the straw that broke the camel's back. Even if the Starks hadn't been included, they'd likely have gotten involved due to friendship.

Interesting. So you think Brandon was doomed either way? Do you think a sane Aerys would have ordered Rhaegar to give Lyanna back? And why did Aerys call for Robert's head anyway? Just because Lyanna was his fiancee?

Well, have you ever tried riding on horseback while pregnant?

It's not that it can't be done, it's that it's very risky, as if you fall off the horse, you will likely lose the baby. It's a bad idea.

Regardless, I've already addressed the difficulties Lyanna would have had contacting Ned. Letters are out, because they would think she was being forced to write them, so the only other option was to travel across a warzone (while pregant).

This does beg the question of why they were locked up in the Tower of Joy in the first place. If they were in Kings Landing, she could have met with her family if she had to or wanted to. I think it's all the secrecy that let everyone draw the worst conclusions. I think it would have taken all the wind out of the Stark/Baratheon alliance if she had come out and told Robert she wanted to be Rhaegar's second wife.

I think Aerys is primarily to blame, but he's not the only one who's at fault.

Still not sure why Rhaegar thought being with Lyanna took priority over deposing Aerys. Until this question is answered satisfactorily, I will harbor the suspicion that he did what he wanted over and what he thought was most heroic over what was hard and more mundane.

[Dragonfish]

It's not that it can't be done, it's that it's very risky, as if you fall off the horse, you will likely lose the baby. It's a bad idea.

Yes, precisely.

This does beg the question of why they were locked up in the Tower of Joy in the first place. If they were in Kings Landing, she could have met with her family if she had to or wanted to. I think it's all the secrecy that let everyone draw the worst conclusions. I think it would have taken all the wind out of the Stark/Baratheon alliance if she had come out and told Robert she wanted to be Rhaegar's second wife.

Well, it's hard to know for sure, but Rhaegar may not have wanted Lyanna to be directly in the hands of his father. She was, after all, the daughter/sister of a traitor. And the KotLT, to boot.

Or maybe Rhaegar really kept her prisoner there. I suppose whichever option you prefer depends on how you view Rhaegar.

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

Well, it's hard to know for sure, but Rhaegar may not have wanted Lyanna to be directly in the hands of his father. She was, after all, the daughter/sister of a traitor. And the KotLT, to boot.

It's an interesting idea that she was there to keep her away from Aerys. Likely, too, considering how erratic Aerys was, and then once she was pregnant, she had to stay wherever they were. I just wish he had manned up and taken out Aerys first.

[Geddus]

Some may have trusted Rhaegar, but I'll bet none trusted Aerys, who would still have been king.

No one would have trusted Aerys, true. That's why they would maybe have supported a plan to depose him.

Well, have you ever tried riding on horseback while pregnant?

No, I never tried and I'm afraid I never will since I'm not a woman.

Regardless, Lyanna was at most a couple months pregnant when Rhaegar returned to KL, I don't think that required her not to move. Hell, she probably didn't even know she was pregnant yet.

Regardless, I've already addressed the difficulties Lyanna would have had contacting Ned. Letters are out, because they would think she was being forced to write them, so the only other option was to travel across a warzone (while pregant).

The pregnant thing doesn't hold much bearing, as I stated. As for traveling, well yes, it would have been risky, but wouldn't the risk be worth it if it avoided thousands of deaths? Plus, Rhaegar returned safely, why couldn't she travel with him? Not to KL, but to another location from where she could contact her brother, for example.

Well, as I said in a post above, even the act of proposing a truce may simply have made the crown look weak, and emboldened the rebels even more. The choice of suing for peace depends on more than just whether or not you want peace. As proof, just go back through the first three books, and look at all the times the Lannisters or the Starks or Stannis consider suing for peace, but reject that option (usually for reasons of not wanting to look weak).

I don't think the situations are comparable. It wasn't about looking weak, it was about Aerys' madness.

We have a single line from Jaime, who was actually there. In contrast, we have no first-hand testimony of Rhaegar's "abduction" of Lyanna. So no, we know a lot more about Brandon's actions than we do about Rhaegar's.

Jaime was there and knows what happened, no doubt: what I'm saying is that he's summarizing when he uses that line, so we don't really know what happened. It's possible that he's being literal and it's equally possible that he's using a figure of speech.

They are both to blame, to varying extents.

I have nothing to argue to this, it was exactly my point. What I don't understand is people who hold only one of them responsible and completely absolve the other.

