All-Seeing Aye

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About All-Seeing Aye

  • Rank
  1. Wanted to see if you have any thoughts on my Moon of the Three Kings post from several weeks ago. I'm less certain now about the Shepherd really being a 'king', but he and his supporters did rule part of the city after Rhaenyra fled (so possibly in a metaphorical sense?). Still uncertain about whether the timeline we currently have is accurate/fully fleshed out.
  2. Hi Linda. Copying text directly from my last post in this thread. I've been contributing to the ASOIAF wiki thread for a while now, pointing out both small typos and larger issues. I would love to be able to edit directly as there are a significant number of minor grammatical issues across multiple pages that aren't worth listing in the general thread. At this time is there still an active effort to fix the issue whereby new editors are not able to be created?
  3. Thanks for pointing out that TWOIAF quote, your explanation makes a lot of sense. So with that in mind should he be added to the category page for master of whisperers ( and have it added to the infobox on his own page?
  4. I agree that the image is meant to depict Theon as Reek, and it should therefore probably be removed as you say from the first Reek's article (not sure why it was put there in the first place). Following up on the above (TWOIAF says Visenya's Hill for the House of Kisses), the article for the Iron Throne also has an image that uses a year 0, which ideally should be removed. The image also uses the outdated AL system instead of the authoritative AC system from TWOIAF. "He later became Aerys I Targaryen's master of whisperers as well as Hand of the King.[6]" The sources already cited note that Bloodraven was never titled master of whisperers, so the quoted text should be revised (doesn't actually make a lot of sense that he wasn't, though the app update about being 'spymaster' said otherwise).
  5. The article on the Moon of the Three Kings should be reworded for clarity and accuracy: It seems pretty clear that Aegon II was not one of these three kings. It's Gaemon Palehair, Trystane Truefyre, and the Shepherd (who admittedly was not a 'king', but ruled part of the city in the absence of Aegon II and Rhaenyra: Aegon II is explicitly not in King's Landing during the Moon; he's recuperating on Dragonstone and doesn't leave until after Sunfyre dies in the 12th month of the year 130. Rhaenyra dies in the 10th month after wandering desperately for several months after abandoning the city in the 5th month. So technically the 'month' is bookended by Rhaenyra's flight and the arrival of Borros Baratheon to restore the greens' authority (in the name of Aegon II, but without his presence), as I read it. So it may not even be a literal month, as clearly there is some time between Rhaenyra's flight and the restoration of green authority. Or perhaps the three power bases in the city only coincide for a month? Hopefully the excised content from Fire and Blood will eventually create a more definitive timeline. Was the House of Kisses on Rhaenys's Hill or Visenya's Hill? The article for the Shepherd says Gaemon Palehair ruled from the former while the Moon of the Three Kings article says the latter. This image on the Years after Aegon's Conquest page includes a year 0: Unless there is some evidence somewhere for a year 0 that I've missed, I think that year should be removed since no mention of the AC/BC system in TWOIAF or any other source includes a year 0. Our own system of BC/AD and BCE/CE lacks a year 0, so in the absence of something saying otherwise the default should be that there's no year 0.
  6. Right. But nothing in there technically precludes having a year 0. I agree that it seems there is no year 0, if only because the term 0 AC/BC is never used in TWOIAF. So without a year 0 is Aegon's reign, 1 AC-37 AC, 36 years (37-1) or 37 years? The nomenclature is also somewhat misleading in general because 1 AC, nominally 1 year 'after the Conquest', is actually the endpoint of the Conquest. BL/AL actually made a lot more sense as a dating system because it was tied to a specific event (the landing at the mouth of the Blackwater in 2 BC) as opposed to a multiyear event (the War of Conquest).
  7. I've been contributing to the ASOIAF wiki thread for a while now, pointing out both small typos and larger issues. I would love to be able to edit directly as there are a significant number of minor grammatical issues across multiple pages that aren't worth listing in the general thread. At this time is there still an active effort to fix the issue whereby new editors are not able to be created?
