Elia & Rhaegar

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

Try rereading what I wrote?

:rolleyes:

I think there were very probably witnesses on both sides as well.

I just don't see much chance of any 'Targaryen' witnesses' 'stories' getting back to Dany.

Whyever not? If it got to the royal family, it got to Viserys, who was with Dany. Totally possible, likely even.

As I said, Rhaegar is gone for less time than Ned was, yet Ned is not considered to have 'abandoned' Catelyn.

Ned was at war. Rhaegar was in bed with a teenager. Surely the difference is not lost on you.

The Crazy father part is also a red herring. Aerys chose Elia as Rhaegar's wife, no one else. And she was mother of Aerys' heir's heir. She was as safe in KL as anywhere in the realm.

You're not using the term red herring correctly. Aerys was crazier than a shithouse rat and was a danger to EVERYONE. He was going to burn KL to the ground, he was roasting people alive, and was abusing his wife. Elia was NOT as safe in KL as she would have been in, say, DORNE.

The 'made no contact' part is also not a reasonable statement. We have no knowledge of the situation leading up to the 'abandonment'. Rhaegar may have kept Elia well informed, whether he actually consulted her on his actions or not. We also have no knowledge of whether Rhaegar sent messages to Elia after the 'abandonment' or not (though I'd say it was unlikely, apart from attached to any initial message sent to Aerys).

It's a totally reasonable statement. No one got any word from him that we know of, so it's reasonable to say that Elia didn't get word. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

We have no idea what Rhaegar did during that time, nor who he was with, nor what he told or discussed with Elia.

Which means categorically stating there was no contact, let alone abandonment is, well... unjustified.

Which makes accusing me of bias for Rhaegar... interesting. :huh:

You are biased in favor of Rhaegar. I've debated this topic with you enough to realize this. You have fabricated this idea that Rhaegar MAY have made all these communications, ZERO of which are in evidence. Things would likely have gone very differently if Rhaegar had communicated with anyone.

Canute, Henry the VIII. I'm sure there were many more not so widely known. It is an established enough event to have its own TV Trope page.

How about some from the world in which the story takes place?

I think extrapolating and imagining how you would feel is dangerous, becaue you are not brought up with and living under the same cultural parameters.

If Elia was cool with it, why was Oberyn not?

Dismiss them all you like, but the fact is that cultural parameters do change people's feelings. Cersei thinks that way because anything and everything is an insult to her personally and that is all she cares about. Catelyn, as a counter example, was not insulted by Ned's supposed infidelity, but by being effectively asked to publicly live with it thrown in her face every day.

How about Catelyn didn't care b/c she and Ned hardly knew each other when he went off to war, so she could hardly fault him for an infidelity? And Cersei did b/c Robert was disrespectful to her? So much for the cultural parameters mitigating natural human feelings of jealousy and possessiveness of a partner, and feelings of shame at being openly scorned for a younger, more vigorous woman. Those tend to exist even when cultural parameters say they shouldn't.

I'd also be wary about taking things too literally all the time. "All the smiles died" is merely a descriptive line. It might be literally accurate, or it might just mean the general 'air' at the tournament suddenly changed.

That said, I agree that probably Elia's smile died as well.

But not being happy does not equate with any great public insult.

I'd be wary about handwaving away things that are in the actual text. It was an obvious slight to Elia. We don't know how she took it, but we do know about human nature and how the Martell women tend to feel and behave when slighted. It's not a stretch to think, even if she didn't care about the infidelity, she would care about the public slight.

[corbon]

She defeats 3 champions who won the day before, the 3 whose squires hurt Howland Reed.

This is what the wiki and the summary of that chapter says:

There were five days of jousting.^[3]

Champion: Prince Rhaegar Targaryen.