[Ser Coffee The Bold]

I'm wondering what Rhaegar's good qualities were.

Well Rhaegar so far seems to be human to me. Sure, he had dragon blood, but he was also a fallible and horny human being. Now, obviously since Robbery Baratheon and Ned Stark weren't there for his seducing of Lyanna... they assume his intentions were bad... but Ned remembers her promise.... and the tension in the Stark Crypts as well as on the road to kings landing with Ned basically shaming himself and screaming that he fucked a wet-nurse name Wylla means allot.

I mean, we all get horny, but those of us with a sense of respect for our wives (not that I personally have one but I imagine unless I hated her I would not fuck a milk providing wench out of simple need to jerk it... to be plain and simple) do not use a sorry excuse for a beauty as an excuse.

[LadyMary]

Interesting. So you think Brandon was doomed either way? Do you think a sane Aerys would have ordered Rhaegar to give Lyanna back? And why did Aerys call for Robert's head anyway? Just because Lyanna was his fiancee?

Just butting in here... I think that if Aerys had been rational, he would have still arrested Brandon for threatening Rhaegar. However, given the facts - that Rhaegar eloped with/kidnapped Lyanna Stark, perhaps one offense would have canceled out another. Brandon might have been held for ransom and a settlement reached, involving Lyanna being returned and Brandon being pardoned. Or something.

But, of course, Aerys was not a rational man. He was insane, paranoid and a pyromaniac who got off on watching people burn.

It's not that it can't be done, it's that it's very risky, as if you fall off the horse, you will likely lose the baby. It's a bad idea.

This does beg the question of why they were locked up in the Tower of Joy in the first place. If they were in Kings Landing, she could have met with her family if she had to or wanted to. I think it's all the secrecy that let everyone draw the worst conclusions. I think it would have taken all the wind out of the Stark/Baratheon alliance if she had come out and told Robert she wanted to be Rhaegar's second wife.

Even in our time, pregnant women are advised not to fly or travel far from home late in pregnancy, because accidents can happen or a woman can go into labor prematurely which can cause a host of physical problems for mother and baby or even death. I have to assume a highborn woman in a medieval-like time would have been protected from harm and afforded every protection during her pregnancy, especially if her child's father was the Prince.

My theory is that once Rhaegar left pregnant Lyanna to return to Kings Landing (and then went on to battle), Aerys took the matter out of Rhaegar's hands and ordered Lyanna kept as a very valuable hostage. She was the sister of one and fiance of another of the rebels and maybe Aerys also wanted her detained as a warning to Rhaeger, who he didn't trust either. Aerys was paranoid enough to keep Elia and her children as hostages in KL in order to keep Prince Doran in line, and he kept Jaime Lannister as his KG but also as a hostage - in order to keep Tywin Lannister out of the war. It fits Aerys' MO. Ironically, that would also serve Rhaegar's purpose if he meant to keep Lyanna safe from harm (unknown to his father), by sending three of the best of the Kings Guard to the ToJ, one of whom was also Rhaegar's close friend Arthur Dayne.

Still not sure why Rhaegar thought being with Lyanna took priority over deposing Aerys. Until this question is answered satisfactorily, I will harbor the suspicion that he did what he wanted over and what he thought was most heroic over what was hard and more mundane.

Simple timing? Or maybe Rhaegar didn't want to commit treason against his father unless things were desperate and he was certain he could pull it off. Rhaegar wasn't the only one who let Aerys reign out of control for too long. The KG watched as Aerys descended into madness as did (some of) his council. Those who couldn't abide Aerys' tyranny quit his council, they didn't try to depose him, the rest Aerys killed.

Anyway, by the time Rhaegar made it back to KL, the rebels were advancing. The most pressing issue was to end the rebellion. I think that if my my above theory is true, Rhaegar would have been even more eager to depose his father (because of the threat to Lyanna, Elia and their children), but any plot would involve the active support of the KG and others on the council and Rhaegar would have needed to figure out who he could trust not to warn Aerys. When would Rhaegar have had time to arrange all that before going off to war?

[Salander]

Personally, I think it's naive to think that Rhaegar could have ended the war simply by saying, "come on guys, quit it!" I've offered a rationale for why they wouldn't have even tried it, yet you haven't even bothered to dispute that rationale. You have no reason for saying that it was naive, other than the fact that you think he should have tried it.

