#rhaegar's characterization

*Will be updated probably many times*

Yes, this is narratively/IN-WORLD a love story and a love pairing. This post gives the reasons why it is meant to be so, and does so from a Watsonian vs a Doylist approach.

A List of Different Posts to Consider

hamliet's Rhaegar as Hubristically Idealistic & Relyin on Prophecy to Carry the Day [reblog]

ozymalek/Phoenix Ashes's Breakdown of How the story of Rhaegar and Lyanna is MEANT to be a Love Story, with Evidence from Text

A Claim that they were similar to Aemond and Alys under the War Prize = R*pe Context

My Reblog of a Thread: The Actual Timeline of Rhaegar, Lyanna, Aerys, etc to show how Aerys and not Rhaegar is Responsible for Elia's being in KL; Elia's Possible Reactions to Lyanna and Rhaegar; Political Marriage; The Dornish's Relationship w/the rest of Westeros

la-pheacienne's Words abt how fallacious it is to expect war from Rhaegar's actions alone....Aerys caused the war, not Rhaegar; The Queen of Love and Beuaty; "Ethical Authenticity" when Rhaegar Ran Off w/Lyanna // MY REBLOG OF IT -- this post

la-pheacienne's Response to my question: "What do you think about Rhaegar and Lyanna?"

Duty vs Love in ASoIaF

Consummation & Age of Majority in Westeros

An ask to ladymorgana91: "Do you think that Lyanna and Rhaegar were seriously in love?" -> ORIG // MY REBLOG

Cersei vs Elia & Fandom's Love for the Dead Ladies

More Reiterations of Certain Textual and Contextual Evidence for it Being a Romance Pair

An ask about how Game of Thrones Muddled People's View of Legitimization vs Acknowledgement, Polygamy, and Jon Snow being Rhaegar's Heir or Named "Aegon"

Elia is not PoC, bc the Dornish are not "PoC" but "spicy whites" even with there being discrimination against Dornish people..."white" people can be racist/ethnically dehumanizing against certain other "white" people; but even with all that, Rhaegar the man himself has never displayed any disfavor towards Elia purely or partly from her being Dornish just because Aerys did...we must remember that these two (Aerys and Rhaegar) had a very strained relationship, possibly and likely abusive, so it's very unlikely that Rhaegar shared his father's complete disregard for others in this way, esp when all his description form both not-so-great to pretty moral characters have thus far described Rhaegar as melancholy do-gooder

an ask to dragonsfromthemoon: "It says a lot about the hypocrisy of fandom when they hate Rhaegar for "abandoning" his wife and kids to fight in war but don't hate Ned for doing the same to his pregnant bride Catelyn. Rhaegar was an able-bodied prince who knew how to fight and ride a horse; to not fight would have branded him a coward. The reason Jaime and the other Kingsguard stayed behind is because they are sworn to protect the royal family which is why Rhaegar tasked them to protect Lyanna and Elia." // MY REBLOG

a reblog about Wuthering Heights and how people tend to approach Love in fiction, by la-pheacienne // MY REBLOG of it

Further Notes

One can argue that there is a power imbalance for every single relationship or relationship-to-be in this world, because women almost never have the same authorities or access to resources that a man automatically can inherit and use to exert authority over women...that's how feudal-monarchial hierarchies work. Rhaegar and Lyanna's age difference reflects a common Westerosi phenomenon that comes form this particular real-world and Westerosi phenomenon. Dany's relationship to Irri doesn't have an age difference nor a gender inequality factor, but many have also cited how Dany's position over Irri (both are former sex slaves but Dany is Irri's queen and Irri is Dany's handmaid) has troubling possible issues for Irri anyway....but this relationship is very clearly written to be 100% consensual, and just bc Irri/people might not be exactly in love or attracted to Dany or other people, doesn't mean she can't consent to sex (as many asexuals are not attracted to their partners but they can def consent).

Obviously, when we are trying to say what actually happens in the story (not from a writer's perspective, but literally what are the characters-as-if-Westeros-were-real), we need to look at the books/the "text" with some degree of remove from out own world to understand what the characters are doing and why they do it. Our own expectations of social context is not going to inform the entire text...bc this is not a text/work/series set in the modern era, thus that characters are not going to have lived under your modern context for them to really think X is this and that. That's not to say predators don't exist in Westeros & Planetos; GRRM gives very clear examples (Robert, Craster, Roose Bolton, Walder Frey, those slave masters who have child slaves, etc.). It's to say do not rush to label some characters as a very specific sort of predator when some textual details tell us both directly and indirectly that some situations show they functionally cannot.

All in all, yes GRRM frequently includes large age differences in romantic relationships as he wrote during a time where he and many others weren't really thinking about how such a power imbalance often spells trouble for the much younger (esp teenaged) partner, esp when its older boy/man and younger woman/girl...

BUT

"I don't think GRRM should have presented a 16 yr old and 22-24 year old as a tragic love story, esp when it resulted in her being physically separated from her family & dying from childbirth at such a young age."

DOES NOT EQUAL

"Rhaegar groomed, raped, & imprisoned her in a tower to force her to have his child or just because he's a pedophile and left her to die. He didn't understand true responsibility and duty. And he hated his wife and kids.

because the latter says that this actually happens in the actual narrative. The first one says GRRM PRESENTS a story that:

they think could have detrimental effects on some readers' perception of real-life relationships

or/and it makes them too uncomfortable with the very notion of such a age difference for what they know would be a power imbalance out of context/the story (esp when people frequently ignore context, which leads to misunderstandings to misunderstand)

Both readings still don't really absorb or consider the textual and ASoIaF/Westerosi social contexts both out and in the specific events before Robert's Rebellion, but they still aren't the same bc the second one is claiming that it is what is actually happening in-world.

What specific details prevent LyannaxRhaegar from being straight up grooming/rape? Because:

Lyanna clearly did not want to marry Robert; she was very likely the Knight of the Laughing Tree, who Aerys was looking for to likely kill; Rhaegar is very much her type, considering how she had a specific outlook on justice compatible with Rhaegar's goal towards refashioning Westeros from its destructive historical actions, including in the hands of his own family -- she more than likely (read "definitely") ran away with Rhaegar

we know intimately abt how power imbalances where there's a teen involved has disastrous effects we take measures against it with laws preventing what we've constructed are "teens" marrying non-teen adults (bc the concept of "teen" didn't exist until very recently in human history) and these people do not have such a concept to even be held accountable for staying away from 16 year olds, who were considered adults [however, even for them and I mean Westeros not real history, certain age differences are not favorable or good]; this is a fantasy series set in a pseudo-medieval feudalistic society whose characters cannot exist in their own world without the author's intent...they literally do not exist in our world]

You can dislike some of the characters & GRRM, but to misinterpret them as searching for teens for the mere sake of searching for teens in the way real pedos and groomers do and thus make Rhaegar the same as someone like Craster is ridiculous. The story is about particular nuances of feudalistic duty vs romantic/platonic/altruistic/self love versus how one approaches "fixing" the world/people but bungling it up bc you left too much up to a grand sense of "purpose".