• Unknown jousters defeated the 4 sons of Lord Whent of Harrenhal
  
• The Knight of the Laughing Tree defeated a member of House Haigh
  
• The Knight of the Laughing Tree defeated a member of House Blount
  
• The Knight of the Laughing Tree defeated a member of House Frey
  
• Prince Rhaegar Targaryen defeated Lord Yohn Royce
  
• Prince Rhaegar Targaryen defeated Brandon Stark
  
• Prince Rhaegar Targaryen defeated Ser Arthur Dayne
  
• Prince Rhaegar Targaryen defeated Ser Barristan Selmy
  

AFAIK the tKoLT (Lyanna we are assuming) defeated just those three knights, whose squires she fought off from Howland Reed the night before the tourney started.

I was assuming she challenged then as the 'current' champions in a format similar to that used in a Dunc and Egg novel, where any knight can challenge one of the champions and if they win take that place as a current 'champion' (champion meaning 'defender' rather than 'winner' I guess) - but then how would she fight just those three?

Do you have anything that actually says those three were champions?

Why not depose Aerys first? Why keep everything a dead secret? Why not send word to Robert and try to assuage him? Why not immediately offer recompense to Houses Baratheon and Stark once the marriage was a done deal? Why leave Elia with Aerys when Aerys was so crazy?

Deposing Aerys is treasonously illegal and undermines his own authority.

Clearly in talking with Jaime when he came back he seems to indicate that he felt it needed doing hereafter, but equally clearly he wasn't ready to go that far earlier on.

We don't know that everything was kept a dead secret. The only actual secret was where they were located, and that is a secret to stop anybody doing anything about it. Brandon certainly found out somehow.

Robert is of little importance here. Only the Starks and Aerys really matter. Robert can be pissed off all he likes, and insulted all he likes, but he has no actual rights until he is married. Note how he was irrelevant in proceedings until Aerys demanded Jon Arryn send his head.

Perhaps he/they feared the marriage could be 'set aside' or claimed illegal or whatever if things were done too fast. It's a fair bit harder to do afetr 6 months or so and a pregnant woman, and there is considerably less value for them in doing so as well. I don't know, but I'm not willing to claim some other action was definitely 'better' when I don't know all the parameters.

Why not leave Elia in her home, with her children, under the protection of the King (who personally chose her as his son's bride). Who knew Aerys was mad enough to be a danger to her? As it happens, he wasn't mad enough to be a danger to her. She seems to have been perfectly safe until the Lannisters started sacking KL.

[Jem]

I think Rhaegar was totally starting to lose it. He had so many worries: a mad father that needed removing; a suspicious alignment of three great houses that needed dealing with; a PtwP prophecy that needed fulfilment. I think that social niceties, like sparing his wife's feelings, went out the window in the face of such pressures. Which is awful for Elia, because I actually think she knew and understood and was willing to help.

[Dragonfish]

And, as has also been repeated several times, Lord Rickard apparently also gave her plenty of free, unsupervised time to learn how to joust and use a sword with proficiency. She was not a woman who was restricted and not given any freedom. What Lord Rickard forbade is beside the point. The point is, he may have forbidden her, but he gave her plenty of latitude to do it anyway. The point is, these are not people who could not conceive of Lyanna making a bold choice. They knew she was strong, willful, and self-determined. They also knew (at least it's likely that Brandon knew, as it seems that Ned did) that Lyanna could kick some ass. So Brandon must have been really scared for her if he reacted as he did, not just angry b/c she defied their father. That's my take on it.

I think Brandon could have been angry because he figured his sister's honor would be besmirched, even if the relationship was consensual. It would still be a big mistake in his eyes, even if it was a mistake she willingly chose. I could imagine Brandon as an overprotective brother who thinks he knows what's best for his sister, and thinks it's his job to keep her from making her own mistakes.

No, because he was gone for what? A year with no contact? That's really not abandonment to you?

Rhaegar was gone for at most a few months. I believe I've made note of this in our previous discussions.

You pulled 90% out of the air. That's not what Jaime said at all. "A great jouster must be a great horseman first" in no way precludes "must practice for many hours with expert instruction in order to not get killed."

Just a quick note, it's Lord Bolton who says "a great jouster must be a great horseman first." I believe Jaime says that jousting is 3 quarters horsemanship.

[corbon]

:rolleyes:

Have a look. Actually read it. Stop and think about what it means. You might find you are embarrassing yourself here.