  8. Sort of a random question but couldn't find a definitive answer anywhere; apologies if this has been covered previously. The graphic on the Years after Aegon's Conquest page shows a year 0 between 1 BC and 1 BC ( In our own system of BC/AD or BCE/CE, there is no year 0. TWOIAF established the BC/AC labeling which superseded the BL/AL nomenclature (previously used unofficially in the fandom). It's also important to distinguish between the Landing (in 2 BC) and the Conquest, which apparently was concluded with his coronation in 1 AC. This could affect the calculations for the ages of Aegon, Rhaenys, and Visenya, the length of the War of the Conquest (2 BC-1 AC, so either ~3 or just 'more than' 2 years depending on the presence of a year 0), and the length of Aegon's own reign. Any thoughts?
  9. After thinking about it some more, there actually seems to be some ambiguity about the name Shiera. On the one hand, her mother Serenei is from Lys and would therefore know the Lysene dialect of Valyrian. We know from one of GRRM's SSMs that her name means 'star of the sea'. On the other hand, in ACOK Dany learns that the Dothraki are calling the red comet 'shierak qiya', which means 'bleeding star' in Dothraki. So it seems that Shiera etymologically refers to 'star'. I don't think (someone correct me if I'm incorrect) that Dothraki and Valyrian are meant to be directly related, so either it's a loan word or a simple language oversight on GRRM's part. I certainly don't think Aegon and Serenei would want their daughter named in the Dothraki language. With Shiera there's a further complication in that there's a Shiera Blackwood who lived before the Conquest. Either there was more long-distance linguistic interaction than we thought, the name arose separately in multiple regions, or it's just an oversight on GRRM's part
  10. Thanks! In terms of Serra and Varys, I have several thoughts. I am a firm believer that 'Aegon Targaryen' is actually (unknowingly, on his part) the son of Serra and Illyrio Mopatis, and that Serra is is probably a female-line descendant of House Blackfyre. However, I'm not sure that her name is evidence for that. For one thing, the name is not exclusively used in Lys (Serra Frey, for example). It all really depends on whether the female Blackfyre line is meant to have been essentially forgotten or over time, in which case naming would be less important as signifying anything. That said, the name Serra certainly does seem similar to Targaryen names like Viserra and Saera, and it has the double-consonant +a ending seen in the only female Blackfyre whose name we know at this time (Calla Blackfyre). Certainly if any bastard descendants of Aerion are involved naming would be more affected (though I'm not sure if the Brightflame connection will be brought up). In terms of Varys, according to Pycelle he was born in Lys as well. Varys seems like a generic -rys name of Valyrian origin, and personally I could see things going either way (either a secret Blackfyre/Brighflame/Brightfyre supporter or just a ruthless utilitarian shaping his perfect prince, who just happens to be the heir to an exiled legitimized bloodline). For the purposes of this analysis I was primarily interested in House Targaryen proper, and that does not usually include descendants in the female line (with the apparent exceptions of the royal Velaryons around the time of the Great Council of 101 and the Dance, and Rhaego). Otherwise, the analysis would have had to be broadened to include House Martell (via Daenerys), House Baratheon (via Rhaelle), etc. I'm interested in the internal use of names within the dynasty exclusively, with House Blackfyre included because it made long-term dynastic claims and consistently mimicked Targaryen naming conventions. The naming of bastards is a mixed bag; we also only have names from an unrepresentative sample, the bastards of Aegon IV (no info on the names of Aegon II's bastards or any of the rumored bastards of Viserys I, Aerys II, etc.) Aegor definitely seems to be Valryian, while Brynden and Mya definitely are not (Gwenys could be). Bellanora seems to be Braavosi, Narha I'm not sure of (Summer Islander derivative?), and Balerion is, interestingly enough, named after the Black Dread, who himself was named after the god worshipped in Valyria. Alysanne, as you mention, may be derived from Alyssa and may be Valyrian, but Lily, Willow, and Rosey are 'common' Westerosi names. Shiera is Valyrian. If you buy the 'two drops of dragon's blood' story then Viserys Plumm is the only example of Aegon's known bastards having a name used elsewhere in House Targaryen. Furthermore, whether a name is Targaryen or Valyrian in origin is less the point than how names are used within the family. We have figures like Aegon Frey, Rhaegar Frey, Aemon Costayne, etc. where Targaryen names are adopted for use in other houses, which is interesting. For the children of Jaehaerys I and Alysanne, my point is less about honor and more noting the fact that there's a reservoir of names that just disappear from the family afterwards. Instead, future members make new names or draw from older names. And dying without issue is definitely not a disqualifying feature from using a name again; look at Daeron I and Baelor I, Aemon the Dragonknight as the namesake of Maester Aemon, Aerys II being named after one of the weakest kings, etc. Yes, I know it's confirmed. My point is that the name appears consistently across most generations in all capacities, including both all of the would-be heirs who died young or before their time (Aenys's son Aegon, Jaehaerys I's son Aegon, etc.) as well as younger sons who died young (Viserys I's son Aegon, Aerys II's son Aegon, etc.). This is in contrast to the clustering I mentioned, such as (as you mentioned) early names like Baelon that either evolved or weren't used again.