DISCLAIMER: I could have been concise, but as I was writing all this, I came to a lot of realizations, so apologies in advance.

It's a very passive hatred and I think it's because he's uber-closeted at a level that's breathtaking. Wholly, it's a coping mechanism of and against queerness and misogyny the way with him for that. He's a bag of self contradictories and doesn't have much regard for his own life out of a deep sense of failure to perform an ideal he layers on top of his extant political function as one of the Targs' protectors. I often think about that one poem where the speaker's like "I am not in love with you, I am in love with being in love" when I try to think about Jon Con.

Like Cersei, he eventually pedestalizes Rhaegar and even more so after his death. He's made him into a paragon of male virtue and human appeal so he could continue to feel his desires are not abnormal. While Cersei does it because it was like she was as close to the sort of power masculinized in that world and denied to woman (which is just as a "visceral" thing, to have agency), Jon Con does it to affirm his own "lacking" masculinity. He is not totally comfortable with his own sexuality nor the yearning since he still has to go out into the world and "be a man". Through Rhaegar he definitely can at least privately express/validate that yearning and feel like a man but also close to "men" without having to really address it consciously or exposing it. By not really confronting the layers of himself "all the way" or as much as he could, he re-relies on that patriarchal definition and field of "manliness". It's close to having one's cake and eating it, too. A compulsion that replaces real connection; but it he kinda transformed himself into an all feeling automaton in the process in order to fulfill the compulsion to "sacrifice" his life to something like a higher purpose. And Elia was not a person-person but a means to further Rhaegar.

A)

This is a society where:

there is an emphasis on obedience, maintaining the social hierarchy, and obligation to one's "lord" or the gods, and yes the Faith of the Seven (the fictional Catholicism) informs the model of masculinity in Westeros, esp through the Andal chivalry and courtliness; the express/prove/practice the "greatest" form of love to either a lover or the gods or one's lord is to completely sublimate oneself to the gods'/lord's rule and wellbeing...which kinda came on conflict with the whole warrior-takes-all thing until the emphasis on fighting for a specific lord but it's self contradictory in its rigidity

men who may love to read without also swinging swords/being good at that and aren't maesters/are not studying to be one are close to "unmanning" themselves. Let's sit with that. Maleness is proving to other men you have "strength" and having control over as many bodies as one can...doesn't really lend into exploring oneself or seeing things to appreciate in others or nature, and aristocratic maleness (the primary-only ones allowed to use warfare to acquire resources) is the ideal/only "human" that exists or matters. A man's very health is treated one and the same as his "manliness", sometimes literally (some research reveals that having a mistress showed a ruler's very virality and prostitutes were "necessary" for men to relieve their pressing "urges" without becoming violent and disrupting the "order"--[at least]15th to 19th centuries). This sort of context breeds very emotionally stunted men who can really/mostly only objectify people and compartmentalize others and their own emotions. It breeds a certain inflexibility in men that close down their means of really being aware of their own actions' consequences or caring beyond THE GOAL. You also must dehumanize women.

Every person in this society who does not or can't conform to the conscripts placed on them according has had to develop ways to both perform their social "duties" while coming to terms with the limits of said duties on how they can express themselves, find intimacy, access resources or amenities, accrue social respect, etc. For men, that is military achievements and violence to show you can get material objects and/or protect your lord's best interests. One thing about Jon is that he's always been hungry for "glory" like many other men and boys, to make his "name" mean something and gain that sort of "love". Problem with this sort of masculinity is that it cyclically generates an insecurity in men & boys and compels them to disregard most other types of male affection other than those which "coincidentally" serve the higher lord.

GRRM informed us that Jon was gay not-so subtly. Unlike Laenor or Renly or Loras or the Daeron prince Olenna avoided marrying, Jon hasn't had a real lover (someone he shared a life with) to even help to alleviate this compelled loneliness that goes beyond having a lover. And I don't mean people he's slept with, I mean a man invested in his well being, always having his back and prioritizing him the way very close companions or partners do. This maybe Jon's most safe way of experiencing lover's love and "love" himself.

B)

So another thing about him coming from this phenomenon is he seems to want to have real male companions & "love" them in other ways than just romantically. But even male platonic affection is pretty restrictive as much as we have Ned and Robert's friendship...which we see in the first book is unsteady and false with every realization that Ned has about Robert.

Making up for that kind of stunted platonic love, the sensual (diff from sexual) affection he has for men & Rhaegar works to maintain that sense of intimacy he craves. Once when Rhaegar visited his family's lands, Jon says Rhaegar's music/voice moved women to cry, and they seemed to connect to something he is aware of in himself (again, other than his sexual attraction to men), but the men around Rhaegar do not or won't and thus cannot even fathom or detect. A certain "appreciation" for beauty in life or the capacity to observe such, which is a sensual experience in of itself. That would be a wonder to see in a man; the beauty is and has to be under a guise of male domination. Loras and Renly, that Daeron prince and his lover, and Laenor x Joffrely/Qarl still must live in secret, as open as it was, but theirs was a different sort of "hiding" bc they don't hide themselves from themselves to the extent that Jon does. I think that it is very likely that present-day! nor past!Jon may not grab that chance of love and companionship because the covertness of the love like Renly/Laenor/Daeron can no longer compare to the imagined satisfaction or fulfillment of his obligation to Rhaegar OR/AND it would mean he'd have to re-adjust some ideas of masculinity he doesn't want to re-adjust, and like I mentioned I think this guy feels the need to just hold on to every scrap of conventional masculinity to feel normal.

The men like his father certainly cannot care about such a visceral thing that exists in these people that makes them feel connected to something more then themselves but also exactly like themselves; his dad was way more eager to talk about lands with Rhaegar and acquiring them to care. So perhaps Jon also saw in Rhaegar's known melancholy disposition who didn't quite fit Andal-Faith patriarchal conventions a fellow outsider. The single-mindedness I mentioned could come from his own unwillingness to really let Rhaegar be a normal guy.

He def always tried to put his yearning to use into a source of the single-minded devotion to his political function to Rhaegar and his family as a protector. Rhaegar was good with the sword, but the symbol we readers and the world then see him through his songs and his harp; Rhaegar is a figure of poetry and emotion that is socially divorced or posed counter to warfare, and he like Dany or Lyanna moves between the gender binaries of this world. Rhaegar became the lynchpin to Jon's own understanding of what a "man" is through Rhaegar being a sort of portal to this "thing" that really many humans across identities feel, this sensual love for life and anything that could psychologically move you (you can't really "escape" music and thus music has always been a very "easy" spiritual device to transmit emotion).