You're right. It would have been idiotic for Rhaegar to say that. Instead what he could have offered was the return of Lyanna, compensation, Aerys abdicating and peace in the realm. To not even try is misguided arrogance and his strategy worked out so well for all of the Targs in the end ...

No, critics of Rhaegar are not unreliable simply by virtue of being his critics. Robert is unreliable (or "biased", if you prefer) for reasons that are clear. Bran is unreliable (but I wouldn't necessarily call him biased) because he wasn't even born when these events happened, and probably doesn't even understand what he's talking about (I'm not sure he can truly understand what rape is, if he wasn't able to recognize that Jaime and Cersei were having sex when he saw them).

No critics of Rhaegar are as "reliable" or "biased" as his fans. This is why you have to run the gamut of accounts, possibilities and probabilities, balanced against the textual evidence - not wish lists and selective accounts that reinforce your position.

Seriously? You're using Bran - an eight year old child - and his inability to recognise Jaime and Cersei having sex to question his credibility? This is a "child's point of view", but Martin's audience is adult. The reader would recognise what is going on before Bran, a child would, which was what the author intended. This, however, reinforces a point I made further up on this thread or another one, about the way in which Bran was taught the history of his family, Winterfell, the North and the realm. If Bran's account of history is that Rhaegar raped Lyanna, then someone had to have taught him that. It it is the Winterfell account of what happened between Rhaegar, Lyanna and the civil war. Basically, Bran is paraphrasing this account of the Winterfell version of history.

As for Rhaegar's "fans", some of them are undoubtedly biased/unreliable. Cersei is a good example. Maybe even Ser Jorah, to a certain extent. But Ser Barristan, I think, isn't quite biased enough to be unreliable. Yes, he's a Targ loyalist generally speaking, but he's able to recognize madness in other Targs, and was even reticent to reveal himself to Dany until he was sure that she did not have her father's madness. And on top of that, he actually knew Rhaegar personally, and is therefore able to judge his character based on first-hand knowledge. Which is why I tend to lend his "testimony" more credence than others.

Well, the point I'm making is that even though she had a positive opinion of Rhaegar, I never really "cite" her opinion because she has a warped view of reality, and may also have a nostalgia filter on with regards to the man she originally wanted to marry. So I don't find her point of view to be reliable on this, even though it supports my opinion.

Fair enough, but I don't think you should pick and choose if you're trying to deduct the 'truth'. Cersei is everything you state and more. Her accounts might be suspect, but the information she is imparting is still relevant to the civil wars.

I don't think I implied anything to that effect. You seem to be taking what other posters say and using it against me. But if you have a problem with what those other posters have to say about Brandon, you should take it up with them.

Uh, no, I never said Catelyn and Hoster had a bad opinion of him in general or anything like that. I said that they thought his actions were rash and foolish. Seriously, here are my exact words:

"Do you think Catelyn and Hoster are unreliable for judging Brandon's reaction?"

Notice I'm talking about what Brandon did, not who he was as a person.

You implied Catelyn and Hoster had a bad opinion of him and made comparisons to other characters' actions. As said earlier: both of those people loved Brandon. There's the difference. I read their comments as nostalgic recollections for a life gone too young.

[SFDanny]

Just butting in here... I think that if Aerys had been rational, he would have still arrested Brandon for threatening Rhaegar. However, given the facts - that Rhaegar eloped with/kidnapped Lyanna Stark, perhaps one offense would have canceled out another. Brandon might have been held for ransom and a settlement reached, involving Lyanna being returned and Brandon being pardoned. Or something.

But, of course, Aerys was not a rational man. He was insane, paranoid and a pyromaniac who got off on watching people burn.

Not to argue that Aerys wasn't all those things, but I'd also argue that from a Targaryen loyalist point of view he was also right. The plot Aerys sees in Rickard's "southron ambitions," that he is so worried about at least as far back to as Harrenhal, seems quite likely true. Rickard and other great lords (Tully, Arryn, and Baratheon) do seem to be forming an alternative power bloc to the Targaryen throne. Not that one can truly blame them, because, after all, they bent the knee to the Targaryens when they had dragons, not because they had pretty hair and eyes and hailed from Valyria. It seems to me that both sides had the right view of the other. Aerys was insane and paranoid, but he was also right. He just took the opportunity Brandon gave him to eliminate his enemies.

Hell, he probably thought the Lannisters sending Jaime to visit the Tullys and possibly marry Lysa was part of the same plot against him. Who knows, maybe it was.

