I'd like to add on to this. We're told time and time again that affairs of the heart are respected, even celebrated in Dorne. That multiple lovers are common, even when those lovers are married to other people. That bastards are celebrated and cherished as products of these unions. Yet, somehow we are supposed to believe that Rhaegar taking another lover would be offensive to Dorne or to Elia?
Is this really the case or is this Anti-Dorne/Anti-Targariyan propaganda? Because the Targariyans also have a history of multiple marriages, which The Faith have always taken issue with. It makes you wonder why the Targs didn't just say "Screw the Faith" and take their vows under the Old Gods once they got to The North and understood Daenys the Dreamer's prophecies of the Long Night coming from those frozen regions. Would have saved everyone a whole crap ton of trouble. But I digress, the two narratives don't make sense. And it seems kind of hypocritical of Oberyn Martell of all people to be pointing fingers at Rhaegar for seeming to abandon Elia, when he has sown his wild oats all across both Essos and Dorne, Bisexual icon that he is.
You're pointing at something real—Dornish sexual culture is genuinely more tolerant than the rest of Westeros. But you're conflating private behavior with public humiliation, and that's where this falls apart.
Oberyn having lovers across two continents isn't hypocrisy. He's unmarried, his relationships are consensual, and he's never publicly crowned someone else while his legal wife sat watching—that's the distinction. Dorne doesn't care about affairs, Dorne cares deeply about honor and public respect. Rhaegar didn't just take a lover, he humiliated Elia in front of the entire realm, then disappeared with that lover while leaving his wife and children with a mad king who hated her family. (Historically, knights crowning women who weren't their wives as "queen of love and beauty" was perfectly normal tournament behavior and made things more interesting—Martin wrote this as scandal, which honestly baffles me, but we're working with the world as he built it, not as medieval history actually functioned.)
The polygamy argument is interesting but historically inaccurate. Targaryen polygamy ended with Maegor, centuries before Robert's Rebellion. Rhaegar couldn't just "say screw the Faith" without fracturing his entire political coalition—the Faith's support mattered, the southern lords' support mattered. This isn't anti-Targaryen propaganda, it's just how power works when you need allies.
Oberyn's anger isn't about sex. It's about his sister being abandoned and endangered. That's consistent with Dornish values, not contradictory to them.
I'll grant the argument of private sexual behaviors vs. perceived public humiliation of Rhaegar's crowning of Lyanna as his Queen of Love and Beauty in lieu of Elia. I'm qualifying it as perceived because that's the narrative that we're given and as the author of this story points out, history and its narratives are written by the winners. Dorne cares about honor and public respect, but don't you think that there would be more communication between Elia and her brothers about what was going on?
The fact is we're missing a lot of information from Elia about what happened at the Tourney and afterwards. With how close she is with her brothers, wouldn't she have left for Sunspear right after the Tourney at Harrenhal with them? Oberyn and Doran Martell were there, they could have easily taken her home. Or after Rhaegar left to go chase after Lyanna, she could have left with Rhaenys and Aegon. Maybe even sweeten the pot by giving up Aegon's claim to the throne so that Viserys would once again be Rhaegar's heir.
Oberyn not being married isn't the point of him being hypocritical in his anger toward Rhaegar in regards to Elia and Lyanna. It's hypocritical because in all of his exploits he doesn't stop to think about whom he may have dishonored, even if it isn't publicly, even if the relationship was consensual. He's hot-headed, rash, and rushes into things without thought, basically he's Rhaegar without the prophetic dreams. Or worse Robert Baratheon without the bulk. And now that it's HIS sister that's been humiliated he gives a crap about honor and duty? At least Doran understands the political implications of acting rashly without all the information.
Finally, my statement about the Faith goes to Aegon the Conqueror taking up the Faith of the Seven as his mantle to be crowned under even though he had two sister-wives, which the Faith heavily frowns upon both polygamy and incest. Also they don't call him Maegar the Cruel for no reason. The dude was legit insane, he burned and hung rebel leaders and leaders of the Faith Militant without trial or mercy. He killed and buried the masons and builders of the Red Keep to protect its secrets. And all of it could have been avoided if the succession crisis the Targariyans feared were put to rest by just betrothing Maegor to his niece Rhaena. But noooooo, The Faith objected to that plan because reasons.... and the High Septon's BARREN niece was chosen instead. Again, all of this could have been avoided if Aegon the Conqueror had told The Faith to "fuck off, I have dragons, we're doing things in the ways of Old Valyria."
You're asking good questions but missing how power actually constrains people.
