Elia & Rhaegar

[Ghost Rider]

I think Lady Dustin is a bitter, jilted lover who is either telling the truth that Brandon would have married her, had he not been promised to Catelyn, or that's what Brandon told her after he took her virginity... I can believe a man who liked to "bloody his sword" *ahem* with noble maidens, would also tell sweet lies in order to seduce them. It's possible that Lady Dustin's father had been trying to arrange the marriage before Rickard's Southron ambitions and then Rickard made the contract with Hoster Tully instead. Ned, a second son, might have been betrothed to Lady Dustin if Brandon hadn't been killed and so on. She wants to blame Rickard, the Maester, Catelyn and Ned for depriving her of the life she expected and really for everything that didn't go her way and Ned taking her husband off to war and not returning his bones was probably the event that pushed her resentment over the edge to hatred.

Why take Lady Dustin's words concerning her presumed Stark hatred at face value? She was talking to Theon and had absolutely no reason to trust him. She wouldn't tell him if she were a secret Stark Loyalist. She didn't even seem to hate Brandon that much, her words were more directed against Ned.

Now I'm going to assume for a moment that she is indeed a Stark loyalist. She wants to go see the crypts, what reason should she give Theon in case Ramsay asks him about it? We can agree that Theon wouldn't lie to Ramsay, so she has to lie to Theon. As an undercover agent you would give your lie an ounce of truth to make it easier to swallow. Compare Jon Snows lie to Mance Rayder about why he has turned. It must be something the other person would want to believe, something likely.

So, she's talking about Brandon and Rickards "southron ambition". Did it happen? I bet it did! It's surely true that she also wanted to get married to Brandon - he was after all the Stark heir, all houses would be after him. Compare what Alys Karstark says about being introduced to Robb. Now could she expect, something would come out of it? - She could only hope, she gambled and she lost.

Anyway, she got married after that, her chances at marriage don't seem to have been marred by her lost virginity - so, no reason to still hold a grudge. It seems her husband was one of the most trusted bannermen of Ned, a friend he says. He took him after all to the Tower of Joy, most secret place ever. :) He died there, like so many others died in the war, he was a soldier after all. His bones seemed to have stayed there. A good reason for Stark hatred - probably not, but a likely reason and that's all we need.

However, that doesn't mean she's wrong about the Maesters scheming for some purpose. We've seen that a lot of them that do scheme with the Lords and Ladies they serve. We know that they probably had a hand in destroying the dragons, and that they have discredited the Maesters who practice magic. I think there are probably numerous factions within the Citadel just as there are among Westerosi noble families. What they want is ultimately still unknown.

:agree:

[Geddus]

Your response, while much more reasonable and much more acceptable by modern standards, would likely have looked like a weakness to much of Westerosi nobility. Aerys's response is much more in keeping with real world medieval standards, and with his own world's contemporaries (i.e. Tywin's approach to his rebel vassals.)

I don't think the Tywin comparation stands, he reacted brutally after his vassals rose in rebellion while the Starks hadn't done absolutely anything.

As for a response to suspect "southron ambitions", I think asking for Ned to come at court in some form (i.e. taking him hostage) would have been effective, wouldn't have looked weak and would have stopped any purpose of rebellion Rickard may have had (which I really, really doubt, by the way). And Aerys' actions were clearly way off base even by Westerosi standars, they granted him the nickname "Mad King".

[Winterfelon]

quoted from this post

*snip for brevity*

I have a question for you as well. What makes you think the Starks are immune from the cultural attitude towards arranged marriages vs. marrying for love? What makes you think that if Rickard and Brandon, and possibly Ned as well, knew Lyanna loved Rhaegar and didn't want to marry Robert -both of which are supported by text-based references - would they then set aside their pledged word to Robert and tell Lyanna it was all ok? I don't see anything about Rickard and Brandon that points to them doing so. Is is just the attitude that the "good guys" would support Lyanna's wishes? I don't get the idea that they would put love over honor. That's not the Starks I've read about. Now, Ned is another case. I think he does do just that, but it is at his sister's deathbed and after a split with Robert over killing innocent children. Perhaps if Benjen ever shows up again we may learn the truth.

Great post.

Buuuut...Ned (I think) tells us of 'Family, Duty, Honour' - in that order. Now for sure Brandon is different from Ned, but I would say that he would be trying to get Lyanna back and give her a good talking to rather than not care about her safety. :)

[Dragonfish]

Great post.