Even before Rhaegar's death, I think he felt very indebted to and psychologically dependent on Rhaegar's wellbeing, which he conflated with political "success" through a legacy now that the actual man is dead. Rhaegar has to mean something so his own dedication might be "real". Rhaegar's death and then his failure to even perform this "simple" duty towards Rhaegar only inflated this devotion to this sort of devotion.

Rhaegar's family (Elia and the kids) is only as valuable as what they do for Rhaegar-the-heir, Rhaegar-the-man.

C)

Jon does express that Elia's death was horrible (A Dance with Dragons - "The Lost Lord"):

but it's less about Elia's suffering and how her suffering is part of the larger loss he and many people saw that the Targs and esp Rhaegar had. Elia is not really much of a person so much as a vessel or device AND a part of a whole.

She also got to be with Rhaegar and experience many more aspects of inaccessible intimacy he feels he can never have. Be sexually and emotionally (even if not exactly romantic) intimate with him in all the ways Jon Con never could. AND IN "PUBLIC" in ways he could never even if Rhaegar ever returned his feelings.

And after all that, she can't do the one thing that she/women in general in this society are socially "obligated" to do (A Dance with Dragons - "Griffin Reborn"):

I think that part of how he dealt/deals with his unrequited AND unfulfilled (read: "impossible") affections for Rhaegar--AND/OR men/human love in general--is that this and most marriages have the function that would benefit Rhaegar in getting him heirs, and Jon himself can "benefit" or be useful to Rhaegar as his and his father's Hand or protector. An expression of that affection-devotion, a tweaking of the lady and her courtly knight/lover from courtly and chivalric romance, but gay, or really queer. Because his secret yearning runs parallel to his sexuality and his sexuality fuels that sensual. yearning, it's queer as all hell. But he's so baked into the masculinity train, he also still carries the sexism.

If Elia, who's allowed to receive Rhaegar in those desired forms, can't even do "this one thing right", it's like a slap in Jon's face at times because that small nest, this group of people bounded by "duty" and practicing affections (Elia, Rhaegar, all of Rhaegar's closest friends, himself, Rhaegar's children) that he convinced himself to adopt as his existential purpose, is created for the man he idolized, or centered around him. As what this system designs that to be, as when if you need anything done you need heirs, connections, etc.

I like Rhaegar from the books quite a bit, but among the mountain of horrible things S8 did was make me really dislike the character and fans of Rhaegar and Jon. And I can't blame Elia or Anti Rhaegar fans when they use the show's canon (but I do wish they would acknowledge that that's unlikely what happened in the books).

Every time I remember that show!Rhaegar unilaterally and without notifying anyone ANNULLED the marriage with Elia, transformed his children into bastards and named his new son AEGON I want to strangle him and kill him. According to the show's backstory, Elia died and was held hostage for an engagement that was already void. Rhaenys and Aegon lost their rights, were abandoned and died because of a shitty father (When I have to assume it was relatively good in the books because Rhaenys goes to hide in his room, his daughter associates him with safety). I have no words for how absolutely disgusting it is to throw away a child and give that same name to the 2.0 model.

And all of this was done with the intention of legitimizing poor, innocent Jon Snow and giving him a "stronger"* claim to the throne over his aunt who was going "mad" and "power-hungry when the throne "always" was Jon's "rightful" birthright.

I pray that neither of the two things (Rhaegar annulled his marriage and and Jon's Targ name is Aegon) whatever it ends up on paper because literally any fan theory over the years has been better and it wouldn't feel like the character assassination that I felt that creative decision was.

I have a post explaining why I do not think Rhaegar was THE devil with how he handled stuff w/Lyanna and Elia HERE AND why Lyanna is and never was his "war prize" HERE. And in it, I also make it clear how/why Rhaegar actually did not canonically (bk) abandon his kids...but it was more that he couldn't be at 3 places at once.

*EDIT 1/12/2025* Overall, Rhaegar failed bc he was way too idealistic that he let ideas of heroism carry him away from observing issues with is own acrions or how e implemented a lot of them. So he was both irresponsible in one sense and was obsessed w/fufilling an ultimate level of "responsibility" through a prophecy I think he took as way to justify/redeem te corruption around him. Yes, he wanted to be "authentic", but went about it unfairly & disastrously under that inevitable weight. *END OF EDIT*

🤗. Thank you, anon, another take I agree with! I can't totally blame those Elia stans either for how they feel abt Rhaegar of either book or show when yes his affair with Lyanna--even if he had never loved Elia that way--is an social affront to Elia, and the show made it worse with Rhaegar somehow deciding to fuck over his own kids Henry VIII style in the way you describe (idw to repeat myself or you). And for some reason, I haven't really ever come to the realization that he'd be "giving" his leg son's name to his ileg son in the context of his having emotionally/politically affronted Elia. If it is just about the "sanctity" of marriage and a misunderstanding of what marriage is, I lean towards @faintingheroine's (deactivated) reblog:

I think people also simply emotionally understand cheating more than they understand actual physical violence. Cheating is something people can relate to their own lives. Whereas violence of this kind is something that most of us will hopefully never have to deal with. But it is a very flawed and myopic way to look at high-stake stories like this one of course.

I def understand some's arguments for why Elia WAS totally against Rhaegar for his liasion w/Lyanna both for her own sake and their kids. Aside from just not wantin that shame or to share a spouse. But the show's explanation for Rhaegar and Lyanna being for Jon having legitimacy is not for Elia but for Daenerys and the show's attempt to mitigate her role for said Jon Snow. Because the narrative is about the misinterpretations of the kind of heroism as in who we should love but who is using their power for a "greater good". Rhaegar was trying to balance the immediate political landscapes with future possible events that he likely thought had to be addressed as soon as possible, but it also didn't mean he didn't also make more personal self concerned choices but even this doesn't mean that he was always selfish when we see clearly canon evidence of the reverse.

I do "blame" those who think Rhaegar abandoned Elia and his kids to his abusive father for Lyanna or that he legitimized/tried to legitimize his child by Lyanna BY CANON. That shit's annoying. Neglect for te sake of te prophecy, yeah sure but leave beind to Aerys, no.

