The Faith of the Seven is the origin and guide of many values in Westeros and it is the means by which to affirm its patriarchal structure through ideals of masculinity and womanhood. And it is a huge informant of the dynamics between the identities b/t man-woman, lord-vassal, the gods-humans, humans-animals as a black-and-white binary of ruler/source-subaltern/inferior (those who are recognized as having autonomy and authority over others versus those who live to serve & upkeep those with authority).

Criston is a warrior sworn to only the Monarch of the realm (protect them & those they are tasked to protect, keep their secrets, obey them, etc.) and part of the values Westerosis have is female submission and all that entails it maritally, military wise, etc. Andal, chivalric warrior tradition is to "protect" the ill, children, women and though protecting the vulnerable is necessary and important, part of how womanhood facilitates masculinity in Westeros is that a woman does not question or challenge much of masculinity. Rhaenyra does so by refusing to run away with Cole, who seeks to use marriage vows & them running off together to "restore" his own sense of honor while completely ignoring how this would destroy hers in the process. Patriarchy is the constant moving of goalposts to center the priorities and desires/needs of men. This is why he considers Rhaenyra a "whore" both in show and in the book. A "whore" or a "slut" is always a woman who refuses to limit/submit their body and their entire selves as a device for others sexually/reproductively.

So I disagree with the idea that sexism/misogyny is not why Cole hates Rhaenyra, since the point/root reason behind all this:

is that he must put blame on the person who is not at fault for his own decision of choosing to break his own vows. It has to be Rhaenyra/a woman specifically bc said woman refused to give up her entire life just so he can feel better about a decision he made...instead of accepting that she wanted to do as many other men have already done: keep a side lover while ruling or anticipating rule and married for political alliance.

His "self-loathing" stems from his not being able to leverage his false victimhood against Rhaenyra, as that is the primary value of masculinity and being a warrior, which itself is masculinized in Westeros. He can't do so or force her bc Rhaenyra's being used to affirm Viserys' determination to make up for his own false prophesizing and use of Aemma for said prophecy/prophetic beliefs in needing a male heir. Viserys, the King, i.e., the highest "secular" authority and his direct "boss".

Rhaenyra has the protection/edge--unlike other women and girls if Cole had done the same to them--of her heirship/father/class. And she refuses to give up that edge not even some lord's daughters have when it'd be more convenient for Cole for her to do so.

With Alicent--who though the queen Consort also gives up much of her own possible powers (or what she can make of them, as bk!Alicent does often) to further Otto's both consciously and unconsciously--he's back to fighting for a "worthy" woman who herself is seeking to "restore" female submissiveness to a traditional, patriarchal (these are one and the same in Westeros, they can never be not) sociopolitical imperative: males determine female bodies' movements, purpose, etc. Politics and psychology are not unreciprocated, totally independent, mutually exclusive, un-informing, separate entities.

Alicent wishes to reinstate the feudal in order to feel as if she gets something out of the "deal" feudal patriarchy foisted onto her and other women. For her, he at least gets to be recognized as one who helped men to reinstate that power, thus she can finally be validated. (duty and sacrifice), and more than Aegon becoming king, it is about not letting a woman rise above the state of "second place" or her "natural" state as being the dependent/subject of/governed by/obedient/subordinate/attendant/collateral/secondary to/at the mercy of "man".

So yeah, Alicent "saved" Cole, bc Cole IS this need to subordinate women for this particular misogynist order that he inevitably bases his own worth on...that his vows he doesn't think critically about will always be based on.

Over here thinking about how to some people the idea of "a man cheating on his good, devoted wife" is worst than anything that could ever happen.

I've seen way more people complain about Rheagar "cheating" on Elia than people complaining about Tywin or Gregor Clegane for literally murdering her. It baffles me.