Buuuut...Ned (I think) tells us of 'Family, Duty, Honour' - in that order. Now for sure Brandon is different from Ned, but I would say that he would be trying to get Lyanna back and give her a good talking to rather than not care about her safety. :)

"Family, Duty, Honor" are House Tully's words. I don't recall Ned ever using them.

[Marix]

Why take Lady Dustin's words concerning her presumed Stark hatred at face value? She was talking to Theon and had absolutely no reason to trust him. She wouldn't tell him if she were a secret Stark Loyalist. She didn't even seem to hate Brandon that much, her words were more directed against Ned.

Now I'm going to assume for a moment that she is indeed a Stark loyalist. She wants to go see the crypts, what reason should she give Theon in case Ramsay asks him about it? We can agree that Theon wouldn't lie to Ramsay, so she has to lie to Theon. As an undercover agent you would give your lie an ounce of truth to make it easier to swallow. Compare Jon Snows lie to Mance Rayder about why he has turned. It must be something the other person would want to believe, something likely.

So, she's talking about Brandon and Rickards "southron ambition". Did it happen? I bet it did! It's surely true that she also wanted to get married to Brandon - he was after all the Stark heir, all houses would be after him. Compare what Alys Karstark says about being introduced to Robb. Now could she expect, something would come out of it? - She could only hope, she gambled and she lost.

Anyway, she got married after that, her chances at marriage don't seem to have been marred by her lost virginity - so, no reason to still hold a grudge. It seems her husband was one of the most trusted bannermen of Ned, a friend he says. He took him after all to the Tower of Joy, most secret place ever. :) He died there, like so many others died in the war, he was a soldier after all. His bones seemed to have stayed there. A good reason for Stark hatred - probably not, but a likely reason and that's all we need.

Why should we doubt her words? After all, she was talking to Theon, and his opinion of her didn't matter at all. He was totally in Ramsay's pocket. Ramsay already trusts her, as much as he trust anyone, so she didn't stand to gain anything by feeding Theon false stories. Besides, there's really no reason to think that the Boltons would like someone with an irrational Stark hatred - remember, they went through the trouble of marrying Ramsay to fake Arya so that Stark loyalties would transfer to them. The idea being that someone who was loyal to Ned would support Arya and Ramsay's claim to Winterfell.

There are a million ways she could have gotten Theon to show her the crypts without making up a ridiculously detailed story about long-dead Starks. The most significant evidence against the Lady-Dustin-Is-Lying theory, from a narrative standpoint, is that nothing ever comes of it. Theon never tells Ramsay anything. Lady Dustin never does anything. No one cares that she went down there. If she had an ulterior motive, we would have seen something.

As for her not seeming to be mad at Brandon, well, of course not. She loved him. He told her he didn't want to marry Catelyn - that it was all his father's idea. She is angry at Rickon for keeping Brandon from her and at Ned for taking her husband. And as for the idea that because she eventually got married, there was no harm done? Not so much. She wanted to be Lady of Winterfell - instead she married some minor noble. More than that, she wanted to be one of the Starks. Just like Theon wanted to be one of the Starks.

The simplest explanation is that the whole visit to the crypts was just a way of Martin working in some exposition. He wanted us to watch Theon have that revelation - not important to the plot, but to his character development. He wanted to tell us more about Brandon's character. Maybe something about the Maesters.

[Winterfelon]

"Family, Duty, Honor" are House Tully's words. I don't recall Ned ever using them.

Isn;t there some internal monologue at the end of the first book that mentions it?

If not, I am, happy to stand corrected. ;)

[Blizzard]

There are some facts that we know of: Lyanna Stark was betrothed to Robert Baratheon. Rhaegar Targaryen was married to Elia Martell and had two children with her. Rhaegar won a tourney and presented the prize for the “queen of love and beauty” to Lyanna instead of his wife (ruh roh!) Shortly after that, Rhaegar “stole” Lyanna away, and Robert began a war to get her back. Robert killed Rhaegar, but Lyanna died as well.

[Laird of Boulton]

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.

Do you want Freys with that?

Aerys wants his head (or ashes) because he is irrelevant? Remember what led to Red Wedding.

[BrosBeforeSnows]

Wow. Not really. It is logical for a man whose sister has been kidnapped to be angry, sure. But no matter how angry he was, threatening the crown prince is treason. Aerys could have understood *why* Brandon was upset, but he didn't have to care.