  11. Below are lists of all known male and female names used in House Targaryen. Criteria for inclusion are as follows: a trueborn male-line member of House Targaryen, thereby excluding children of female Targaryens such as Viserys Plumm, bastards such as Aegor Rivers and Brynden Rivers, and alleged bastards such as Trystane Truefyre and Gaemon Palehair. House Blackfyre members are included in parentheses because of unique claims to multi-candidate dynastic status and similar long-term naming conventions as compared to House Targaryen. Jon Snow, despite being the son of Rhaegar Targaryen and Lyanna Stark, is not included because of uncertainty over whether he is a bastard (also because unlike every other Targaryen on this list, he was not named by a Targaryen but rather by his uncle Eddard Stark). Targaryens from before the War of Conquest are included. Named stillborn children such as Shaena Targaryen are included. Male names: Aegon: 11 (not including 1 Aegon Blackfyre) Daeron: 6 Viserys: 4 Jaehaerys: 4 Aerys: 3 Aemon: 3 (not including 1 Aemon Blackfyre) Baelon: 3 Baelor: 2 Gaemon: 2 Maegor: 2 Aerion: 2 Aenar: 1 Aelyx: 1 Maegon: 1 Daemion: 1 Aenys: 1 (not including 1 Aenys Blackfyre) Aeryn: 1 Valerion: 1 Vaegon: 1 Daemon: 1 (not including at least 4 Daemon Blackfyres) Aemond: 1 Maelor: 1 Valarr: 1 Matarys: 1 Rhaegel: 1 Aelor: 1 Maekar: 1 Duncan: 1 Rhaegar: 1 (Maelys Blackfyre): 1 (Haegon Blackfyre): 1 Female names: Rhaenys: 3 Rhaena: 3 Elaena: 2 Visenya: 2 Vaella: 2 Daella: 2 Daenerys: 2 Daenys: 1 Aerea: 1 Rhalla: 1 Alysanne: 1 Alyssa: 1 Maegelle: 1 Viserra: 1 Saera: 1 Gael: 1 Rhaenyra: 1 Helaena: 1 Jaehaera: 1 Daena: 1 Naerys: 1 Aelora: 1 Daenora: 1 Rhae: 1 Shaera: 1 Rhaelle: 1 Rhaella: 1 Shaena: 1 (Calla Blackfyre) Some thoughts: -Since at this time we only know the names of Targaryens going back to Aenar the Exile, it’s possible that some of the names were used with more historical frequency compared to what's shown here. -Of the names of Jaehaerys I and Alysanne’s thirteen children, nine of them (Alyssa, Aeryn, Vaegon, Maegelle, Valerion, Viserra, Gaemon, Saera, and Gael) are never seen in the family from that point on (except for Gaemon Palehair, who was an alleged but disproven bastard claimant during the Moon of the Three Kings). Pretty interesting, both for how many ‘new’ names they used for their children and also for how most of them have not been used subsequently. -Names I consider ‘adopted’/non-Targaryen/non-Valyrian are Alysanne, Alyssa, Duncan, possibly Maegelle, and possibly Gael (in terms of other families/individuals using them and looking at the base word/root structure; we know, for instance, that Duncan Targaryen was named specifically for Ser Duncan the Tall, Alyssa Targaryen was probably named after her grandmother Alyssa Velaryon, and Alysanne, Maegelle, and Gael don’t seem Valyrian in origin). -The clustering of certain names is really interesting. For instance, Aegon appears consistently across the entirety of the dynasty, almost certainly because of the familial pride in the name of the Conqueror. In contrast, consider names like Maegor and Aenys, names for two of the worst Targaryen kings. The only other Maegor after the Cruel is the son of Aerion Brightflame, who probably named his son as such because he’s a contrarian with delusions of power (the name itself was ‘ominous’ enough to scare off support at the