It's a totally reasonable statement. No one got any word from him that we know of, so it's reasonable to say that Elia didn't get word. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.

It is using absence of evidence as evidence of absence. 'Nuff said.

You are biased in favor of Rhaegar. I've debated this topic with you enough to realize this. You have fabricated this idea that Rhaegar MAY have made all these communications, ZERO of which are in evidence. Things would likely have gone very differently if Rhaegar had communicated with anyone.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We are guessing a lot from a tiny, tiny amount of data here, and not necessarily strictly accurate data either.

So we need to leave quite a bit of room available rather than make definitive statements.

Apparently leaving room for stuff we don't explicitly know about makes me biased, whereas using absence of evidence as evidence of absence makes you reasonable. I guess we just aren;t operating within the same parameters here, so there isn't much point.

I'd be wary about handwaving away things that are in the actual text.

I didn't handwave it away, I said (in effect) don't take it as necessarily entirely 100% accurate.

Wylla is Jon's mother? It's in the text.

Ashara is Jon's mother? It's in the text.

Bran and Rickon are dead? It's in the text.

Ashara definitely commited suicide? It's in the text.

Rhaegar raped Lyanna a thousand times? It's in the text.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. Some or all of these could even be right, but some are definitely wrong and some are mutually exclusive. Being in the text doesn't make something 100% reliable, nor 100% accurate. It still needs to be assessed according to it's provenance. This is one line in a short story and describes the reaction to a complex event in 4 words.

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

AFAIK the tKoLT (Lyanna we are assuming) defeated just those three knights, whose squires she fought off from Howland Reed the night before the tourney started...

Do you have anything that actually says those three were champions?

Page 282, ASoS hardcover:

"The daughter of the castle was the queen of love and beauty, with four brothers and an uncle to defend her, but all four sons of Harrenhal were defeated on the first day. Their conquerors reigned briefly as champions, until they were vanquished in turn. As it happened, the end of the first day saw the porcupine knight win a place among the champions, and on the morning of the second day the pitchfork knight and the knight of the two towers were victorious as well."

She defeated champions, who had previously defeated other champions. She must have been pretty fucking good.

Deposing Aerys is treasonously illegal and undermines his own authority.

I disagree with the second part. If Rhaegar was as loved and respected as his apologists claim, he would have had plenty of support in deposing Aerys. I don't see how gaining more authority ie. becoming king would undermine his authority.

We don't know that everything was kept a dead secret. The only actual secret was where they were located, and that is a secret to stop anybody doing anything about it. Brandon certainly found out somehow.

No, Brandon thought they were at KL. Ned found out somehow, over a year later. Yes, the location was kept secret, and that is understandable AT FIRST. Once they were married and she was pregnant, why keep anything a secret?

Robert is of little importance here. Only the Starks and Aerys really matter. Robert can be pissed off all he likes, and insulted all he likes, but he has no actual rights until he is married. Note how he was irrelevant in proceedings until Aerys demanded Jon Arryn send his head.

I think this is a ludicrous assertion. OF COURSE Robert matters. House Baratheon is a major, powerful house in Westeros, and Robert was pretty damn offended. He wasn't "irrelevant until Aerys called for his head." How much time did he have to do much of anything before Aerys called for his head? It is this very attitude on the part of the Targs that led to their extermination. Appeasement and mollification should have been deployed immediately to Stark and Baratheon, yet Rhaegar and Aerys offered neither. Totally disrespectful and inflammatory of them, and the reason why they were deposed.

Perhaps he/they feared the marriage could be 'set aside' or claimed illegal or whatever if things were done too fast. It's a fair bit harder to do afetr 6 months or so and a pregnant woman, and there is considerably less value for them in doing so as well. I don't know, but I'm not willing to claim some other action was definitely 'better' when I don't know all the parameters.

Set aside by whom? Aerys is the King. Rhaegar is the crown prince. Who was going to set it aside if they didn't want it to be? There is no need for secrecy once the marriage and bedding are done. I have yet to hear a credible justification.