[Dragonfish]

No one would have trusted Aerys, true. That's why they would maybe have supported a plan to depose him.

They were already involved in a plan to depose him. It was called the "rebellion." And as I said before, all Rhaegar can offer are promises.

No, I never tried and I'm afraid I never will since I'm not a woman.

Regardless, Lyanna was at most a couple months pregnant when Rhaegar returned to KL, I don't think that required her not to move. Hell, she probably didn't even know she was pregnant yet.

See Tyroshi Sellsword's point above: it's a bad idea to ride horseback while pregnant. You could lose the child if you fall. And hell, there might also be complications simply from the act of riding the horse as well.

The pregnant thing doesn't hold much bearing, as I stated. As for traveling, well yes, it would have been risky, but wouldn't the risk be worth it if it avoided thousands of deaths? Plus, Rhaegar returned safely, why couldn't she travel with him? Not to KL, but to another location from where she could contact her brother, for example.

Where else would Lyanna have gone? And remember, any letter would be considered or suspected to be fake, especially if it said that she went willingly with Rhaegar. She would have to meet Ned in person in order to explain things to him.

I don't think the situations are comparable. It wasn't about looking weak, it was about Aerys' madness.

Look, this is just basic strategy here. You do not propose a truce to a rebellion you think you can beat, because 1) you're only encouraging further rebellion down the line, and 2) you run the risk of making yourself look weak and emboldening the rebels further. We've seen characters use this rationale time and again as a justification for refusing to offer terms. I don't see why the rationale should be any different for the crown during the rebellion.

Jaime was there and knows what happened, no doubt: what I'm saying is that he's summarizing when he uses that line, so we don't really know what happened. It's possible that he's being literal and it's equally possible that he's using a figure of speech.

Nonetheless, we know more about what Brandon did than what Rhaegar did.

[Salander]

Not to argue that Aerys wasn't all those things, but I'd also argue that from a Targaryen loyalist point of view he was also right. The plot Aerys sees in Rickard's "southron ambitions," that he is so worried about at least as far back to as Harrenhal, seems quite likely true. Rickard and other great lords (Tully, Arryn, and Baratheon) do seem to be forming an alternative power bloc to the Targaryen throne. Not that one can truly blame them, because, after all, they bent the knee to the Targaryens when they had dragons, not because they had pretty hair and eyes and hailed from Valyria. It seems to me that both sides had the right view of the other. Aerys was insane and paranoid, but he was also right. He just took the opportunity Brandon gave him to eliminate his enemies.

Hell, he probably thought the Lannisters sending Jaime to visit the Tullys and possibly marry Lysa was part of the same plot against him. Who knows, maybe it was.

Sorry, SFDanny, but this is just pure speculation. As argued previously, I can't see any great conspiracy or threat from Rickard trying to forge alliances and get great marriages for his children. How does this suddenly end up as a potential conspiracy to overthrow the throne? Ironically, these were the very houses that rebelled, but even then, Arryn & Co had to talk their bannermen and allies into it because of Aerys murdering Rickard & Co. It doesn't appear to me to be a large conspiracy building to overthrow the monarchy UNTIL Aerys killed Brandon, Rickard & Co and then called for the heads of Robert and Ned.

The main point I agree with you on is that Aerys was insane and paranoid. He was also cruel, murderous, a wife beater and rapist, and a tyrant.

[Dragonfish]

You're right. It would have been idiotic for Rhaegar to say that. Instead what he could have offered was the return of Lyanna, compensation, Aerys abdicating and peace in the realm. To not even try is misguided arrogance and his strategy worked out so well for all of the Targs in the end ...

You're right, it's such a good idea for a crown prince to offer rebels almost everything they want in exchange for...what, his own life? That sets a pretty terrible precedent. And anyway, it's highly doubtful Robert would have allowed Rhaegar to ascend to the throne.

No critics of Rhaegar are as "reliable" or "biased" as his fans. This is why you have to run the gamut of accounts, possibilities and probabilities, balanced against the textual evidence - not wish lists and selective accounts that reinforce your position.

Well, as I said before, there are many more people who have positive opinions/memories of Rhaegar than there are people who have negative opinions of him.

Seriously? You're using Bran - an eight year old child - and his inability to recognise Jaime and Cersei having sex to question his credibility?

Well, yes. The fact that he probably doesn't even truly know what rape is implies that this was not something he was formally taught.