Great Council of 233 AC). The name Aenys isn’t even used again in House Targaryen proper, only in the form of Aenys Blackfyre, fifth son of Daemon I Blackfyre. Speaking of Daemon, after Daemon Targaryen, husband of Rhaenyra, the name seems to have been taboo after Daena, in honor of her grandfather, gave her bastard the name. Certainly Daemon seems to have become the ‘default’/go-to royal name for House Blackfyre in a similar way to how Aegon became the ideal name for a king in House Targaryen. It’s hard to imagine any Targaryen naming a son Daemon after the Blackfyre Rebellions. -Continuing with clustering of names: Baelon seems to have petered off despite having some comparative early popularity. It’s also interesting how the generations after Daeron II seem to have brought in/created names never used before, like Valarr, Matarys, Rhaegel, and Maekar. -There seems to be more variation in choosing/creating names for female Targaryens. For instance, compare Shaena vs. Shaera, Rhaelle vs. Rhaella, etc., names that share similar bases with slight variations. This is one reason why the most popular female names, Rhaenys and Rhaena, only have 3 members while the most popular male name, Aegon, has 11 members. At the same time, it's clear that these bases can go across gender (such as the case of the name Rhaegar: 'Rhae' is both a root and a female name in its own right, while an -ar ending is typically used for male names like Maekar and Valarr). -Interesting fact: aside from Daemon I Blackfyre naming his third son Daemon as well, there are no examples in House Targaryen or House Blackfyre of a child having the same name as a parent. -There are several definite parallel gendered names; the most direct are Aelor/Aelora and Jaehaerys/Jaehaera, both pairs used for sets of twins. If I missed any names or miscounted any (going by the wiki), let me know. Interested to hear further thoughts or comments on House Targaryen naming conventions.
  12. Perhaps a minor point, but with the publication of TWOIAF this family tree image on the House Targaryen wiki page is significantly out-of-date in terms of showing known names, individuals, and relationships: It seems to be focused primarily on Amok's images but perhaps it could be updated (not sure who created it)?
  13. Thanks! Quick correction: in the Calculations section for Daenora it should be changed from "Daenora's younger siblings were born no earlier than..." to "Daenora's elder siblings were born no earlier than..." Also, I'm curious about the reasoning behind this statement in Aelor and Aelora's Calculations sections: " By 217 AC, Aelor had been married to his twin-sister Aelora,[17] indicating a minimum age of 13 (see rule #1), placing his birth no later than 204 AC." The rule #1 in place seems to apply to age at at the birth of a first child, not necessarily at age of marriage. For example, Aegon III and Jaehaera were married when they were respectively 11 and 8; while the marriage was unconsummated I don't think it can be assumed or universalized that couples are at least 13 upon marriage (and Aelor and Aelora, being opposite-sex Targaryen twins, would have probably been betrothed to each other since birth). So perhaps the upper limit of 204 AC could be pushed forward several years (but probably not too far, as I think if they were infants in 211 AC that would have been said instead of 'children')?