I suppose the reason why people like you and I have been "indifferent" to whether Elia knew abt the affair and how she'd take it and whether or not she "agreed" is that:

a) we simply don't know yet/GRRM has only ever said it was a "complex" relationship b/t her and Rhaegar...whatever that means

b) GRRM's handling of age gap relationships IN WORLD reflects both strange medieval-ish ideas of youth and sexuality AND how he's not really "in the know of" how such relationships work, thus they don't really materialize "realistically" in the book as they would other than with Dany and Drogo (Dany and Drogo is a slave-master situation...Lyanna chose Rhaegar under no compulsion from him)...so IN WORLD, it's far more likely that Rhaegar didn't actually seek prey in Lyanna for her youth/vulnerability (as Robert, Craster, some slave masters, Walder Frey, etc. do) nor "hated" Elia. But that he just really fell for Lyanna AND wanted to make sure the prince that was promised prophecy come to fruition at the same time. That he felt torn between these two--

(not that he used Lyanna for the prophecy, but that these two things AS WELL AS HIS KIDS, likely came at odds in terms of "what can I do to make these two things happen without compromising the other"...perhaps, after a life of performing "duty" towards his family, dynasty, the "world", Lyanna is the "love" that NARRATIVELY becomes his "weakness" in a long career of putting "duty" first [when he also has been emotionally distant and set against by his own father's paranoia and abuse for years by this point] bc he finally gets to perform something not intertwined with a sense of this great pressure of "duty". Even though I def headcanon he was attracted to Lyanna for how she views/acts out justice and all that --THIS DOESN'T MAKE HIS ACTIONS NOT "STUPID" OR HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH LYANNA ANY LESS EXRAMARITAL. I'M PROVIDING CONTEXT PEOPLE MAY NOT BE INVESTIGATING IN THEIR ASSESSMENTS AND ANSWERING THE QUESTION THEY MAY HAVE FOR WHY HE WOULD SUCH A THING, FILLING IN BLANKS HERE, PEOPLE AND SAYING THAT THE TRAGEDY HERE IS THAT THE LOVE COULDN'T BE BECASUE OF POLITICAL ARRANGEMENTS)--

bc I think he left Dragonstone with some of his crew to explore some secrets for said prophecy AND to possibly meet up with Lyanna, maybe partly to keep her safe from his own father and/or Robert, and while there are many fans who have cited he was "obsessed" with prophecies and not enough on his own family, I think they forget that the entire series is devoted to what and how one transforms their own privilege or suffering into "duty" towards those needing protection on a wider scale, and the prophecy is critical towards that--to "save the world" has been Rhaegar's most enduring goal. Perhaps there are those affronted by the idea that he was more "torn" abt the prophecy vs Lyanna versus the prophecy/world-saving versus Elia, or as they interpreted was happening

c) even if Rhaegar had stayed with his part of the family, he'd been called to arms for his father and if he didn't that's treason/endangers his part of the family...this is in answer to those arguing how Rhaegar's infidelity puts Elia's and their kids' lives in danger

The prophecy is about saving the world, yes? It's also very possible Rhaegar was "melancholy" all his life bc:

from his birth--connected to Summerhall & the continued Targ search to reconnect with their dragonflame origins and possibly use it to bring about some changes (necessary or not) in the world where they straddle the line between Other and exceptional--he's lived with a continued sense of isolation

You're welcome to this opinion, esp since

we don't have the FULL story laid out for us yet, and te author has siad we will in t e next books (I thought it had always been obvious from reading, but whatever)

people tend to define so-called "real" love as "healthy" or try to redefine the romance genre as happily ever and overcoming blocks to being together

But nothing will or could negate that in-universe, yes, Rhaegar-the-character-conceieved-by-GRRM (not the guy taken out of context) loved Lyanna and was written to be so bc this story is hinged on the exploration of "love vs duty" and Rhaear-Lyanna were always meant to illustrate that conflict, so it doesn't make storytelling sense for them to NOT be in love.

What you are speaking to is whether his or her feelings could "properly" translate as the "right" or ideal sort of "love" if they weren't fictional, which I don't personally see the point of. What you are speaking to is an out-of-universe assessment of what "love" should be, and honestly I have never seen how this made people UNDERSTAND what is happening in the TEXT//translate as the "right" or ideal sort of "love" if they weren't fictional, which I don't personally see the point of.

Take a look at these particular posts:

Rhaegar's Hubris & Over-Reliance on "Theory", or Idealism [hamliet] -> my reblog

"On Rhaegar", with notes from GRRM [ozymalek/iwouldservehim] THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE!

Winter Rose and Symbolism [hamliet], this one is more about Jon Snow

More Textual Evidence of Love Story [queen-morgana91] SECOND MOST IMPORTANT

arturian legends and subversiveness [la-pheacienne] -> my reblog of it

Quote of what hamliet says in the 1st post:

He loved Lyanna but yes, he also saw opportunity and assumed destiny would guide him. And that hubris ensured that both Lyanna and Rhaegar died. Rhaegar is an idealistic man who believes so strongly in his sense of purpose--a purpose greater than himself that genuinely will save people--that he forgets to look down and look around him at the life he's actually living and the lives around him in favor of the potential lives he could save. His hyper-focus on prophecy is his tragic flaw that brings about his downfall and death of so many people, and it didn't need to happen this way.

So think on how GRRM writes about love vs duty, and we'll circle back to that. Two things can be true at once. And I think you're leaving out the Knight of the Laughing Tree as well as their personalities in this opinion.

I don't think Aerys knew, as we don't really see a change in his behavior or priorities from young childhood to adulthood even pre-kidnapping. I think he merely used the fires bc, like Aerion, he sawthem as ways to realize/self-actualize dragon power in lack of actual dragons. Aegon V was always about using dragons to enforce his own plans for the smallfolk and we see him move towards that goal just as we see Aegon III/viserys team up once and divert from Aegon's "normal" or rotuine ruling to address this. Similarly, rhaegar had for a time focused much more on the prophecy through books until he pivoted to swordwork, and even still he seemed the Targ most preoccupied with the prophecy. Aerys by contrast (and we are meant, I think, to witness their rivlary as extending to the question at hand about the prophecy) sent his best friend and his wofe out to find a bride for his son in Essos to lower his access to allies in Westeros; busied himself with numerous lovers and mistresses pre-/post-marriage; grew a band of "lickspittles"; etc, there's no blank space where it shows him enagaing in magic or trying to look back on Targ history past having dragonfire as a weapon. Aerys and Rhaegar can be said to be foils and as such, have had opposing values and priorities.

Aerys was earthbound/materialistic (further shown how he chooses to wear Aegon IV's ostentatious crown), self oriented VS. Rhaegar's magic-centeredness/"world"-centerdeness and focus on meanings and future possibilities.

A)

The jonsa ship? Sansa stans who ship this seem to hope for Sansa to become Lady of Winterfell and be "compensated" for all her suffering in the bk or the show, and having Jon be married and/o emotionally devoted to her serves to make a moody pretty boy with skills be her commander, a la Daemon for Rhaenyra you might say. This is the priority from what I've seen so far.

It's another illicit or forbidden love as he's her brother and a bastard who her own mother who died for their older brother and them all disliked. It's also, I think, a fuck-you to GRRM's orig plan to have Jon fall for Arya not bc Arya was also his sister and even younger than Sansa, but primarily bec this, to them, places Arya as the "true" Lady of Winterfell.

I'd take a gander to say this is actually the issue and why some might say it's a Jonsa thing. Perhaps they make similar how Sansa's father has a hand in her encountering danger through her planned betrothal to Joffrey (Aerys continually endangering Rhaegar and his his family, Jon maybe in thei minds being the "cause" of Sansa/Rhaegar's family's destruction) or they posit an unwanted marriage parallel of Sansa-Tyrion and Elia-Rhaegar? There might be more, but I can't think of anything else?