Very true. It is hard to imagine absolute power, but under such a system, the king is at liberty to "kidnap" any woman he likes. Aerys did not rule as president over a democracy, or even as king over a constitutional monarchy. His was an absolute rule, and ALL men (& women) were his subjects, bound to obey him in all things. The Romans used to deify their emperors, to put it in perspective. Under such a system, Aerys would've felt completely within his rights to fry the Starks outright for treason and insolence.

[Tagganaro]

Very true. It is hard to imagine absolute power, but under such a system, the king is at liberty to "kidnap" any woman he likes. Aerys did not rule as president over a democracy, or even as king over a constitutional monarchy. His was an absolute rule, and ALL men (& women) were his subjects, bound to obey him in all things. The Romans used to deify their emperors, to put it in perspective. Under such a system, Aerys would've felt completely within his rights to fry the Starks outright for treason and insolence.

Yes. Of course, it's one thing to put Brandon in the dungeons and let him stew, or make him take the Black. It's entirely another to call his Lord Father in to King's Landing, and make Brandon watch (and kill himself) while burning Rickard alive, and then calling for the other Stark heads and Baratheon's head. That's Mad King Aerys for you though I guess.

I don't think anyone can deny a lot of awful mistakes were made leading to Robert's Rebellion. It's almost even impossible to just pick out one mistake. Although, again, as much as people in the books seem to be obsessed with Rhaegar and his honor or whatever, it's not entirely smart to run off and elope with a powerful Northern Lord's daughter who's betrothed to the Lord of Storm's End.

[Geddus]

Very true. It is hard to imagine absolute power, but under such a system, the king is at liberty to "kidnap" any woman he likes. Aerys did not rule as president over a democracy, or even as king over a constitutional monarchy. His was an absolute rule, and ALL men (& women) were his subjects, bound to obey him in all things.

Not really, in Westeros the king doesn't rule for divine right (he's not Louis XIV) and needs his Lords' support. Aerys didn't have the right to do what he did, that's why he's called the Mad King and that's why he was overthrown.

[Ghost Rider]

"Family, Duty, Honor" are House Tully's words. I don't recall Ned ever using them.

Yeah, and they're interesting too, because they serve to show that "family" first does not mean to condone love matches. Lysa Tully anyone?

Family first means to elevate the family in esteem and power. And even if they're not the Stark words, they could probably embrace them. Brandon Stark surely does because he tries to protect his family's honor when demanding to fight Rhaegar. He sees it as his "duty" to his family to protect their honour, that is including Lyanna's which was outrageously (as he would see it) injured when Rhaegar "stole" her.

It is completely irrelevant whether she loved him or not, even if there were Southron ambitions or not (I believe there were), Rhaegar had violated the honour of a great family. And no, it was not within his rights. This is a feudal society, where the king is dependent on his vasalls as has been noted upthread.

From their perspective the Starks had to act to recover honour to their family, even if it meant blood, whatever else they had planned before that game changing event.

[Nightstar]

Yeah, and they're interesting too, because they serve to show that "family" first does not mean to condone love matches. Lysa Tully anyone?

Family first means to elevate the family in esteem and power. And even if they're not the Stark words, they could probably embrace them.

True, there are very few love matches in Westeros. Cately is first promised to Brandon Stark (and she recalls how, when her father tells her of her betrothal while she is kneeling before him, she thanks him for making her such a splendid match.

When Brandon dies she is immediately married off to Ned; her feelings about him are irrelevant, although she does come to love him.

But it wouldn't matter if she didn't! Lysa never comes to love Jon Arryn, nor he her: he marries her because he needs Tully swords for the war, and is willing to accept a woman who's been dishonored. This elevates the Tully family, and saves them from a disgarce, Lysa is safely married off to another great lord. No one questions how she feels about it.

There are very few love matches in Westeros; I can only think of:

Tywin/Joanna

Tyrion/Tysha

Robb/Jeyne Westerling

(I'm not counting Jamie/Cersei, since that wasn't a marriage).

[Marix]

And no, it was not within his rights. This is a feudal society, where the king is dependent on his vasalls as has been noted upthread.

You've got your idea of feudalism backwards. A feudal ruler is not dependent on his vassals, they are dependent on him. All lands belong to the ruler. Vassals owe him loyalty and military service in exchange for the right to manage those lands. If the king wants to take lands and title from one family and give them to another, it is his right. Remember, the seven kingdoms were conquered. They did not band together and elect a king. They each surrendered to Aegon. Everything belonged to the Targaryens. Think pre-magna carta England. No one in Westeros has ever made a king concede rights to the lesser nobles.