Why not leave Elia in her home, with her children, under the protection of the King (who personally chose her as his son's bride). Who knew Aerys was mad enough to be a danger to her?

As it happens, he wasn't mad enough to be a danger to her. She seems to have been perfectly safe until the Lannisters started sacking KL.

Um, Rhaegar knew. Aerys refused to cut his hair or nails due to paranoia of blades, so he even looked crazy. His behavior was obviously erratic and abusive. It may not have been common knowledge, but his son definitely knew. And the sack of KL is a direct result of Aerys' madness (and if not for the sack, KL would have been burned to the ground with the royal family in it), so to say Elia was safe there is pretty absurd.

I think Brandon could have been angry because he figured his sister's honor would be besmirched, even if the relationship was consensual. It would still be a big mistake in his eyes, even if it was a mistake she willingly chose. I could imagine Brandon as an overprotective brother who thinks he knows what's best for his sister, and thinks it's his job to keep her from making her own mistakes.

Can you not see the difference between "being angry" and "being so angry that you commit treason and doom yourself"? The first is totally justified. The second would seem to be an extreme reaction, probably due to what we've been told was believed: that Lyanna was in danger.

Rhaegar was gone for at most a few months. I believe I've made note of this in our previous discussions.

Do we know this for sure? How do you know?

Have a look. Actually read it. Stop and think about what it means. You might find you are embarrassing yourself here.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Here is what you said: "Any Targaryen version that was based on actual knowledge of the events, as opposed to reinterpreting Robert's 'official' version, would have to come from those present. Which would be almost entirely people who were out of contact with the rest of the Targaryen faction until they died, except for Rhaegar himself,"

You are making the totally unsupported assertion that any of those who were present with Rhaegar were out of contact with the rest of the Targaryen faction until they died. How do you know this? Do you know who was with him, much less their fates?

It is using absence of evidence as evidence of absence. 'Nuff said.

You love this phrase to death. You use it in every thread as if it's a trump card. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? I like to use it in situations where we have only inference and a small amount of evidence. Conjecture is all we have, and sometimes, you can see effects wtihout seeing causes directly. That doesn't mean you can't make surmises about causes.

Apparently leaving room for stuff we don't explicitly know about makes me biased, whereas using absence of evidence as evidence of absence makes you reasonable. I guess we just aren;t operating within the same parameters here, so there isn't much point.

What makes you biased is that you do things like downplay how Elia might have been feeling, despite the fact that we know that "all smiles died," and that we have seen enough Martell women (and men) to infer a likely reaction. You are willing to try to bring in evidence from real world (with none from the ASoIAF world) that Elia should have been culturally conditioned to be OK with "being set aside," despite ample evidence that the Martells hold different values than you've described AND the Westerosi norm wrt women. Absense of evidence that Elia explicitly was truly upset about Rhaegar crowning Lyanna is not evidence of absence, esp. since we DO have some evidence.

I didn't handwave it away, I said (in effect) don't take it as necessarily entirely 100% accurate.

You seem to be ignoring both inference and evidence in favor of an interpretation that fits better with your conception of the events. That's bias.

Wylla is Jon's mother? It's in the text.

Ashara is Jon's mother? It's in the text.

Bran and Rickon are dead? It's in the text.

Ashara definitely commited suicide? It's in the text.

Rhaegar raped Lyanna a thousand times? It's in the text.

I could go on, but I think the point is made. Some or all of these could even be right, but some are definitely wrong and some are mutually exclusive. Being in the text doesn't make something 100% reliable, nor 100% accurate. It still needs to be assessed according to it's provenance. This is one line in a short story and describes the reaction to a complex event in 4 words.

Oh come on. This is a lot of contorting to deny Elia a reaction that was 1. totally normal, human, and credible, 2. has some evidence in the text, 3. supported by her background in a society that permits a lot of female agency and hot blooded tempers, 4. even if none of these are true, her reaction would at the very least be that her husband's behavior was politically scandalous and personally embarrassing.

[Nightstar]

I'm starting to question just how "fond" he was of Elia. I'm not saying he disliked her but he really embarrassed her.