B)

When you say "resemblance", do you mean to say Sara Snow x Jacaerys Velaryon as a true thing that happened, or this story of such meant to parallel the couple of Lyanna and Rhaegar? Perhaps it's the element of her also not having any hope to marry and--pursue a longer and enduring relationship due to the political circumstances--an unavailable noble man, like with Lyanna and Rhaegar? That Jace comes from a Targaryen royal lineage and Sara from a Stark one? Or is it that this ship is in close proximity to the Pact of Ice and Fire, which some people espouse had to do with the actual prophecy Aegon I is said to have had and maybe told to Torrhen Stark, the King who Knelt, that got him to surrender, and thus Creagn and Jace agreed to have their childrne marry--thus being some sort of precursor and affirmation of Lyanna-Rhaegar narratively & metaphorically "destined" to shape the history of their society throught their own singular action? That Torrhen might have already known, as others say? Which all, I believe , is an argument meant for Jon being the Prince that was promised?

Bc these latter two "ran off" bec their personalities and personal goals/values didn't jive with the "obligations" both had; those that were like stones set against their own and those around them (Lyanna with her marriage and the entire woman-must-obey thing/her being found out about being the Knight of the Laughing Tree and thus punished vs Rhaegar and the prophecy against the legacy of his house/wanting to build a different Westeros from his crazy father through said prophecy, to "fix" Westeros and/or the world in a way Dany is seemingly supposed to).

Whereas Sara Snow and Jace either don't have such obligations (Sara) or don't have such relationships or regards to their obligations (Jace). Unlike Lyanna Stark, Sara Snow--if she ever even existed. I don't think she ever did, Mushroom is Mushroom and was never there to witness what he said happened--was reported to be a bastard girl, who Cregan, her supposed brother, would never be expected to confront anyone about or for if she were to have pursued a relationship for. Precisely because she was a bastard girl who no one could leverage like Lyanna's father tried to when he betrothed her to Robert Baratheon.

Rhaegar had to leave Elia with his father when said madman ordered Elia and their kids to return to KL/the Red Keep while Rhaegar was away; he also had several "engagements" that Jace did not have a like to before the war that Rhaegar was compelled to act on, presumably for the world and not just his own father, wife, etc. Jace was just living with Rhaenyra before the war, anticipating marrying a girl he had been close woth for ages since childhood, and he was barely in his own majority when he died not so late after the war broke out.

Jace's story, unlike Rhaegar, was that he was suspected as a bastard/not his father's son and that the Westerosi stigma against bastards and their character and ability to have loyalty is unsettled by his utter devotion to his family and mother's claim--in other words, he was all in both because of and despite the logic of those rumors, ironic bec of later when Rhaenyra's compelled and unethically chooses to arrest the dragonseeds when her council basically demanded that punishment--in a way, Jace's work was…troubled by this, even with Jeyne Arryn, the Manderlys, and Cregan Stark pulling through later but too late.

In other words, the stakes are too different and the characters are not so similar for Jace to act like Rhaegar or have the room & circumstance to do so. Whether you think Rhaegar was chaotic good, chaotic evil, or just pathetic. This is also not me saying that Rhaegar wasn't devoted to his family/family's legacy, but that his motivations were layered and has a chance of being more about, again, saving the world. The Pact of Ice and Fire was bt Cregan and Jace also, again, was for their kids to marry, not Jace to marry a Stark bastard girl and disobey his mother at a time when she needed him the most.

Anon is either talking about all the Sara Snow posts I've done or this post.

Rhaegar could have failed bc (one may argue) he was way too idealistic that he let ideas of heroism carry him away from observing issues with is own acrions or how e implemented a lot of them. So he was both irresponsible in one sense and was obsessed w/fufilling an ultimate level of "responsibility" through a prophecy I think he took as way to justify/redeem the corruption around him. On the other hand, Rhaegar was inspired by Lyanna to be more hands on or try to be in his duties concerning real people (as she stood up for someone else), bucking against expectations, and having some sort of remove/relief from the weight of his responsibilities as the one taking the prophecy seriously.

Yes, he wanted to be "authentic", but went about it unfairly & disastrously under that inevitable weight. Jace didn't have this issue.

A)

I explain why Jace and Sara vs Rhaegar and Lyanna aren't similar enough to warrant the pairing people put them in the link above.

Other than what I wrote there, it's also bc Rhaegar did not abandon Elia (at least not to die; his fault in some ways, yeah, but not ALL his and people make as if he went out of his way to make sure his family were in danger for p*ssy; Jace did not have the same problem of hyper-idealism as Rhaegar to believe that things would work out & thus put his family at risk), like Jace would be doing to Baela and Rhaenyra IF Sara Snow and him were a thing and married AND to be like what people think Rhaegar did, Jace would have had to run off somewhere else entirely with Sara and trigger another problem for himself and the whole black team...which doesn't happen.

Even if Sara were real, nothing came of it. She's still at Winterfell. He quite clearly came back and resumed his duties. None of it goes anywhere. So what exactly is the point or true motivation/inspiration, I wonder, to shipping him and Sara, and nothing major or plot-defining comes from them beign together or trying to be? When with Lyanna and Rhaegar, their relationship triggered a war and had purpose and definitively shaped the entire country for years to come--to induce another critical event in the story? RobbxJeyne: Robb broke his betrothal and was unfairly murdered in a forever historical event that brought the War of the Fiver kings to a close and opened a new "wound" in the society similar bec the punishment did not fit the crime, even went too far. He may not have been in love with Jeyne like some imagine Rhaegar-Lyanna and Daemyra to be, but there is a nobility in his decision, too...I don't see the same for the SaraxJace ship.

Second, unlike Robb, Jace in this scenario is never described as "doing right" by Sara by marrying her after impregnating her. Both bec she is a known bastard who could never really marry him (remember Ellaria and Oberyn, Aemond and Alys) in this hypothetical where she is real and she we hear nothing about her being pregnant in the first place. In every single scenario that I have seen Sara SnowxJace shipping, these two fall in love and oftentimes just elope just because they are in love and Jace is motivated to stop shouldering the pressures of his own birth and obligations. that might be attractive to people, but there are other things that contextualize my dislike and suspicion of it actually being about "love for love's sake" or "love is the relief of duty".