Oh the cheating discourse has got to be one of THE most annoying debates on the internet to be honest. I think that for most fans, it's them being young and not having much of real life experience. Cheating is SO not the worst think that a man can do to you honey, this intense neo-puritanism is really pissing me off. In a timeline that has Robert, Tywin and Rhaegar (with the first two being foils of the second, of course), somehow, it's Rhaegar that is reduced to this big monster because he abandoned his lawful wife for another woman. When I ask these people "hey, why is nobody talking about the other two and the horrible shit they did during/after Robert's Rebellion" they answer "oh we hold them accountable anyway but it's not interesting hating on them (?)" or even better, they are actually making excuses for them! I know a BNF here that is a huge Tywin stan (predominantly a Joanna stan but loves Tywin) and simultaneously believes that Rhaegar is a rapist.

Robert is a canon rapist and abuser in the books, canon, stated, clear as day, and Tywin literally ordered Elia's murder (was it just her murder). Her Murder. Of her and her children. But sure Jan, the toxic male was Rhaegar who just...cheated. And abandoned his ARRANGED marriage for another woman. Give me a fucking break. Rhaegar was the only decent human being amongst all these pathetic scumbags and the text says so, repeatedly, from multiple POVs.

*EDITED REBLOG* 11/4/23

Revisiting this Topic: Rhaegar's Actions with Lyanna and Elia

Comments in this thread to Remember:

[winelover1989] it's because cheating is something everyone has actually experienced at some point in their lives so the visceral hate comes from a more personal place compared to the other stuff that horrifies people in more of a news way

[riana-one] Because no one tries to justify what Tywin or Gregor did to Elia while every insane shipper tries to justify, explain away, or defend what Rhaegar did to his wife and children.

[riana-one] Nationally humiliating his pregnant wife. Disappearing after kicking off a major war while leaving his wife and children unprotected and in the reach of Aerys.

[aemontargaryen-bloodraven] Just a warning, Riana-one has dedicated her life to Rhaegar bashing and calling Jon, a Blackfyre for some reason. Also, she is a fan of fics that has Eddard Stark getting Lyanna drugged and forcefully marrying her to Oberyn where she and Jon are constantly abused.

[riana-one] And here we have the disconnect. Rhaegar was not the 'victim', Rhaegar started the entire bloody affair. Disappearing with the Warden of the North's daughter and leaving the diplomatic crisis in the hands of his mad father who burned people alive for dinner theater was the equivalent of throwing a burning match into a barn with all his loved ones aside. You want to reframe the argument about infidelity?

[riana-one] What is worse is leaving your vulnerable wife and children alone, abandoned, and unguarded while a war rages and your mad father can get his hands on them. Aerys regularly savaged his sister queen so badly he maids thought a wild animal attacker her. Elia and her children were in danger, the minute they were ordered to leave Dragonstone. Even leading an army of Dornishmen, Rhaegar leaves his family to Aerys. Then he dies.

[riana-one] You want to minimize Rhaegar's actions but the sad truth that the only reason Elia and her children were in a position to be harmed by Tywin Lannister and his goons because Rhaegar. If Rhaegar hadn't run off with Lyanna, none of this would have happened. If Rhaegar had stuck around to face the Starks, none of this would happen. If Rhaegar had sent his wife and children to Dorne or Essos, none of this would happen. But you want Rhaegar to be the victim.

Tracking Rhaegar's, Elia, and Lyanna's Moves Right Before the Rebellion and During It:

Current Thoughts (Which for the most part, hasn't changed)

A)

Rhaegar was dead before the Sacking of King's Landing, as the Battle of the Trident occurred before that sack. and way before that, before he met up with Lyanna, he had left Elia and their kids at Dragonstone, a place where anyone in his and her position would think they would be safe. After he did this, he traveled around with companions for a while.

It was Aerys who recalled Elia and her kids and used their lives to KL to use against his enemies and motivate Elia's uncle Doran--Prince of Dorne--to send his troops and aid him/Rhaegar just before the Battle of the Trident.

Sometime b/t the time Rhaegar left Elia at Dragonstone and when Rhaegar left with Lyanna. We still do not know what exactly Rhaegar what that conversation was like or what he was doing. He traveled around for a long seeming time before he met up with Lyanna in the riverlands.