[Winterfell is Burning]

But remember that the reason they bowed was dragons, and they are long gone. The reason the Targaryens stayed in power after that is because the Starks, Baratheons, Tullys, Lannisters, Tyrells and Arryns wanted them to stay. In pratice, they are dependent of their vassals.

[Sasha Steelsong]

Not really, in Westeros the king doesn't rule for divine right (he's not Louis XIV) and needs his Lords' support. Aerys didn't have the right to do what he did, that's why he's called the Mad King and that's why he was overthrown.

Agreed. At best he had the right to discipline Brandon though given who Brandon was even just killing him might have been a little much as they had the option of the black. It was basically ordering Lord Rickon AND THE FATHERS OF ALL BRANDON'S FRIENDS to KL just to kill them that went too far. I don't think there was any precident for holding a father accountable and passing senence on him for his son's sins. So six lords were killed for no reason and then the King went and asked for the head of two more lords who though connected by blood and a unfulfilled marriage pact were never even involved. Aerys put himself in a position where no lord had assurances he would be safe, rebellion really was the only course.

[LordBloodraven]

You've got your idea of feudalism backwards. A feudal ruler is not dependent on his vassals, they are dependent on him. All lands belong to the ruler. Vassals owe him loyalty and military service in exchange for the right to manage those lands. If the king wants to take lands and title from one family and give them to another, it is his right. Remember, the seven kingdoms were conquered. They did not band together and elect a king. They each surrendered to Aegon. Everything belonged to the Targaryens. Think pre-magna carta England. No one in Westeros has ever made a king concede rights to the lesser nobles.

Well, in a feudal society, vassals, and sovereigns owe obligations to each other. Vassals owed fidelity, homage to their sovereign while he, owed them protection, and the right to govern their own fiefs. The relation could be more favorable to the sovereign if he conferred the fiefs to one of his knights for example. The sovereign was the supreme judge in his realm, and so he could attaint lords who broke important laws. In this sense, he could take back lands that were ruled by his vassals. In feudalism, the king rule through his vassals who served as balances against potential tyranny from the king.

I don't think that everything belonged to the Targaryens, they were sovereigns of the 7 kingdoms, but they weren't the "owners" (couldn't find a better term to express my meaning) of Westeros. Kings couldn't just take out fiefs from the lords unless there was treason or some other important crimes. Targaryens had to compose with the Great Lords, not impose their will on them. People were first loyal to their lords, then to their kings. Moreover, in regions as the North or the Vale which were ruled by the same house for centuries and which were independent, Aerys couldn't just take the wardenship and give it to one of his clients because there would be rebellions, probably.

Concerning, the Targaryens conquest of Westeros, I'm more inclined to see it more as a recognition of their sovereignship over the 7 kingdoms. Torrhen Stark paid homage (willingly) when he saw that he couldn't win. Aegon the Conqueror didn't change fundamentally the structure of Westeros: he confirmed in their powers Lords who were willing to recognize him as their sovereign and killed those that didn't .

[kg1982]

You've got your idea of feudalism backwards. A feudal ruler is not dependent on his vassals, they are dependent on him. All lands belong to the ruler. Vassals owe him loyalty and military service in exchange for the right to manage those lands. If the king wants to take lands and title from one family and give them to another, it is his right. Remember, the seven kingdoms were conquered. They did not band together and elect a king. They each surrendered to Aegon. Everything belonged to the Targaryens. Think pre-magna carta England. No one in Westeros has ever made a king concede rights to the lesser nobles.

Theoretically yes, but in reality that is not the way that it worked in a feudal society. The king was only powerful if the lords were willing to provide him with armies to lead. There are quite a few examples in medieval Europe where the vassals were much stronger than the kings. Even with the Magna Carta, King John was forced to sign because his lords rebelled against him.

In Westros, it is even more extreme. There is nothing to suggest that the king has his own dedicated army. The armies are loyal to their local lords and the local lords are loyal to the king when it suits their interests. In the feudal power arrangement, the great lords, like the Starks and Lannisters, are the ones with the most power. They can basically depose the king whenever they feel slighted. Generally they won't because the stability works well for everyone, but there is still that threat in place to make sure the king behaves.

This is different than the 16th/17th century concept of divine right. The king holds both the theoretical and practical power.