Third, unlike Rhaegar and Elia (which GRRM describes as a marriage of "tragedy", and I while I do think it was clearly more a tragedy for Elia than Rhaegar [Rhaegar not loving her when it was possible that she would have tried to love him, her illness on top of pushing herself to birth his heirs, Rhaegar having given Lyanna the crown publicly, then her horrific death and the murder of her kids]), Jace and Baela showed no unreciprocated reluctance or hesitation or lack of chemistry/compatibility nor was there testimony of such. For Rhaegar-Lyanna, the narrative tells us that it was never something that was going to be emotionally fufilling for either person through Barristan Selmy and Rhaegar's own actions and much symbolism written into several parts of AWoIaF, the main series etc. about blue roses and such--no such thing exists for Rhaegar and Elia. He may not have "hated" her, but their's was not a marriage of "love" of a certain kind. And for JacexBAela, while we don't see any hint of passion or love from him towards Baela in the same degree that would be a match as much as something can be for a book like F&B's section of the Dance, again, we still do not see any hint of his reluctance/non-attraction towards her that some SaraxJace shippers may try to argue. This matters, too, bc the passion that some argue makes Rhaegar risk it all for Lyanna & then ruin the realm is at least admirable in the sense of agency for Lyanna.

Fourthly, what dynamic? We literally know nothing about Sara Snow. Just that she is a bastard of the Starks, Cregan's sister, and possibly a figment of Mushroom's desire for attention and drama. And because we know nothing about her for certain (and for real this time, unlike stuff we know about Alicent, Rhaenyra, Daemon, etc. even though this is a history book), there's no reliable material to give reality to Sara Snow even if I wanted to pretend she was real. I have to do independent work to create a personality for me to even be able to ship her with anyone, much less a young boy who's narrative purpose leaned on opposing the Westerosi understanding of bastardry like his brothers and Addam/Alyn Velaryon all did. Jace can't do that by just deciding to break his betrothal or dishonor his betrothal to Baela (and we don't even see or have any suggestion of his supposed discomfort to being married to her in the first place, this is another thing people made up and projected into canon!) because he fell for her. Again, Robb married Jeyne not just because he liked her, but because she got pregnant.

This is a dynamic(?) that, like a lot of ships, tends to take one aspect the shippers like a lot, they see some aspects of that narrative-of-a-ship they like or created in a canon circumstance (Rhaegar-elia-Lyanna) or what they think happened, and then they mash it together to give more credit to the new ship they have. I find it disengnuous. Especially when my biggest issue I have with this ship is it has gotten so much more support or relevance only after HotD came on and Baela "became" Black. I've tried searching for this ship prior to the show, and only a miniscule amount of desire for it existed then in comparison to all other ships, canon or not. And it parallels people saying Baela should be Lady of Driftmark while Helaena is queen, esp in lieu of the show making Rhaenyra offer this marriage arrnagement...bookwise, Baela and Jace were betrothed since both were tiny kids bc Rhaenyra and Laena had been best friends AND it made sure to bind Corlys/the Velaryons more to Rhaenyra's side/make sure Luke could have a better chance of being the future Lord of Driftmark--as he was betrothed to Rhaena since very young as well. The betrothals were a matched set, one came with the other.

Canon!Baela was happiest betrothed to Jace, growing up with Jace, growing up a Targaryen under Daemyra's "roof" even as she was obviously loved by her Velaryon grandfather and likely visited him often. Because she seemed to have developed a relationship with Jace, they would have made a good ruling couple and Baela would have been the most prestigious, highest ranking woman in the realm, with as much influence as maybe Alysanne since I don't see any suggestion of her being shunted to the side once he rules. Involved and shaping decisions that involve the ENTIRE realm, not just a small area like Driftmark. There's even a healthier degree of remove because she is still connected to the Velaryons, has her father and sister and her other stepbrothers anc vice versa. Both individuals preoccupied with other things in away that Jaehaerys and Laysanne were not while they had to hide away from Maegor and were confined relatively to each other alone. So it's possible the pitfalls of intramarriages is mitigated a little bit here despite them clearly growing both together and separate enough to be themselves, Baela having some practical agency, and not so dependent on each other. So, again, why is it that people are so eager to make Jace disatisfied with her or them not devoted to each other or Baela being "better off" being a mere Lady when the white!Helaena gets to be queen...I'd even say Helaena needs to be away from her family and marry out more than Baela does, as the latter in canon had more protections with her relatives than show!Helaena did.

This JacexSara ship is only as popular as it is bc it entirely depends on a rejection of Baela AND Laena AND Rhaenyra's canon female bonds and possible politicking apart from Alicent. Or against Alicent or just for Rhaenyra herself. Laena's relationship with Rhaenyra is erased for Rhaenicent, which gives way to that Helaena-Jace idea that only gets thrown back in Rhaenyra's face. Contrast that with her successful and satisfying arrangement (satisfying to the kids themsleves) between her sons and Laena's daughters--now instead we have this weird back and forth that makes no sense.

I'm usually not one to hurl on ships; in this case, my disdain comes from fans taking and misunderstanding "death of the author" and then hypocritically transposing their own ideas onto the canon by sheer force of will. It comes from the show amplifying people's biases and misunderstandings of the text. It encourages willful reading before comprehensive reading, which is dangerous; one example of why is people say Aegon would have been happiest or most powerful and safe still married to Jaehaera, or that this entire story should have ended with them together bc "both sides bad, marriage makes good, it ends the war"...the disabled child forced to be impregnated...sure. And it that why Jaehaera gets killed by another guy who wants to put his own daughter on the thoen so he could have descendants as Otto did...while having been on the green side? That guy that perpetuates the violent disposal of girls/women like Rhaenyra? Sure, it's just about "both sides bad" because Rhaenyra was not a "good" queen. Gotcha.

Contrast this situation to people shipping Jayce and Viktor of the League of Legends show; in that case, no people are well within their rights to ship them and even to believe that it was textual that they had romantic feelings or a soul connection that outstrips mere friendship.

Why?

there is strong SUGGESTION in the mannerims and dialouge that could easily lend to romance or high-feeling many times throughout the series, where the two share an understanding or faith and devotion in the other while they try--in their own disjointed ways--to make their society a better place through Hextech, their shared "creation", which brought them close.

that suggestiveness was deliberately played into by the voice actors and animators and writers themselves even though a few writers didn't see it that way

(This is not me saying Jayce didn't care nor didn't love Mel, this is me saying that Jayce and Viktor discover the real meaning and value of life through each other when they forgot that they should have questioned the ethics of their development of Hextech and its effects on humanity's greed and fight to survive just in the classism of their society. The reason why this inspires people sometimes more than Jayce's love for Mel or their perception of Mel at all is because this entire story's center ond direction is coming from the characters' desire to "fix" humanity and that going wrong because of things utterly out of their control they never should have or just couldn't get a handle on...and lots of grief. Mel was a big part of all that, but she has her own story and Piltover seems more like a "stop" in her story more than anything.)

I said once shipping is or can't be detatched from how people view politics AND can often be a political act -- I don't like what I'm seeing in this particular ship's politics. Or the fans' quiet motive behind it.