He never anticipated, I think, that:

Thus Rhaegar did not have that much reason to suspect that Aerys would even be able to viciously kill Brandon and Rickard, demand Ned's capture from the Arryns, thus triggering them all to call their banners in self-defense & begin the war, AND THEN call Elia back from Dragonstone.

Yes, his running away with Lyanna gave the Starks the motivation to find fault and seek "compensation" from Aerys. Just on the mechanical, practical sense of our knowledge Lyanna is the object on which these men (including Robert) rely for their political alliance.

B)

It seems like the real source of some eople's issue against Rhaegar is not his political decisions or times when he eschewed the political element for the more personal side but that he specifically cheated on Elia, the cheating alone. But his cheating--instead of plotting against him and Aerys and then endangering that plot for his romance with Lyanna--became the reason for his irresponsibility making way for evildoers to successfully carry out their goals. Thus, because he does not stick to his wife and stay close to her, he loses the sympathy of some readers.

If you hated him for just the cheating, valid, since (two things that may not be mutually exclusive, but we don't know for now):

No, I don't think that the "cheating" (bc we simply don't know what was discussed here between Elia & Rhaegar) was moral, but neither do I think that Rhaelys happening & running away WAS THE ONLY nor even the PRIME REASON the war happened. It definitely was the catalyst for it, but the prime and direct cause? That's exaggeration and misplacement of responsibility for the sake of pushing forward nuclear-family monogamist principles for its own sake as if that were THE only right principle of behavior and family. The deaths of the two Starks by Aerys' were not solely Rhaegar's doing as they decided to approach Aerys in that manner despite knowing his craziness AND it is their deaths+their manner+Aerys demanding the lives of Ned & Robert that makes the second trigger for the war. It made Ned and Robert able to quickly use Jon Arryn to amass armies for self-defense. Rhaegar's decision to take Lyanna contradicted his plans for usurping the evil tyrant that is his father because it created a new problem--no one forced him to decide to be with Lyanna, but as one theory states, it's also possible he went to protect Lyanna (KotLT) from Aerys, who had been searching for the Knight since the Tourney at Harrenhal. Which makes the most sense to me.

And this is coming from a person who can't do any sort of ethical non-monogamy and gets nervous at the mere mention of such in relation to how I imagine relationships for myself. I would have rather Rhaegar gotten some message out to Elia or gotten into a conversation with her about this in the year before he flew away with Lyanna--and maybe he did, we don't even know!--and they come to an understanding that Elia, in her heart of hearts, was fine with but made her own set of boundaries for her own face.

The text never once explains or indicates how Elia herself feels about Rhaegar or Lyanna, but we have people claiming that she was emotionally wracked by this? Maybe, likely upset about her reputation or shocked, but we still don't know who this woman was by personality. With no PoV chapters, even fewer direct quotes from her marriage to Rhaegar to learning of his being with Lyanna, and anyone other than her own brother giving details about her facial expressions and body language when this and that event happened-> this is all speculation using on her heritage, her position, her health, and the arrangements of the marriage itself AND our own thoughts & knowledge about marriage, relationships, court life and women in it. One also cannot claim that she was something like Cersei was/would be, feeling totally humiliated, jilted of a perfect and glorious life, hating Rhaegar, etc. Nothing in the text gives strong enough evidence of what Elia thought. even her at the tourney, all we know for sure was that she was there. No details about her expression, what she said to Rhaegar after, nothing. We get more from Rhaegar and Lyanna than we do for her, bc Ned is a witness to Lyanna's final moments as Robert was for Rhaegar and we documentation of their personalities in more detail PLUS the constant winter blue rose symbolism.

But to say that someone maybe cheating on their spouse directly caused their death because they weren't there to protect them is myopic and if or any of all the factors out of Rhaegar's direct control, where the line between personal and political is in this event of Westerosi monarchy rides and it's a condition, and finally, Rhaegar's actions to take the throne for the sake of peace and preparing against the looming threat against pretty the entire world, of which we see Daenerys' visions and Jaime's memories prove.

