24 replies to this topic

[TheRedBaron]

The other day I was thinking about how King Robert and all of those kings have been the "King of the Seven Kingdoms". This goes all the way back to King Aegon I. Now Dorne wasn't annexed until a century and a half after Aegon the Conqueror. So shouldn't the kings from Aegon I to Aegon III (the king before Daeron I) be titled "King of the Six Kingdoms" since Dorne isn't yet a part of the kingdom?

[Lady Sansa Stark]

Yes, they should. But this was Aegon the Conqueror, who thought it'd be cool to annex Westeros and burn the shit out of it. I don't think he cared a lot for the exact title he got..

[Fire Eater]

The Iron Islands the Riverlands which were once one kingdom were sepearated, and made into two separate kingdoms. That adds one more to the six kingdoms creating seven.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Lady Sansa Stark, on 21 January 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

Yes, they should. But this was Aegon the Conqueror, who thought it'd be cool to annex Westeros and burn the shit out of it. I don't think he cared a lot for the exact title he got..

Well that's one way of putting it.

I suppose you could argue that the Riverlands was its own separate "kingdom" that had been taken over by the Ironborn. Come to think of it, when people say "the Seven Kingdoms" I think they mean the Riverlands instead of the Iron Islands.
To answer your question, yes, but Aegon may have justified it by saying "there were seven kingdoms, not including Dorne, it's just that one got taken over by another at some point."

ETA: Fire Eater has the same answer, just phrased much better.

Edited by Stannis Eats No Peaches, 21 January 2013 - 03:52 PM.

[Ponys123]

I believe it's actually 7 kingdoms (North, Riverlands, Westerlands, Iron Islands, Vale, Stormlands, Reach) and Dorne, which is technically a vassal prinicpality rather than a direct part of the realm.

[Ser NotAppearingInThisBook]

"

Stannis Eats No Peaches, on 21 January 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

I suppose you could argue that the Riverlands was its own separate "kingdom" that had been taken over by the Ironborn. Come to think of it, when people say "the Seven Kingdoms" I think they mean the Riverlands instead of the Iron Islands.
To answer your question, yes, but Aegon may have justified it by saying "there were seven kingdoms, not including Dorne, it's just that one got taken over by another at some point."

ETA: Fire Eater has the same answer, just phrased much better.

By that reckoning, since prior to Nymeria, Dorne was separated into at least 2 kingdoms ruled by the Yronwoods and the Martells, that should count as two. So the proper title should be "King of what used be Nine Kingdoms, then was Seven Kingdoms, but now is really One Kingdom with 7 major regions."

[Apple Martini]

Actually, from how I understand it, the Riverlands is not considered a separate kingdom, not before or after the Conquest. It was included with the Iron Islands (because both were under ironborn control) as one kingdom of the seven (North, Westerlands, Dorne, Vale, Reach, Stormlands, Iron Islands/Riverlands). The country as it is now has nine regions: North, Vale, Riverlands, Crownlands, Dorne, Reach, Vale, Iron Islands and Stormlands. The Crownlands are under the authority of, well, the crown, and the Riverlands was separated from the Iron Islands as a single political entity after the Conquest. So basically, regions =/= kingdoms, necessarily.

And yes it's odd that the Targs were styled as kings of the Seven Kingdoms even when Dorne wasn't annexed, but a lot of that can be put down to propaganda (kind of like how British monarchs were still called kings and queens of France even though they might not technically hold land there or only very tenuously hold land). I think it was a signal of their ambition to hold Dorne, not really so much that they actually had it yet.

There's also the possibility that the Seven Kingdoms title is given to Targ kings retroactively. This happens in real life, too. Elizabeth II is still called Elizabeth II in Scotland, even though Scotland didn't join the British nation-state until after Elizabeth I (meaning, England's Elizabeth II should really be Scotland's Elizabeth I, but she isn't).

Edited by Apple Martini, 21 January 2013 - 04:34 PM.

[Ran]

I've long suggested that despite failing to get the Dornish to submit, the fact that Aegon's forces marched through the place while the Dornish strenuously avoided open battle or sieges likely gave Aegon license to declare victory and go home.

[Full-Faced Braavosi]

Apple Martini, on 21 January 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

There's also the possibility that the Seven Kingdoms title is given to Targ kings retroactively. This happens in real life, too. Elizabeth II is still called Elizabeth II in Scotland, even though Scotland didn't join the British nation-state until after Elizabeth I (meaning, England's Elizabeth II should really be Scotland's Elizabeth I, but she isn't).

And yet Queen Elizabeth I is not retroactively called Queen of the UK.

[Apple Martini]

Full-Faced Braavosi, on 21 January 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

And yet Queen Elizabeth I is not retroactively called Queen of the UK.

No, but by calling Elizabeth II that name in Scotland, it's kind of implicit. If she's Elizabeth II in Scotland, it follows that there must have been an Elizabeth I.

Edited by Apple Martini, 21 January 2013 - 04:46 PM.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Full-Faced Braavosi, on 21 January 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

And yet Queen Elizabeth I is not retroactively called Queen of the UK.

I think the difference is that the Seven Kingdoms existed before Aegon arrived, and because he had the intention of ruling Dorne but the UK was formed long after Elizabeth I's death and as far as I'm aware, she didn't intend to rule Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[TalalOfDorne]

I The seven kingdoms are: North, Iron Islands, Vale, Westerlands, Stormlands, Reach, and Dorne.  The Riverlands were never a kingdom as they were a region under Ironborn control and a region under Targaryen control after the conquest.