Why didn't Elia leave? Because she was the crown prince's wife, her children were his heirs, and that position was simultaneously her power and her prison. Leaving King's Landing, renouncing Aegon's claim, fleeing to Sunspear, any of that gets read as political surrender. It weakens Dorne's position and her children's futures. She was trapped by exactly the things that should have protected her. That's not missing information, that's how these systems work for women.
Oberyn's not a hypocrite. He's sexually adventurous, sure, but he's unmarried, he made no public vows, and he never publicly humiliated a specific person in front of the entire realm. His relationships are private and consensual. Rhaegar crowned Lyanna at Harrenhal while his wife watched, then disappeared with her while Elia sat in King's Landing with a mad king who hated her family. Private freedom and public humiliation aren't the same thing. Dorne tolerates one, not the other.
As for "why didn't the Targaryens just tell the Faith to fuck off," you're ignoring how power works. Maegor tried that. He had dragons. His reign was a catastrophe and he died hated and alone. Dragons don't make you immune to political reality, they just make the violence more spectacular when you lose anyway. Rhaegar in 282 AC has zero dragons, a mad father, and a fracturing coalition. Telling the Faith to piss off isn't strength, it's suicide.
Individuals don't override systems just because those systems are unfair. That's the whole point.
Oberyn is definitely hypocritical to a degree given he'd be completely willing to jump into a married woman or betrothed woman's bed but one important thing that differs him from Rhaegar is he's unattached meaning that while his other family member will share the stink he's the one who has to completely face responsiblity by himself and he's the type to partially do so. Also Rhaegar doing what he did so far is far more dangerous than anything Oberyn had done especially with the number of families invovled and a mad King on the throne. Not to mention it's hard to see Rhaegar's move as politically wise given he is pissing off the Martells, Starks, and Baratheons and perhaps even further given the alliances the Arryns and Tullys.
Also it's hard to say that Lyanna isn't seflish to some extent given that her choice of agency is a married man and wanting to have a choice in a world where even men don't have a choice in who they marry at times and then choosing the married crown prince and after learning the results or being aware of what could follow still deciding to do it again.
Look, I appreciate that you're reading closely enough to notice tensions in the characters' moral positions. That's exactly what I want readers doing. But I think you're collapsing some distinctions that actually matter quite a bit, both for understanding medieval aristocratic culture and for understanding how human beings actually work under pressure.
First, on Oberyn's "hypocrisy" - you're right that he'd sleep with married or betrothed women, that's established canon and I'm not disputing it. But here's what I think you're missing: for aristocratic men in this society (and in actual medieval societies, for that matter), extramarital affairs weren't considered hypocritical as long as certain rules were followed. The rules weren't "don't have sex outside marriage," the rules were more like: acknowledge your bastards, don't threaten legitimate succession, and most importantly, don't publicly humiliate your spouse in front of the entire political class.
Oberyn follows those rules. His Sand Snakes are acknowledged, cherished even. His affairs don't threaten anyone's inheritance. He's not married, so there's no wife to humiliate. Most critically - and this is the part that matters - he's never crowned another woman Queen of Love and Beauty while his pregnant wife sat in the stands watching, then disappeared with that woman for months while leaving his legal spouse with a mad king who happened to hate her entire family.
The issue isn't sex. The issue is public dishonor and political destabilization. Rhaegar didn't just have an affair, he humiliated Elia in front of every lord in Westeros, then created a succession crisis while his wife and children were essentially hostages. That's not hypocrisy on Oberyn's part, that's a pretty clear distinction between private behavior (which Dorne doesn't care about) and public insult (which Dorne cares about intensely).
Second, yes, Rhaegar's actions are politically catastrophic. The story doesn't dispute this. Multiple characters - Arthur, Doran, even Rhaegar himself in his private moments - acknowledge it. I'm not writing Rhaegar as some misunderstood hero who did everything right. I'm writing him as someone who made genuinely terrible political decisions because he was operating from a combination of genuine love (which doesn't excuse anything but does explain the motivation), prophetic obsession (he believes this child is necessary to save the world), and desperation (his father is mad, his wife nearly died in childbirth and can't have more children, he believes he needs three children for the prophecy).
None of this makes him right. It makes him human. Brilliant people make catastrophically bad decisions when love, desperation, and certainty of purpose collide. That's not justification, it's explanation. There's a difference.
Third, on Lyanna being "selfish" - this is where I think you're making some assumptions about medieval society and about agency that don't quite hold up.