C)

Then there is the idea that Elia is PoC and that the "white" Rhaegar was negligent of his PoC wife in favor of a white girl. Once again, their marriage was arranged. Rhaegar did not choose Elia, nor did she independently choose him. Her mother pushed for this marriage after the blunder of Tywin suggesting she marry Elia to Tyrion rather than Jaime.

The Dornish can be PoC (some are paler [paler skin, lighter hair and eyes] than others according to region), but they are NOT PoCs in the same way PoCs of real-life modern peoples are. At all. They are more like white Mediterraneans (Spanish and Italian), who northern EUs saw with distrust in real history. GRRM confirms such on his blog in answer to a question about it.

At the same time, in-world they have customs that make them "queer" enough to be Othered and resented for being outsiders "taking" positions that some in Daeron II's court thought were their court/office positions.

Thus AND still, we see no indication that Rhaegar dismissed Elia for her Dornishness.

That model of PoC female partner negligence depends on the circumstance of the couple coming from a background where they, at one point, freely and independently chose each other and worked to love each other romantically. Where is the evidence that Elia and Rhaegar saw each other as exclusive or had a romantic bond in a more personal sense?

In this world, aristocratic marriage doesn't always =/= a partnership and the marital sex used for producing heirs is not automatically indicative of an emotional bond or understanding of limits. Even with women not having the same ability to have open lovers in marriage as their husbands and any male [dwellordream], Elia herself is Dornish and there is the possibility that she would be personally more open to Rhaegar having a side lover than a nonDornish woman. But we simply do not know bc we barely know anything about her herself except in her younger years she had an active sense of humor and is more open/feels freer to tease or speak her mind (her interest in a lord I forget the name of before he farted).

Also, race is weird in ASoIaF, as it was and is in real life and always will be because race makes no rational sense.

First, both Andals and First Men first came from Essos just as Valyrians and Rhoynish people do and Essos is an analogue for the "Orient" (Asia) but somehow the religion of the Andals (analogue of Catholicism, which modern peoples associate the origins to Europe even though it actually originated in the Mid East). This does seem to try to mirror how there were Christian Africans. And the Summer Islanders are definitely African analouges by how the Westerosi (Daella and Cersei) mimic how medieval Europeans thought of actual Africans and their skin color/reactions to seeing them for the first time in their decidedly non-Westerosi attire. They also hold Pacific Islander cultural attributes and live on islands, physically isolated from the rest of the world except other, closer Islands. And instead of the First Men being like those indigenous groups in crossing a land bridge into a human/hominid land, they are the ones to war with hominids and perform acts of cultural extinction similar to Europeans vs indigenous folk.

This actually goes to establish that the Andals and FM are white analogs, but in the medieval ages and earlier, one's skin color didn't automatically equal that you were a completely different ethnic group. That was more about religion, customs, language, and who lives under what military leader. This is why Jewish people, for a long time, were considered people of their own "race" by eugenists and 15th-century Spanish blood purist authorities who wished to "cleanse" Spain of Muslim, ME, and African Moors and Jewish Europeans. And why, still today, Jewish people aren't considered white "enough" or white at all by some eugenicists, racists, or white people.

Skin-color-linked-to-location racism didn't really come in until people needed a more physical marker of inherent difference, and even then Jewish people were marked Other through religion.

While the Martells usually have darker features by being one of the "salty" Dornish that Daeron I categorized, there are Dornish people who are as pale as a Valyrian, have light-colored eyes like other Westerosi, etc. These are the "stony" Dornish of northern Dorne. The Martells are of the darker "salty" Dornish, and all Dornish have the Seven as their religion (unless we're talking about the Green blood), the same customs, and language (again not the Green blood), all under the Martells' authority. These are all exonyms Daeron I created when he attempted to conquer Dorne, which was at first successful but later was defeated and Dorne retained its independence.

There is no solid racial hierarchy in a consolidated, central state (yet?) and not any that mirrors the modern, real Western one.

Yes, there is xenophobia towards the Dornish from non-Dornish lords, esp in the marches. However, there is no apartheid, no legal nor economic segregation against Dornish or giving some Dornish subtler legal benefits to one people over the other people based on skin or else bc Dorne is still self-sustaining with its own armies. Specifically for there to be anti-Dornish feelings from every single noble, esp a Targ other than Aerys, at court. Unless we talk about Dornish migrants into Westeros, where of course we're going to see a lot more blatant discrimination ind and socially.