As to why the Targaryens styled themselves as Kings of The Seven Kingdoms could mean that they had no intention of leaving Dorne independent, or that they simply don't recognize its independence.

[VivaVictarion2]

Maybe Aegon wanted to call it "The Six Kingdoms" or "The Eight Kingdoms," but perhaps he used the number Seven to appease The Starry Sept.

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Apple Martini, on 21 January 2013 - 04:45 PM, said:

No, but by calling Elizabeth II that name in Scotland, it's kind of implicit. If she's Elizabeth II in Scotland, it follows that there must have been an Elizabeth I.

My question now, off-topic though it may be, is that why was James I called James I. He was the first James to rule England, but IIRC he was the sixth James to rule Scotland. If Elizabeth II is called Elizabeth II in Scotland, then why aren't James I and James II called VI and VII respectively over here?

Feel free not to answer, this question is irrelevant anyway.

[Ponys123]

Dorne is neither annexed nor a kingdom. The Riverlands have a lord paramount, like all the other kingdoms, while Dorne has a prince and is in what amounts to a leftover personal union with the Iron Throne.

[Apple Martini]

Stannis Eats No Peaches, on 21 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

My question now, off-topic though it may be, is that why was James I called James I. He was the first James to rule England, but IIRC he was the sixth James to rule Scotland. If Elizabeth II is called Elizabeth II in Scotland, then why aren't James I and James II called VI and VII respectively over here?

Feel free not to answer, this question is irrelevant anyway.

Because England makes the rules. Pat answer, but true. EDIT: And also what Adelstein says about unification. But the Scots didn't take Elizabeth II's name on their mailboxes too kindly; a few of them were vandalized and/or set on fire.

Ponys123, on 21 January 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

Dorne is neither annexed nor a kingdom. The Riverlands have a lord paramount, like all the other kingdoms, while Dorne has a prince and is in what amounts to a leftover personal union with the Iron Throne.

Dorne functions/functioned as a kingdom and only styles its rulers as "prince" or "princess" because of Rhoynish/Essosi custom. Don't let the titles confuse you. And it is very much annexed; it just operates on a different set of rules (namely, its inheritance and the titles of its rulers) from the other regions, which I believe was part of the conditions of said annexation. But it is part of the Westerosi nation-state and swears fealty to the Iron Throne. That means it's annexed.

Edited by Apple Martini, 21 January 2013 - 05:22 PM.

[Adelstein]

Stannis Eats No Peaches, on 21 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

My question now, off-topic though it may be, is that why was James I called James I. He was the first James to rule England, but IIRC he was the sixth James to rule Scotland. If Elizabeth II is called Elizabeth II in Scotland, then why aren't James I and James II called VI and VII respectively over here?

Feel free not to answer, this question is irrelevant anyway.

Most of the Stuarts didn't reign over a united realm: they were kings (or queens) of England and Scotland, not of one kingdom. So James I of England was James VI of Scotland and James II of England was also James VII of Scotland, while William III of England and Orange was William II of Scotland. Coincidentally, Mary II of England was also Mary II of Scotland. Most books will number at least James I as "James I and VI" or "James VI and I"; with the other two it doesn't happen so often (especially William, as otherwise it just gets long and confusing).

With the Act of Union the separate kingdoms of England and Scotland were abolished and one United Kingdom was created. The numbering for monarchs of the United Kingdom follows the English numbering for some reason, although with most of them it hasn't mattered. The only ones that would be out of sync with the Scottish numbering are William IV (III), Edward VII (I), Edward VIII (II) and Elizabeth II (I)

That said, the Edwards are out of sync with the actual number of Edwards anyway. Depending on who you count as the first king of England, Edward VIII should have been either Edward X or Edward XI (or, of the UK, Edward I).

See also Sweden, where they made up eight historical King Charleses, so their numbering is totally out of whack.

In fact, now I think about it, I think Elizabeth uses the "II" styling in all her realms - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. even though most of them never had an Elizabeth I. I suspect the only place the "II" styling is technically accurate is as Duke of Normandy in the Channel Islands.

Edited by Adelstein, 21 January 2013 - 05:25 PM.

[Ser Pythagoras]

An interesting scene in the book that I think speaks well to this is when mace tyrell gives joff the wedding chalice. It has seven sides for seven kingdoms, but includes the tully fish, and joff makes a comment about scraping off the wolf and putting a kraken. I think this shows that people in westeros think of the current seven as including the river lands but not the crownlands and iron islands (because they have a serious noble family to make marriages with as the islands and crownlands do not) even if that is not how they originally developed.

[Thendel]

Ser Pythagoras, on 21 January 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

An interesting scene in the book that I think speaks well to this is when mace tyrell gives joff the wedding chalice. It has seven sides for seven kingdoms, but includes the tully fish, and joff makes a comment about scraping off the wolf and putting a kraken. I think this shows that people in westeros think of the current seven as including the river lands but not the crownlands and iron islands (because they have a serious noble family to make marriages with as the islands and crownlands do not) even if that is not how they originally developed.

Indeed. The Ironborn are more or less considered notoriously unstable and unruly compared to the rest of the kingdom. Accordingly, no greenlander would marry an Ironborn nor consider them a dependable trade partner, given that the idea of cooperation and peaceful co-existence is so foreign to them.

[Naathi Prince]

As usual, Apple Martini explains this before I got to it. Essentially the Targaryens may not have had control of Dorne, but they claimed rulership of it.