Yes, many people (including men) didn't choose their spouses. Yes, arranged marriages were the norm. But that doesn't mean choosing love when you have the capacity to do so is "selfish" - it means the system is unjust. Lyanna had the ability to choose (because Rhaegar enabled it), and she chose love over duty. You can call that selfish. You can also call it the one moment of genuine freedom a sixteen-year-old girl was ever going to get in a society that treated women as tradeable political assets.
The real question isn't "was it selfish?" The real question is "do we judge people for choosing their own lives over the political functions they were assigned?" And I think that's a much more complicated question than you're allowing for.
Here's the thing about "choosing a married man in a world where even men don't always get choice" - Robert Baratheon, her betrothed, already had multiple bastards and would certainly continue having affairs after marriage. Arranged marriages in this society were expected to be loveless for women, who were then supposed to smile and produce heirs while their husbands fucked whoever they wanted. The "choice" offered to Lyanna was: marry a man you don't love who will publicly humiliate you with mistresses, or choose the man you actually love who will... also publicly humiliate his wife.
Both options are morally compromised. Lyanna chose the one that gave her love, at the cost of another woman's dignity. That's not selfishness in the sense of not considering consequences - it's the desperate mathematics of a system that gives women no good options.
And about "after learning the results or being aware of what could follow, still deciding to do it again" - I think you're misreading the timeline here, or at least the way human psychology actually works under these circumstances. By the time Brandon and Rickard died, Lyanna was already pregnant, already in hiding, already committed. What exactly was she supposed to do - kill herself? Abandon the child? Return to Robert and beg forgiveness?
More importantly, nobody - not Lyanna, not Rhaegar - knew Aerys would burn people alive. They catastrophically underestimated the Mad King. That's not selfishness, that's tragic miscalculation. You can say they should have known better, and you'd have a point. But "should have predicted that the king would commit unprecedented atrocities" is different from "selfishly chose this knowing exactly what would happen."
Here's what I'm trying to show in this story: medieval aristocratic society created situations where every choice was morally compromised. Oberyn can sleep with married women without consequence because he's a man and unattached - but that's not his hypocrisy, it's society's double standard. Rhaegar can love Lyanna genuinely while still catastrophically wronging Elia - both things are true simultaneously. Lyanna can exercise agency while also being complicit in another woman's suffering - these aren't contradictory.
The question isn't "who is the villain?" The question is "how do people navigate impossible systems?" And the answer is: badly, with incomplete information, constrained options, and human emotions that don't give a shit about political consequences.
If that frustrates you - good. It should. That's the point. Nobody in this story is purely good or purely evil. They're people making choices in an unjust system, and sometimes the best choice available is still a bad choice, and sometimes choosing your own life over your assigned political function breaks the machine, and the machine breaking isn't proof you were wrong. It's proof the machine was always broken.
I don't know if that addresses your concerns or just gives you new things to argue about. Either way, I appreciate that you're engaging with this seriously enough to notice the tensions. Keep reading, keep questioning.
fair enough though just want to state Robert only had 1 bastard at the time Lyanna ran off with Rhaegar.
Also I'd still argue it's to some degree selfish as you stated she doesn't want someone who'd humilate her with mistresses and yet there's what Rhaegar is doing only making his wife his mistress so how is it not somewhat selfish. I feel to some degree it's like what happened with Robb. So out of universe we know and from what Martin said the Freys were double dealers who would have always betrayed Robb once he started losing but in-universe they don't know that and it'd make sense to see a line from Robb "selfish" decision to Freys abandoning their cause.
Comment on (WILL NOT BE REWRITTEN/COMPLETED/BROKEN NARRATIVE/PROSE MOSTLY) The Prince and the She-Wolf
LadySunweaver on Chapter 7 Thu 16 Oct 2025 02:13AM UTC
Comment Actions
MaxCh on Chapter 7 Thu 16 Oct 2025 03:28AM UTC
Comment Actions
LadySunweaver on Chapter 7 Thu 16 Oct 2025 04:36AM UTC
Comment Actions
MaxCh on Chapter 7 Thu 16 Oct 2025 06:47AM UTC
Comment Actions
Cyphx_Anyang618 on Chapter 7 Thu 16 Oct 2025 09:52AM UTC
Last Edited Thu 16 Oct 2025 09:53AM UTC
Comment Actions
MaxCh on Chapter 7 Thu 16 Oct 2025 04:23PM UTC
Comment Actions
Cyphx_Anyang618 on Chapter 7 Thu 16 Oct 2025 06:23PM UTC
Comment Actions