Some fraction of stormlanders, Reachmen, and Dornish all lived/live in the Dornish marches as they fought with each other for resources and in revenge trips. The Marches are a section of land:

AND it is:

The "stony" Dornish AND the Dornish marchers of the Dornish marches tend to be lighter of skin and eyes like the Stormlanders, Reachmen, and Stomlander/Reachman marchers and they have the most in common with other Dornishmen -> and yet:

It's not accurate to say that the Martells or the Dornishmen are PoCs in the exact same way that African or Arabic people are PoCs in today's sociopolitical global community in light of all that. That would be like saying the Italians, Spanish, Welsh, Irish, Scots, are all PoCs just because they fought against Anglo-Saxons for independence and because the Anglo-Saxons Othered them for it. However, the Martells at least do seem to be able to be adapted as PoC bc of the skin color, which doesn't matter as much as the refusal to bar women from power?...confusion.

The Martells have been loyal (or really non-combative and have officially become a part of the 7 kingdoms) to Rhaegar's house ever since Daeron I's marriage and to this day seek revenge not against Daenerys or any Targ but Robert and especially Tywin for their betrayal and Elia/her kids' murders. Yes, Doran, Oberyn, and Lewyn Martell all look side at Rhaegar for leaving Elia at all for Lyanna, but the Martells have always been considered to be worthy persons to ally themselves with and to marry, with no feelings about skin or such from any Targ.

Well, maybe not Aerys II, who said that his granddaughter Rhaenys "smelled Dornish", but he was the one to seek out and approve of the marriage in the first place.

....All to say that Aerys' sentiment was not as endemic or indicative of actual systematic discrimination against Dornish peoples [discriminatory laws, economic exclusion, impoverishment of ethnic groups, none of this exists in Westeros specifically towards Dornish peoples]) NOR does Rhaegar ever express anti-Dornishness. That rather was a Baratheon or other stormlanders/marchers (and not much one else) in the time of Daeron II.

D)

Rather, Elia x Rhaegar are foils of the would be Robert x Lyanna and the Robert x Cersei pairings.

I think that we have a case of people trying to push forward a principle of relationships onto a grander political platform when the relationship is really only one bar of a ladder that's been constructed for a long long time. But they want to attack the cheating by making it the material of which the ladder is made of.

Did Rhaegar know of discontent against Aerys, including Tywin? Most likely, he wasn't incapable of observation and reasoning, but even then, how would he know that Tywin was so discontented as to want to or be close to stage a coup or turn his soldiers against the Targs in their moment of need? In the text, several times, it is expressed how much of a surprise it was, everyone expected the Lannister to back the Targs all the way through. We the readers may know, they don't. Pseudo-Dramatic irony.

And while Rhaegar knew there were probably enemies and who they were, he has no way of actually knowing that the Starks would think it wise to confront Aerys alone and head on, that Aerys would kill them in such humiliating and traumatic ways, that Tywin specifically as pretty much instantaneously ready to take them all on.

And his presence at KL would have helped at least marginally, but what if he had traveled at Aerys' own behest or gone on to other duties that took him far away from KL?

Wouldn't Tywin have also taken advantage then? Maybe it wouldn't have been the exact same way as what happened after Rhaegar and Lyanna dipped, but if the element Tywin wanted was Rhaegar's absence, there are ways other than Rhaegar's own decision to get him out of KL for a specific or inordinate amount of time and separate him from an army. It is said that Rhaegar's departure with Lyanna is the trigger and/or actual cause of the war, but again Tywin was likely always plotting against the Targs and biding his time, seeing what he could gain at every turn of the fighting. Rhaegar did make it easier by not being present, but is there true evidence that he would have won if he stayed at Dragonstone and followed Elia to KL? How would he have known there would have been a war triggered by the Aersy and the Starks in the exact way that it actually happened when it was very preventable on Brandon and Rickard Stark's end?