I suspect fond of her merely meant he was polite to her and not physically abusive.

(In the sense that he was probably fond of his horse and his dog, as well).

[Dragonfish]

How about some from the world in which the story takes place?

Renly and Loras had planned to convince Robert to set Cersei aside and marry Margaery. So it seems this sort of thing is possible in Martin's world.

Page 282, ASoS hardcover:

"The daughter of the castle was the queen of love and beauty, with four brothers and an uncle to defend her, but all four sons of Harrenhal were defeated on the first day. Their conquerors reigned briefly as champions, until they were vanquished in turn. As it happened, the end of the first day saw the porcupine knight win a place among the champions, and on the morning of the second day the pitchfork knight and the knight of the two towers were victorious as well."

There are technically two definitions of champion that I think we're all getting confused here. One type of champion is a person who wins an entire competition, the other type is a person who defends another person or cause, or in the case of a jousting tournament, defends their place in the lists against challengers. I was under the impression that you were claiming Lyanna was the first kind of champion, which is why I offered my small correction. However, if your real meaning was to indicate that she was the second kind of champion, then you are indeed correct. Though I don't know how much we can infer about her jousting prowess from this, as it's not a simple matter of "A beat B who beat C, therefore A can beat C."

I disagree with the second part. If Rhaegar was as loved and respected as his apologists claim, he would have had plenty of support in deposing Aerys. I don't see how gaining more authority ie. becoming king would undermine his authority.

Well, you could say that it undermines his own authority in the long run, in that it sets the precedent for kings to be forcibly deposed by their sons.

Can you not see the difference between "being angry" and "being so angry that you commit treason and doom yourself"? The first is totally justified. The second would seem to be an extreme reaction, probably due to what we've been told was believed: that Lyanna was in danger.

Look, Brandon was a hothead. Hothead's need only flimsy justifications to go off the rails. That's part of what makes them hotheads. Catelyn called Brandon rash, and Hoster Tully called him a gallant fool, so clearly they both thought that his actions were ill-advised and, dare I say, stupid. That's true no matter what Brandon thought had happened to Lyanna.

Do we know this for sure? How do you know?

I believe I've explained this to you already. Rhaegar came back right after the Battle of the Bells, which took place before Ned's marriage to Catelyn, which took place a few months into the war. Therefore, Rhaegar came back a few months into the war. Simple inference.

[Geddus]

Catelyn called Brandon rash, and Hoster Tully called him a gallant fool, so clearly they both thought that his actions were ill-advised and, dare I say, stupid. That's true no matter what Brandon thought had happened to Lyanna.

That could also be simple hindsight, like Barristan thinking that the realm suffered for Rhaegar's actions. Probably, had Aerys been slightly less mad, he would have tried to appease the Starks and no one would have said those things about Brandon.

[Dragonfish]

That could also be simple hindsight, like Barristan thinking that the realm suffered for Rhaegar's actions. Probably, had Aerys been slightly less mad, he would have tried to appease the Starks and no one would have said those things about Brandon.

Here is the exact quote from ACoK:

"He was on his way to Riverrun when..." Strange, how telling it made her throat grow tight, after all these years. "...when he heard about Lyanna, and went to King's Landing instead. It was a rash thing to do." She remembered how her own father had raged when the news had been brought to Riverrun. The gallant fool, was what he called Brandon.

Catelyn is certainly calling him rash in hindsight, but Hoster isn't. He clearly called Brandon a "gallant fool" when he found out he was going to King's Landing.

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

Renly and Loras had planned to convince Robert to set Cersei aside and marry Margaery. So it seems this sort of thing is possible in Martin's world.

Stannis seems to think that was more "and Margaery" than "instead of Cersei" arrangement being proposed.

There are technically two definitions of champion that I think we're all getting confused here. One type of champion is a person who wins an entire competition, the other type is a person who defends another person or cause, or in the case of a jousting tournament, defends their place in the lists against challengers. I was under the impression that you were claiming Lyanna was the first kind of champion, which is why I offered my small correction. However, if your real meaning was to indicate that she was the second kind of champion, then you are indeed correct. Though I don't know how much we can infer about her jousting prowess from this, as it's not a simple matter of "A beat B who beat C, therefore A can beat C."