This, however, reinforces a point I made further up on this thread or another one, about the way in which Bran was taught the history of his family, Winterfell, the North and the realm. If Bran's account of history is that Rhaegar raped Lyanna, then someone had to have taught him that. It it is the Winterfell account of what happened between Rhaegar, Lyanna and the civil war. Basically, Bran is paraphrasing this account of the Winterfell version of history.

Right, but if the "Winterfell version of history" the Bran recites is based on rumors, then it's not entirely reliable. The only way it could be reliable, in my view, is if he learned it directly from his father. But I have a hard time seeing Ned tell his son, "Sit down and let me tell you the tale of how my sister was raped." I mean, the guy doesn't even tell his own wife, an adult, how his father and brother truly died. And he clearly doesn't tell Bran either, since he thinks Rickard was beheaded (and incidentally, the fact that Bran gets this detail of the account wrong is only further evidence that he really doesn't know what he's talking about). So why would Ned tell him the gruesome detail that she was raped?

No, it's much more likely that it came from some other source who was not Ned. And unless that source was an eye-witness to Rhaegar's "abduction" or to Rhaegar's character in general, he/she is probably not a very good source either.

Fair enough, but I don't think you should pick and choose if you're trying to deduct the 'truth'. Cersei is everything you state and more. Her accounts might be suspect, but the information she is imparting is still relevant to the civil wars.

I'm confused, are you saying that it's alright if I use Cersei's opinion of Rhaegar as evidence?

You implied Catelyn and Hoster had a bad opinion of him and made comparisons to other characters' actions.

Where did I imply that Catelyn and Hoster had a bad opinion of him? All I ever said is that Catelyn and Hoster thought Brandon's actions were rash and foolish, which is clearly supported by the text. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the author.

[Salander]

You're right, it's such a good idea for a crown prince to offer rebels almost everything they want in exchange for...what, his own life? That sets a pretty terrible precedent. And anyway, it's highly doubtful Robert would have allowed Rhaegar to ascend to the throne.

It's called negotiation and strategy. Rhaegar should have tried it because things turned out so well for him without doing it huh?

Well, as I said before, there are many more people who have positive opinions/memories of Rhaegar than there are people who have negative opinions of him.

There are also many who don't or are ambivalent or don't even think of him at all. The crux of the argument is the use of selective accounts and uncritical acceptance IF those people agree with your point of view.

Well, yes. The fact that he probably doesn't even truly know what rape is implies that this was not something he was formally taught.

Then where would he have got it from, Dragonfish? He was reciting a piece of Stark family and Winterfell history in a somewhat formal tone. Given his maesters taught him a large number of subjects, including history, I think it a logical conclusion to draw that this is a standard account of history taught to the Stark children (and possibly to the North as well).

How do you know that Bran doesn't know what rape is - at a conceptual level? (He probably does).

Right, but if the "Winterfell version of history" the Bran recites is based on rumors, then it's not entirely reliable. The only way it could be reliable, in my view, is if he learned it directly from his father. But I have a hard time seeing Ned tell his son, "Sit down and let me tell you the tale of how my sister was raped." I mean, the guy doesn't even tell his own wife, an adult, how his father and brother truly died. And he clearly doesn't tell Bran either, since he thinks Rickard was beheaded (and incidentally, the fact that Bran gets this detail of the account wrong is only further evidence that he really doesn't know what he's talking about). So why would Ned tell him the gruesome detail that she was raped?

That's a big call and a separate issue. History is usually written by the winners and it is a contested subject, but the material point was "how" and "what" was probably being taught at Winterfell, rather than the truth of it.

In terms of your criteria, however, about historical accuracy: you've just thrown the majority of accounts in the series into question (not just about Rhaegar, but about everything else). I don't think you can have it both ways and to be honest, I think you really are pushing the boundaries of this argument to the extremes.

No, it's much more likely that it came from some other source who was not Ned. And unless that source was an eye-witness to Rhaegar's "abduction" or to Rhaegar's character in general, he/she is probably not a very good source either.

On Ned: I don't think he would have gone into gruesome detail. I have no evidence of this, but I can't see him doing this. Then again, I think there's a certain amount of project that goes on here in terms of how we protect children from the horrors of life. Ned did take Bran to watch an execution as part of his training. I have never said that Bran learns his account from Ned. It is more likely he has learnt this account of history formally.

I'm confused, are you saying that it's alright if I use Cersei's opinion of Rhaegar as evidence?

Actually, you have used Cersei's opinion of Rhaegar as evidence (i.e. his popularity with his fellow countrymen). It's been one of your key pieces of evidence in your interpretation.