And concerning Aerys being a danger to Elia and her kids, was Aerys only ever dangerous to them once Tywin and Robert threatened him?! And even then, he left them alone, not abuse them. And how could he stop his king father from keeping Elia and their kids with him when it's obvious Aerys was determined to keep them close? What would readers have done, with a volatile, paranoid, but-in-the-highest-position-of-power directs that your family stays close to them during a war, what would readers have done? I wonder. As long as you don't rile or make Aerys/someone like him suspicious too much, your kids are safe.

Also, Aerys refused to take Elia and her kids to Dragonstone with Rhaella and his own son, Viserys, because he wanted to use her and those kids as hostages believing that the Dornish had betrayed him after the Battle of the Trident where the Targ army with the Dornish army lost. Aerys wasn't afraid of getting on Rhaella's "bad side" nor was wary of her because she literally had no power against him, no other persons who could help her, and was under his full authority. Earlier male Targ practice of denying/taking political authority or power away from their female relatives and long-storied Andal systematic patriarchal custom. Aerys didn't develop a solid hatred or suspicion of the Dornish Martells or Elia for him to actually try to hurt her to display his own authority. He wasn't in the mind of even getting the ire of the Martells, seeing as they were still allies, by mistreating Elia. and Lyanna as well, as she was betrothed already to Robert.

E)

Bringing Back an Accidentally Deleted Segment about the Custom of crowning the queen of Love and Beauty* (1/13/23)

Yes, if a knight is married/betrothed, he may crown his wife/betrothed. However, he's not required to do so. There are no official rules that he needs to; social, yes, official to the tourney or game, or by actual LAW by the monarch, absolutely not.

Knights have given the crown to those:

A hefty part of the reason for naming one's betrothed or wife or target of attraction Queen of LB is because marriages are political and about alliances and doing such is supposed to also publicly show that two families could/will join in some sort of alliance. It is to show the public the alliance between the two families/heads of houses. Marriage is a common way. So the prioritized reason that a scandal would happen if a knight were to name a woman (old enough not marry) TQoLaB would be he's transgressing such alliances or seemingly willingly putting his own families in danger, as his cheating would be seen as dishonoring not just his wife, but that BECAUSE the marriage is a political tool PLUS the treatment you give to the daughter of a house reflects on that house.

Examples of known queens of love & beauty before Lyanna in Westeros:

The Chivalric Code, Courtly Love, and Medieval Noble Women

Numerous times, we learn that the knight of Westeros isn't too dissimilar form knights of real-world EU, nor is their code of conduct that dissimilar. Chivalry and courtly love, atp, also became deeply connecting and mutually affirming, the same for Westeros.

According to "The Knights’ Code of Chivalry", first recorded & described in the Song of Roland (1098-1100):

And courtly love:

Courtly love, yes, was ideal for adults, but young girls were socialized to "matter" as "young ladies", and the attention towards their claimed/perceived "perfection" of femininity and grace can/did nominate them for being acknowledged as things like the TQoLaB:

Now, why this was "elevating" for women, instead of being seen as bad at the time and moment? Before courtly love really took off and as people lived mostly in their castles, the dissemination of praise for the lady of the household/castle and wife of the lord was not expansive. Women were not as put in the public view nor understood of making subtle alliances, etc. Though chivalry & courtly romance do romanticize the noble lady she becomes a means to edify and reaffirm chivalric masculinity and patriarchal feudalism by making her the center/hub/patron of information...it also made her the principal and comparatively more central means for that, thus granted woman more authority and agency within the then framework. And girls are a part of that, being "trained" or just observing, but definitely still moving into those circles as they grow.

Elia

This isn't to say that Elia would have been a-okay with Rhaegar skipping past her--if they hadn't discussed it before, which no one can disprove, but since we can't prove it either...--but it is to say that Rhaegar did have a freer choice in who to name as TQoLaB. And this is where one theory comes into play, that Rhaegar POSSIBLY wished to make an alliance with the Starks and did it this way, acknowledging Lyanna's and unaware of how personally Robert would take that (yes, Robert had a choice and ability to not look at this as an "insult", that's machismo talking). We also have to remember that AWoIaF is written by Yandel, who obviously is trying to avoid crown censure or appeal to Robert and his later ruling sons--really the Lannisters giving power to him in the back scenes--and the Targs are a usurped dynasty....it would serve to keep to this particular narrative of RhaegarxLyanna being the MAIN reason why Robert went to war or how relations amongst several lords lead to a war-ready state before said war....when it certainly was not.