[Ghost Rider]

Well, in a feudal society, vassals, and sovereigns owe obligations to each other. Vassals owed fidelity, homage to their sovereign while he, owed them protection, and the right to govern their own fiefs. The relation could be more favorable to the sovereign if he conferred the fiefs to one of his knights for example. The sovereign was the supreme judge in his realm, and so he could attaint lords who broke important laws. In this sense, he could take back lands that were ruled by his vassals.

Very true about the mutual obligations, I didn't mention that in my above post. Just one short annotation: you seem to use the term "sovereign" very close to a relatively modern concept of supreme independent authority which would be conditional for having "imperial laws". If there aren't imperial laws he can still take back lands from his vassals, but only if and as far as his other vassals support him.

In Westeros it seems besides that the land doesn't even really belong to the king. It's just that the lords swear their fealty. A development you could also observe during the "middle ages". When in the beginning lands often weren't heritable and were given to the strongest supporters of the seigneur/lord to reward them for their loyalty, after some time the lands became hereditary.

The fighting men of these lands would support their lord anyway, since what is the king to them anyway? We see very strong resonances of this theme with the "king in the North" story.

Theoretically yes, but in reality that is not the way that it worked in a feudal society. The king was only powerful if the lords were willing to provide him with armies to lead. There are quite a few examples in medieval Europe where the vassals were much stronger than the kings. Even with the Magna Carta, King John was forced to sign because his lords rebelled against him.

In Westros, it is even more extreme. There is nothing to suggest that the king has his own dedicated army. The armies are loyal to their local lords and the local lords are loyal to the king when it suits their interests. In the feudal power arrangement, the great lords, like the Starks and Lannisters, are the ones with the most power. They can basically depose the king whenever they feel slighted. Generally they won't because the stability works well for everyone, but there is still that threat in place to make sure the king behaves.

This is different than the 16th/17th century concept of divine right. The king holds both the theoretical and practical power.

I agree! It changed when standing armies were supported by the king and he was enabled to enforce his rule. Still there were examples in Europe where they didn't manage to centralize power like in the Holy Roman Empire. The local princes there had gained too much power.

[Kuther2000]

I don't understand how people can equate sexual licentious and marriage when it comes to Dorne. Yes, I believe that Dorne may not be as prudish about sex as the other Seven Kingdoms, but to say that Elia Martell was probably okay with Rhaegar taking a sex wife and lover is ridiculous. Alot of people keep saying well she is Oberyn sister. Yall seem to be forgetting that Oberyn is a male and not married, and his lover is a bastard. It would be much different if she was a legitimate member of a noble house. Elia is basically being pushed aside for a younger, healthier, newer and most people have said more beautiful woman. Even if she told Rhaegar that she was okay with it, inside she was probably seething. He was basically humiliating her in full view of the public. They consider her marriage a sham. She probably had to deal with a load of whispers after the Tourney at which Rhaegar crowned Lyanna, Queen of Love and Beauty. How would you feel about that even if your marriage was arranged and you didn't love your husband. Obviously before Rhaegar met Lyanna, he probably wasn't the type to cheat on his sickly wife. As much as everyone wants to say that Rhaegar and Lyanna were in love. CHEATING is exactly what they were doing. Just like everyone assumes that Ned cheated on Catelyn with Jon's mother. Rhaegar cheated on Elia with Lyanna even if he did love her. Rhaegar is an adulterer plain and simple. People can also say that it must not have been too bad if Elia had a child with Rhaegar after the Tourney. Well maybe she wanted to keep her husband to her so he would have to follow his INSANE prophecy. I also think that everyone gives to much credit to Lyanna and Rhaegar. "Oh, they were star-crossed lovers, and everything just got out of hand." Lyanna is the OTHER woman and a hypocrite if she went willingly. She disses Robert because she believes that he won't stick to her bed, but at the time that she is saying this. Robert is a single man. Rhaegar didn't stay to Elia's bed either. Robert was a great man, but terribly flawed. Who knows maybe Lyanna would have been there to keep Robert in check if he ever tried to step out of line. I seriously doubt from the personality of Lyanna that she would have set idly by while Robert got his jollies off somewhere. He also would not have had the power of a Kind to do whatever he wanted. I personally think that people have to wrong idea about how submissive Elia was. Obviously, she was probably willing to fight for her children and risk death for them and Rhaegar. She gets alot of smacked talked about her. I kind of hope a little that her and Oberyn were getting it on a little because he probably would have been the closest thing she got to real love in that world.