I appreciate the in-depth research, the acknowledgement that there is a dissonance in the two values of the translation I provided in the question, and now I can finish reading it in peace.

@T-1000'sSon If you read the question, it actually acknowledges that it is possibly a typo/mistranslation, and then asks the question: Which one is correct? – it was a false assumption that I hadn't already sussed out that "typo" was likely at fault here.

@RichS What I'm referring to is hyperlinked in the question for those who don't know what a Jedi mind trick is.

@KSmarts Nah - she merely repeated her instructions immediately afterwards in the same scene and succeeded. By the logic you present, we should also tally all the times people like Qui-Gonn tried, failed, tried again and failed again as additional attempts/fails. That's rather silly.

I'm not using "Had this not happened" logic. I think Aerys would have perished miserably and his rule ended in a similar fashion, whether Rhaegar's abduction happened or not - therefore I'm not saying "Had Rhaegar's abduction not happened". I instead look at it as the cause of a critical cascade of events that led to Aerys' demise in this instance/in this universe where things happened as they did. I still think Aerys was heading full-steam ahead toward doom, which is why I acknowledge that your argument is a satisfying alternative, even if it's not the one I adhere to, personally.

This is why I say it's technically subjective where exactly you choose to point as the cause. You could go back many centuries and point to a critical factor. The reason I choose Rhaegar's abduction and historians point to Gavrilo Princip, is because from that action stems a very densely packed cascade of events that lead to a certain result (WW1 or Robert's rebellion).

@Annatar Your idea is that Aerys was a disastrous madman who's undoing was waiting to happen, like an unstoppable train, whether this abduction had happened or not - I agree and accept this idea, while also expressing that I never would say otherwise, or have done, it's just that in the specific example of events that did play out, his undoing can be traced back to the event of Rhaegar "abducting" Lyanna - I use the Princip/WW1 example on purpose. Britain and France's fear of Germany's power would have led to a war anyway, but Princip set it in motion.

@Annatar I see your point, you make a good case. However, avoid using "had this not happened" logic, because that's the thing with this multi-factorial web of events: Had Rhaegar not kidnapped Lyanna, Brandon wouldn't have demanded Rhaegar should die at the Red Keep. Had Aegon I not conquered Westeros ... Had Jon Arryn followed his king's orders ... This logic isn't strong when looking for a cause in this case, but I don't discount your comment, as I say, you do make good arguments. I accept your choice to point to Aerys for being the main cause of the rebellion.

@Flater While I do some research to reply properly, the point still remains that the kidnapping was the initial domino stone, kinda like Gavrilo Princip assassinating Ferdinand - there are obviously larger tensions and cogs at play, just like in A Song of Ice and Fire, but that was what set off the cascade of events. I already said that it's subjective where exactly you point to as the cause of the rebellion, because it's multi-factorial: The Starks' honour, Aerys' madness, Robert's craze for Lyanna, and the kidnapping. That means you're free to point wherever you please for a start.

@Flater He demands for the death of Rhaegar. That's a crime, no matter how you twist it. I literally say "Brandon's actions can be traced back to hearing word of his sister being abducted", so I'm not sure why you are repeating my own words back to me - it reinforces my point that the kidnapping is the event that started it all off, which is why I worded it thusly in my question. Thank you.