It's certainly better than making Elia out to be this victim of her husband's negligence OR abuse--a tired pattern in ASoIaf, if there. And again, I don't know if she became weak-willed seeing her humor and attitude before her marriage about some lord she was thinking of marrying before he either farted or burped.

It's possible that rather than being weak she was held back by the lethargy from being sick AND narrowly surviving 2 childbirths, so it would be "weak will" so much, again, as her prioritizing and/or her being okay with the affairs because of Dornishnesses. Until we get proof of otherwise, I prefer this reading to the totally helpless-to-cheating-victim story that also doesn't make sense anyway bc: 1) Rhaegar did what he could to protect her 2) cheating doesn't cause murders, murderers cause murders.

F)

Rhaegar seems to give Lyanna the crown of Love and Beauty not because he was in love with her right then & there (they literally had just met) or just because he was attracted to her.

Aerys sent him to capture the mysterious Knight of the Laughing Tree bc Aerys thought the knight was his enemy or a dangerous entity due to this disguise and the tree itself was laughing specifically at him. This is most likely how Rhaegar met Lyanna unofficially, him discovering her identity.

Some theorize that Rhaegar was not actually trying to hit on Lyanna through the crown so much as to offer her safety from Aerys. And this reasoning (according to the person) can go as far as why he took her to the Tower of Joy. I go with this theory.

As mentioned, Some say he wanted a stronger Baratheon-Stark alliance as his father has been growing suspicions of him and, again, he was plotting to make Aerys abdicate and he seems to have thought that giving the crown of LB would have complimented Robert and the Starks even with him being married to Elia and Lyanna betrothed because while it's expected that a knight gives that to his wife if he has one, he also can theoretically give it to any woman he wishes the favor of and dedicate his victory to (which could be political or personal, lines can be blurred). He already had the Martells as allies. However, the Stark father and brother and Robert were all outraged and that was easy to predict on Rhaegar's end, so it couldn't be this.

Some say that he admired her participation as the Knight of the Laughing Tree, had a vision or remembered one about winter roses being connected to her, that weirwood tree on the sigil, or her Starkness (old gods and weirwood association, the Starks are the Wards of the North and closest to that magic), and gave her the crown to tie themselves together in the future (or hint of one) he saw for whatever outcome he concluded. This could include the 1st theory about him wanting to protect her from Aerys but in my eyes, even that would be subordinate to my own estimation of why he did it.

I do not think Elia would be "okay" or indifferent towards his affair with Lyanna or that they had a kid together because that would present problems for how the Martells, Starks, and Lannisters all interact if Ned and Lyanna decided to make it known that this kid was Rhaegar's.

In any case, Rhaegar never annulled his marriage to Elia, so Jon/Aegon (if Lyanna's kid, which atp he def is) is definitely a bastard.

IF ELIA WAS CONCERNED OR ANGRY OR THREATENED BY RHAEGAR'S EXTERNAL ROMANCE(S): No, this kid would never have as much claim to the throne as Elia's kids, she wouldn't be upset with that specifically or how that could a legitimate kid with another noblewoman could endanger her kid. But Lyanna having her name and image smeared (her father and brothers and Robert are all very proud and virginity is a must for these knuckleheads' alliance) would present higher-risk complications for the Starks-to-Baratheons, and yes what happens with the war/rebellion.

[w/o considering Elia] Robert would never be able to look at Jon/Aegon and not think of Rhaegar, thus always exacerbating that relationship...if Robert had even allowed himself to not react immediately. It also would hurt the relationship between Ned and Robert bc Ned, no matter what would protect Lyanna, and had she lived, would most likely have sent her away and kept her location secret.