  14. Excellent catch, I'd completely missed that. So with Barristan being born in 236 AC or 237 AC Dunk would be Lord Commander at the earliest (so far) around 252/253 AC.
  15. An interesting hypothetical I've been thinking of for a while: what if Rhaella Targaryen had survived giving birth to Daenerys? We know that she had already crowned Viserys on Dragonstone. The Targaryen fleet would still be destroyed at anchor during the vicious storm that occurred when Daenerys was born, but there is now an adult Targaryen who's effectively in charge on Dragonstone and with Ser Willem Darry (presumably) as her right hand. The new Baratheon fleet under Stannis is still coming, however, and realistically since the Targaryen fleet was just smashed to pieces the island cannot be held. So I do think it's certain that the Targaryens still flee Dragonstone (Rhaella would never surrender and turn over her children to the Baratheons, and the fact that she crowned Viserys suggests that she's still promoting her family as the rightful royal family). Several possibilities emerge (most of this is pure speculation but I'll try to keep it as realistic as possible): -I think the party still heads for Braavos, or at least another Free City (they're outside of the immediate reach of the new regime). However, I think politically things change significantly. While I think Rhaella was certainly marginalized from being a political actor in her own right in King's Landing, without Aerys and with the survival/future of her children at stake I think she becomes a political actor out of both necessity and choice. She's a de facto Queen Regent for her son and, as evidenced by crowning Viserys on Dragonstone, is not about to renounce her family's rights and disappear. -On the other hand, having an adult Targaryen in Essos will probably cause the Baratheons more consternation that just the children Viserys and Daenerys as in canon. Is there diplomatic pressure to turn over or at least exile the Targaryens from Braavos? Are there more active attempted assassinations? I'm not sure. -Jon Arryn went to Dorne in 284 AC on a mission to reconcile with House Martell. We don't know exactly in the year this happened (before or after the birth of Daenerys), but regardless I think Doran and Oberyn will almost certainly be in contact with Rhaella and Ser Willem. I think the secret marriage pact still goes ahead, only this time there's more urgency and Rhaella signs for House Targaryen (instead of Ser Willem as in canon), possibly still with the Sealord as witness. I think Rhaella would be adamantly against Viserys marrying Daenerys regardless, borne out of her resentment of her own abusive marriage to her brother. -One personal change I suspect is that Rhaella, as a mother and figure of authority, is able to restrain or at least check the madness of Viserys. Certainly he was always more a son of Aerys than Rhaegar in that regard, but I think Rhaella would be a stabilizing influence. -The remaining big question: when do the Targaryens cross the narrow sea to Dorne, marry Viserys to Arianne, and openly assert his claim? I want to preface this speculation by noting that the potential for success is incredibly low (as it would have been in canon even without Rhaella). Dorne cannot stand alone, but barring some extraordinary developments it will; the Stark-Lannister-Tully-Arryn-Baratheon coalition would crush any Dornish army and the Reach/crownlands/some houses in the riverlands (the other places to look for support for the Targaryens) would probably not rise. I can't see the Targaryens crossing until Viserys is at least an early teenager, meaning 289 AC/290 AC as the earliest dates. Certainly if the crossing happened while the rest of the coalition's forces were fighting against the Greyjoy Rebellion there could be some minor victories, but a victorious Robert would turn around and crush Dorne all the same afterwards. -If (and this is a significant assumption) things go pretty much as they did in canon, the only real opportunity for a Targaryen restoration directed by Queen Regent Rhaella would be in the later stages or aftermath of the War of the Five Kings, when the rebel coalition has fractured. Perhaps Rhaella would marry Daenerys off to Willas Tyrell to try to secure the Reach, and the armies of two kingdoms might be enough to sweep from the south into King's Landing, get support from any secret Targaryen loyalist houses, and establish regional hegemony before other regions can effectively react. That said, even such a situation would be incredibly tenuous; more likely, like the Blackfyre Pretenders before them the Targaryens land and are beaten back across the narrow sea or crushed on the battlefield, even with a saner Viserys III and capable queen mother. Any thoughts or further speculation?