I'm using the same meaning that Martin is using in the passage I quoted. By that definition, the KotLT was a champion because s/he defeated champions.

Well, you could say that it undermines his own authority in the long run, in that it sets the precedent for kings to be forcibly deposed by their sons.

There is precedent for attempts to depose the king by various family members. Rhaegar would hardly be setting some new standard.

Look, Brandon was a hothead. Hothead's need only flimsy justifications to go off the rails. That's part of what makes them hotheads. Catelyn called Brandon rash, and Hoster Tully called him a gallant fool, so clearly they both thought that his actions were ill-advised and, dare I say, stupid. That's true no matter what Brandon thought had happened to Lyanna.

So maybe he was stupid. I never denied that was a possibility.

I believe I've explained this to you already. Rhaegar came back right after the Battle of the Bells, which took place before Ned's marriage to Catelyn, which took place a few months into the war. Therefore, Rhaegar came back a few months into the war. Simple inference.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'll run and get my notebook wherein I inscribe your every utterance so I don't forget a precious word. The wiki pages are wrong-- it says that Lyanna died in 284, which would mean that Rhaegar was gone for longer, if he abducted her in 282. There's a reason why I have the impression it was the better part of a year that Rhaegar was gone than a few months.

Look at this:

http://towerofthehan..._rebellion.html

This seems to indicate many months, not a few months, between the abduction of Lyanna and Rhaegar's return. If Lyanna dies in the 9th month of 283, then Rhaegar left ToJ at the very end of 282, or he's not the father of her child. A lot took place between the start of the war and when he left. So that's my evidence. Write it down in your little book! :cool4:

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

Double post.

[Dragonfish]

Stannis seems to think that was more "and Margaery" than "instead of Cersei" arrangement being proposed.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not entirely certain what you mean.

I'm using the same meaning that Martin is using in the passage I quoted. By that definition, the KotLT was a champion because s/he defeated champions.

Very well then, you are indeed correct.

There is precedent for attempts to depose the king by various family members. Rhaegar would hardly be setting some new standard.

The only previous civil wars between Targaryens were disputes involving inheritance. What Rhaegar was planning to do was not to dispute Aerys inheritance, but to depose him in a great council, presumably using the rationale that he was unfit to rule. There is quite simply no precedent for deposing in such a manner a sitting king, who everyone agrees has rightfully inherited his throne.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'll run and get my notebook wherein I inscribe your every utterance so I don't forget a precious word.

Apologies if I came across as snippy, I just get tired of having to explain these things over and over (not just to you, but to other posters as well).

Look at this:

http://towerofthehan..._rebellion.html

This seems to indicate many months, not a few months, between the abduction of Lyanna and Rhaegar's return. If Lyanna dies in the 9th month of 283, then Rhaegar left ToJ at the very end of 282, or he's not the father of her child. A lot took place between the start of the war and when he left. So that's my evidence. Write it down in your little book! :cool4:

I've seen that timeline before, and it is quite simply off. For one thing, it places the Battle of the Bells after Ned's marriage to Catelyn, when we know that it was the other way around. And it puts the Trident and the Sack of King's Landing a year after the raising of the Tully banners, when we know that the entirety of the war, from the raising of the Arryn banners to the Sack, lasted "close to" a year. So I'm afraid to say that I don't give that timeline much credence.

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not entirely certain what you mean.

Stannis says to Renly that a year before he was conspiring to make Margaery "one of Robert's whores." Renly then says no, I was planning to make her queen, but Stannis clearly doesn't think that's what Renly was trying to do.

The only previous civil wars between Targaryens were disputes involving inheritance. What Rhaegar was planning to do was not to dispute Aerys inheritance, but to depose him in a great council, presumably using the rationale that he was unfit to rule. There is quite simply no precedent for deposing in such a manner a sitting king, who everyone agrees has rightfully inherited his throne.

Hence his reluctance, but it clearly needed to be done, no?