B)

I actually like Robb and Jeyne (not Talisa, bc the show tweaked that in a way that was...weird), much better than Jace x Sara Snow. Robb marries Jeyne both because he genuinely likes her and wishes to preserve her "honor", thinking it is honorable for him to go out of his way and risk his own political advantage so that he will not produce a suffering bastard or have Jeyne's life ruined for having extramarital sex. In this world, men get to have all these affairs and produce children who would have it much tougher and even be in danger from their other kids or wives or others who wish to destroy possible competition or just out of pain/jealousy/pride.

Meanwhile, the women--whether raped or having had conseneual sex with him--almost always have their lives ruined. Society thinks them as "spoiled goods" and they cannot have more stable economic means through the prime way women can such--potential husbands, who again would not want "spoiled goods"...or their relatives arranging any marriage for them. And if they have illegitmate kids, they're left with little means of future security or protection for them or themselves. sure some might have families who keep them till they are older, but again, their lives as "proper" people who can go out with their head held high or unaccosted by other degradations is done. Here Robb takes responsibility by marrying his lover and making sure his child comes out legitmate--he's extending his socially granted protection when he has all the space and ability not to do so and still be seen as "trustworthy" by his peers and other potential allies or whatever. Because "men have needs".

A lot of people say he was stupid for doing that, but the point was not to berate the person doing the right, moral thing; it was to point out how mush it costs to to the right thing, how that potnetial cost is innately unfair and life-destroying. How it even destroys the better men who in any way divert from what the system tries to compel its beneficiaries to do. It's about exploring the human cost of power and the ethics inherently connected to it all. You were not supposed to treat this story as a stats-session, who's "smarter", or "better" at politics for the sake of seeing who is the "best" at the cost of forgoing human worth.

Walder Frey is rather the "stupid" party, morally AND politically, so in any way you slice it, WALDER is actually the "stupid" one. why? He broke one of the biggest social rules of Westeros, espe for the northmen: the guest rights, where the host must give complete shelter to anyone he/she provides food and shelter to. Walder basically shut himself in to only ever be allied "faithfully" with the Lannisters and the Boltons, because we know that if he does later, he's basically opened himself up to others doing similar or worse to him, or run the risk of them betraying him quickly once they get the chance. He killed a young man and a pregnant woman and his mother (a scion of another great hous, the Tullys, his own great lord paramount). Nothing he did in retaliation to Robb breaking the betrothal was "normal" nor justifiable, it was an extreme, amoral, very prideful action that he did partly bec he thought copying Tywin was his go to for power by both showing that he'd "go the mile" for this man we wanted an alliance with and become another "big dog".

It is reflective of exactly how this feudalist patriarchy compels people to seek for self gratifying power above all else and imitate the "mightiest" above all else, to "fall in line" with/behind the biggest fish/man and reap the benefits for yourself. Tywin, who got his way by also having a mother killed with her kids), who how we all know ended up. Killed by his own abused child.

Walder Frey is also a "predator" of young girls barely out of their preteens, almost always marrying them very obviously for sex since he has no need at all for more heirs. Contrast that with Robb, who merely broke a betrothal AND did right by the girl he chose to have sex with nearer to his own age and who he very clearly respected. Robb deserves no flack at all for what he did, Walder does.

In order to criticize Robb, many people thought it was in good taste to let Walder Frey off the hook entirely, bc they've accepted the status quo and even have decided that such should be the case. they've grown morally complacent or were never truly ethical to begin with.

This narrow-minded, jaded fandom prizes instant power gratification and "playing smart" to miss the bigger picture and what's actually being written and "advocated" for, what this entire series is really about just as they refuse to understand Daenerys:

[dragonseeds] The Existentialism of ASoIaF Leadership and Heroism in a Violent, Exploitative World

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly] What is "Heroic" and MOST Meaningful is to be willing to fight for What's Right despite Mistakes, Controversy, or Disadvantage

[rainahadaenerys] Quote from Frederick Douglass on GRRM's Blog

[jozor-johai] LoTR and ASoIaF, the Orcs and the Meereenes Slaver Kid Hostages

[cerseiandjaime] Human Heart in Conflict with Itself

Dragon Fire as Deterrents

The truth is out of the bag: I hate Jon Snow, it seems.

I remember distinctly saying that I didn't hate hate the guy, but I guess I was unconvincing when I expressed I didn't think Jonerys (the ship) was lasting and/or possible in canon and beceause of what Dany would have to go through to keep Jon versus Jon endangering her possible hold on power for being Rhaegar's bastard son.

What exaclty do you think makes Jon exactly like Rhaegar in personality, experience, psychological development, values, purpose, etc.? Dany like Lyanna? Because they are leaders for the "people", ful stop? Without stipulating that their similarity comes with different conditions, goals, philosophies, etc., that's almost like saying that bec Dany and Cersei are both queens, they can be near perfectly made out to be very similar people! Even the exact same sort! Could not be farther from the case.

I also never argued that Lyanna was "a means to Rhaegar's end". Espe because I call bullshit on the idea that he sought her out merely for the prophecy and needed a third child! I am not one of those who agrees with that theory. Not sure where you got that impression if you actually read anything I wrote about Rhaegar and Lyanna!

The argument above is an ad hominem, a logical fallacy where the person attacks the arguer's perceived or real identity and/or actions not havign to do with the argument topic or the arguemnts at hand, but meant to discredit the person and/or distract them and the possible audience to derail the conversation. Attacking character. Within it is also a strawman argument as the person has tried to make make as if I was ever judging Jon through his parents...very strange. The purpose is to transpose their own feelings about Rhaegar, transmute it as the topic, and use the "objectivity" of Rhaegar's deplorability to argue that my favor towards Rhaelays says somethign about me. Funny enough, this commentator did not bring up my arguments for why I argue Rhaegar was not the devil incarnate, but they do not care because that would mess up their aim--to discredit my rationality and throww some possile doubt on their own. If this was in an ask or a oublic thred, but thei was a DM, so I think they wanted to stir some doubt in me & shame silence into me.

but let's get back to this section:

You want the last legacy of a girl who risks her son's life to disappear. It's misogyny. What you're so excited about for Daenerys? Why do you do it with the son of a woman? What they did to Daenerys with Rhaego? Please stop belittling Lyanna and Jon because you're not a fan of Lyanna.

There's so many assumptions being made here.

First - The principal assumption here is that I am "belittling" Lyanna when I say that Jon is not politically safe enough a possible royal consort for Dany, one of the very few and only Queen regnants that have ever existed as she is capable of becoming and is currently being!

You want the last legacy of a girl who risks her son's life to disappear.