Where did I imply that Catelyn and Hoster had a bad opinion of him? All I ever said is that Catelyn and Hoster thought Brandon's actions were rash and foolish, which is clearly supported by the text. If you have a problem with this, take it up with the author.

Here's your comment here: it is from page 19 of this thread:

"Catelyn called Brandon "rash", and Hoster Tully called him a "gallant fool" for what he did. I think that's a pretty good indication that whatever he did, it was rash and stupid. There is no double standard here".

Rash? Debatable about whether this is a good account of someone or not, but "stupid" - I think that's a pretty good indication that you have a low opinion of him.

[caravaggio]

It's an interesting idea that she was there to keep her away from Aerys. Likely, too, considering how erratic Aerys was, and then once she was pregnant, she had to stay wherever they were. I just wish he had manned up and taken out Aerys first.

My crackpot theory is that Aerys may have rapped Lyanna and it is actually A+L=J.

[Dragonfish]

It's called negotiation and strategy. Rhaegar should have tried it because things turned out so well for him without doing it huh?

You're using hindsight to argue Rhaegar should have tried it. Not exactly the best position to argue from.

The war could easily have turned out differently. The rebels and the loyalists were fairly evenly matched; in fact, the loyalists may even have been just a bit stronger (I seem to recall they had more men on the Trident). And IIRC, the rebels were actually losing the Trident until Rhaegar fell. But yes, we should just assume the outcome that ended up happening was inevitable, and that Rhaegar should have seen it and acted in exactly the way you think he should have acted. *sarcasm*

Furthermore, you keep saying that it would be good strategy for Rhaegar to do this. Well, I've given a strategic rationale for why Rhaegar would not have tried it. You have yet to truly contest this rationale. All you keep saying is, "he should have tried it" and "it turned out badly for him in the end." None of this truly addresses my main point, that from Rhaegar's perspective, offering a truce in exchange for practically everything the rebels want sets a terrible precedent, and may end up being counterproductive. Now, if you disagree with this strategy, then you need to take it up with Tywin and Robb and Stannis, all of whom have used the same rationale to refrain from offering real truces.

There are also many who don't or are ambivalent or don't even think of him at all.

Uh, we only have direct evidence that two people don't think well of Rhaegar. And I'm not sure why you brought up that there are people who don't think of him at all. Obviously there are, but since they have nothing to say about him, there's no point in using them as evidence.

The crux of the argument is the use of selective accounts and uncritical acceptance IF those people agree with your point of view.

I've offered reasons for why I disregard certain characters' opinions on this issue. If you have an issue with my reasons, then you should address those reasons specifically, as you have with Bran's account. And seeing as how people's accounts of Rhaegar differ, I don't see how anyone can draw conclusions about Rhaegar's character without accepting some testimonies but not others.

Then where would he have got it from, Dragonfish?

Where did Catelyn learn about Ashara Dayne possibly being Jon's mother? Winterfell's servants whisper rumors to each other all the time. And as a climber, Bran is in a good position to overhear things that people don't intend him to hear.

He was reciting a piece of Stark family and Winterfell history in a somewhat formal tone.

Yes, and he got the manner of Rickard's death wrong. So clearly he doesn't truly know the full history.

Actually, you have used Cersei's opinion of Rhaegar as evidence (i.e. his popularity with his fellow countrymen). It's been one of your key pieces of evidence in your interpretation.

Are you referring to Cersei's memory of Rhaegar being cheered by the smallfolk? Hmmm, I could have sworn there was some other account of Rhaegar's popularity among the common people. But the closest thing I can think of is the Elder Brother's reference to the singers describing the Trident as a battle between two men over a woman they both claimed to love.

Here's your comment here: it is from page 19 of this thread:

"Catelyn called Brandon "rash", and Hoster Tully called him a "gallant fool" for what he did. I think that's a pretty good indication that whatever he did, it was rash and stupid. There is no double standard here".

Rash? Debatable about whether this is a good account of someone or not, but "stupid" - I think that's a pretty good indication that you have a low opinion of him.

Notice I said that Catelyn and Hoster call Brandon these things for what he did. And notice that I used the word "stupid" in reference to what he did. I'm talking about his actions, not his character as a whole.

You've just attempted a pretty brazen feat here, Salander. You've twisted my words so as to make it seem like I said something that I in fact did not say, all while quoting me directly. I'm honestly sort of impressed by your chutzpah.