I've seen that timeline before, and it is quite simply off. For one thing, it places the Battle of the Bells after Ned's marriage to Catelyn, when we know that it was the other way around. And it puts the Trident and the Sack of King's Landing a year after the raising of the Tully banners, when we know that the entirety of the war, from the raising of the Arryn banners to the Sack, lasted "close to" a year. So I'm afraid to say that I don't give that timeline much credence.

You can understand why people would then be under a different impression from you, then? Do you agree with the timeline for 283, putting Lyanna's death at the 9th month, and the Battle of the Bells in late 282?

[Dragonfish]

Stannis says to Renly that a year before he was conspiring to make Margaery "one of Robert's whores." Renly then says no, I was planning to make her queen, but Stannis clearly doesn't think that's what Renly was trying to do.

Sure, but I think that's because there was basically no chance in hell that Robert was going to set Cersei aside, given how powerful her family was (unless he found out about the incest, which Renly didn't know about). Renly's plan basically amounted to parading a young girl who kinda-sorta looked like Lyanna in front of Robert, and hoping that she entices him enough to actually set his current wife aside. It was a silly plan, and the most they could have hoped for was getting Robert to sleep with Margaery, which would have made her his "whore" in Stannis' eyes.

In any case, Renly clearly thinks that it's possible to set a marriage aside, which was the only thing I was getting at.

Hence his reluctance, but it clearly needed to be done, no?

Sure, but the point I'm making is that it would potentially set a bad precedent that could undermine Rhaegar's rule in the long run. I still think it would have been worth it, but I can understand why Rhaegar was reticent to take the plunge.

You can understand why people would then be under a different impression from you, then?

Sure.

Do you agree with the timeline for 283, putting Lyanna's death at the 9th month, and the Battle of the Bells in late 282?

No, because as I said, that timeline is off. I don't know what precise months or days these events occurred on, I only know their order and approximately how far apart they are (e.g. a few months). I don't think even George knows the precise dates of these events, so I think that entire timeline is an exercise in futility.

[Tyroshi Sellsword]

No, because as I said, that timeline is off. I don't know what precise months or days these events occurred on, I only know their order and approximately how far apart they are (e.g. a few months). I don't think even George knows the precise dates of these events, so I think that entire timeline is an exercise in futility.

Then how can you assert with any certainty that it was only a few months and not 9-10?

[Dragonfish]

Then how can you assert with any certainty that it was only a few months and not 9-10?

Because Rhaegar came back right after the Battle of the Bells, which happened before Ned married Catelyn, which happened a few months into the war, not 9-10 months.

[Geddus]

Catelyn is certainly calling him rash in hindsight, but Hoster isn't. He clearly called Brandon a "gallant fool" when he found out he was going to King's Landing.

Not necessarily, it's entirely possible that they received word that Brandon had gone to KL to confront Rhaegar and had been arrested. If that's the case, Hoster is talking in hindsight as well. I guess it depends on what "news" Catelyn is talking about.

[Dragonfish]

Not necessarily, it's entirely possible that they received word that Brandon had gone to KL to confront Rhaegar and had been arrested. If that's the case, Hoster is talking in hindsight as well. I guess it depends on what "news" Catelyn is talking about.

Based on the context, I think it's more likely she's talking about the news of Brandon's changing course for King's Landing. Especially since they would have been likely to hear about it before Brandon actually made it there.

[Winterfell is Burning]

Jesus, the rationalizations with no evidence that people make to defend Rhaegar are unbelievable. "Yes, of course his wife was perfectly fine with him running away with a younger, hotter, healthier woman and leaving her and her kids alone! How could she not to? :rolleyes: ".

This and the whole "Sandor and Sansa should be a couple forever and ever, a murderous man obsessed with killing his brother. twice her size, and thrice her age is exactly what a 12 year old girl needs" were the worst surprise things I've seen in ASOIAF boards, the only two that reading the books, never ocurred to me that anyone would think that those are good ideas.

Also, i thought it was pretty obvious that Renly and Loras didn't intended to "set Cersei aside" for Margaery. They planned to have her killed.