"Last legacy" implies the only one that gives any strong and valuable meaning to the woman/girl. IF you are talking about Lyanna, [3rd point below], she didn't do that. Doesn't work for Dany either. So who? If Lyanna, Jon is supposedly her only legacy (that matters or that you could detect and speculate), and I think that this is rather a sexist reading on your part as it assumes Lyanna only has Jon as an "accomplishment". Why? Because Jon is that badass so it stands to reason that Lyanna's "sacrifice" was necessary for his rise? Does this sound like it's in close proximity to another possible instance of the trope of a woman used--and worse killed off--for a male character's development in fiction? Same for Dany, except feministly, she lives and her son dies (without her desire but it happens) is accidentally used in part of a process that leads to her "birthing" dragons back to the world. In your schema of badass-Jon, a woman is narratively sacrificed for the man to be badass. This is not the case for Dany whatsoever!!! You should rather be the one NOT throwing a woman's importance to the bin! Truly, what was the connection here? Either way, any "legacy" that Jon would inherit from Lyanna would be tainted by his bastardry sociopolitically/in-world. It only matters differently to fans, as in-world, it'd be more a revisiitng of a scandal that led to a war if there had been no Long Night to face, which then would really be all about Jon's efforts and legacy, not Lyanna's! As of now in the books, Jon has more "legacy" or an inheritanc eof such from Ned, not Lyanna...bc of the whole thing being a secret still!

Feminism is not "a womans' son will give meaning to a woman's death & being". Feminism says "I spit on the whole thing, and maybe, in fact, I will reverse it and let the woman thrive."

There's a another sub-assumption about the world needing Jon more than they need Dany even thought you mention Dany as somehow disrepected by me precisely because you talk more about your dislike of me "hating" Jon, when I say what I say for Dany's interests alone. You don't seem to like that Dany could and should be separated in one's considerations of characterization and roles and development or narrative importance. To you, I think that Dany only matters bc Jon exists to give her meaning and a role and to make her actions in Essos have purpose instead of Dany's journey being a potential solo saga in itself about questioning rulers and subverting gender and sexuality! If you took Jon out, Dany's story--as it already has--would enthrall enough people to be a cultural phenomenon and she already is the most popular character of this series if you see the stats or had eyes. For goodness, sakes, her story ALONE won GRRM his Hugo award! I am not biased--look it up, these are the facts.

What does Dany's queenship have anything to do with Lyanna and Lyanna's death other than "granting" her a bastard nephew who shouldn't be a real political threat but is bc of this sexist world and the Dance's precedent and the Blackfyre Rebellion's example (sexism and xenophobia/racism-ableism)?

Why does it seem that the validity and very existence of Dany's queenship is narratively, socially, etc dependent on Jon's political success? As if she must needs be subservient to Jon to have any success in Westeros or to maintain any shred of power and credibility elsewhere? that we should look to her looking to Jon for an endured reign for herself when the text has given time and time again Dany is more than capable of ruling by herself and needs no "co ruler"...that a male "co ruler" is actually dangerous (Hizdhar) bc of how muc societies (that Dany will rule but still have to deal with local authorities there with their own rules, histories, etc. that she'd navigate as she does in Meereen) allow/credit men over any female relative or partner?! Whether the man is "nice" or not--was never about that and it's inconsequential to how the SYSTEM set against Dany anyway.

Second - How the hell do Dany's and Lyanna's "legacies" match"?! Lyanna is already dead while Dany is actively and currently doing stuff that only adds to what her leagcy would be after she dies!

Even if you manage to argue well for anything abt Lyanna's death to bring Jon into the world being Rhaegar just using her for her womb then informing the audience about Dany...Rhaego is DEAD, Dany is the one who lived! Nothing that happens to your version of Lyanna is going to happen to Dany and vice versa of Jon-Rhaego!

What in the world makes you believe that what we can relate and equate noble-privileged-even-she-is-a-teen-girl-Lyanna's decision to run off with Rhaegar to what Dany being sold (thus against her will) to Drogo and becoming a bridal slave?! Was Lyanna sold into sexual slavery by her own brother for an army in threat of mass r*pe if she didn't "comply"? Is Lyanna a queen now? How does what happens to Rhaego relate in anyway to HOW Dany's child was murdered for you to be comparing Rhaego to jon Snow, a bastard more privileged than most who, unlike Rhaego, got to grow into an "adult" (quotes bc he is one in his society and most of the world and that matters bc he gets to acquire a certain sort of authority because of it, esp as a man)?!

Obviously the assumption being made is that Rhaegar raped Lyanna and/or stole her away from her family or people against her will. The text gives SO MANY clues as to how this is just false. i already argued why and how in my earlier posts and reblogs of others sayign the same under "rhaeyla" or "lyanna and rhaegar"--tags in my blog. Since I reject this assumption and until you or others bring something that actually addresses what I argued, there's really no point in me addressing this assumption from you that is the foundation of your accusations other than:

Rhaegar and Lyanna were not tragic bc Rhaegar raped her or kidnapped her; they are tragic literally Romeo and Juliet styl;e where the love was impossible for their families' AND their individual sociopolitcal positions and they had no time/space afforded to them to be able to be totally fulfilled even if they had never met each other--critiques of whether a man and a girl could AND should be written as a love story to "teach" readers that such relationships are okay in real life is a different matter altogether [see bullet 3], and you don't have to like it, but you should not be denyign facts of story like how many green stans do with the whole Jaehaera v Daenaera bullcrap

you seem to like to waste my and others' time to feel smart

don't like this? Take it up w/GRRM. There is such thing as Watsonian readings of canon and Doylist readings of why the writer wrote what they wrote. I speak of what the story is telling its readers

Third- When did Lyanna "risk" Jon's life? Lyanna laid in the Tower of Joy for almost the entire war, pregnant with Jon, what "risk" is she putting fetus-Jon through? We can't even say Dany does that w/Rhaego bc SHE DIDN'T KNOW THAT MIRRI WAS GOING TO USE RHAEGO'S LIFE FOR DROGO'S!!! You make as if there's a possibility that this is true. So who are you talking about?!

Fourth - Somehow, I don't like Lyanna.

Person, this is the only girl of the Dead Ladies Club I care about and adore, partly bec she doesn't really fit even though she's definitely dead and her death fosters Jon's character (Knight of the Laughing Tree). Yeah, she and Rhaegar are a package deal narratively....Elia does not stand as a character without being Rhaegar's wife, though? And I don't like characters simply bc they are victims and happen to not be able to do nothing for themselves wehether they are partially to blame for that or not at all. And Lyanna, unlike Elia, is a packaged deal w/Rhaega bc from them comes. It's not fair to Elia that she is married to Rhaegar bc Aerys essentially wanted to make his own son less popular (Westerosi xenophobia against Dornishmen) and she grew sicker and bd bound in her gendered "duty" to provide him heirs...or that their marriage was not one Rhaegar would have chosen for himself. But sexism. Part of the point and something that negatively impacts Lyanna as well, NOT fans' insistence of "hating" or truly hating Jon!

Perhaps there is a racial bias against Elia on GRRM's part that makes him put a horrible fate on a darker skinned woman, even though Elia is NOT PoC in the way we think of PoC or what we are familiar with. In fact, she's a "white" woman who is not "white" like Italians and Irish people were at one point in the U.S. But all that would be on GRRM and a Doylist reading, NOT a Watsonian/in-text/story one!