Ran

Administrators
  • Content count

    32,831
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Everything posted by Ran

  1. And I see we’re at 400 posts. On to the 165th iteration!
  2. No, just my view. It’s a strongly held view, though!
  3. Yandel shares rumor of one kind. This doesn't mean that what he suggests is at all confirmed by what Barristan implies. Indeed, Barristan turns to the matter of the queen of love and beauty, so i(for example) he may well believe that the tourney was arranged so that Rhaegar could find a new bride or the mother of a prophesized child or some such, a detail he shared with Arthur Dayne but not Barristan. We don't know. It is, though. The feudal contract is a real thing. There are mutual obligations and duties. A failure by one side constitutes cause to seek redress. The realm does not have formal, explicit mechanisms, no, but the realm lacks formal, explicit mechanisms for almost everything. This does not mean it is lawless or that it is a tyrannical. The realm is far more dependent on negotiation between parties than you give it credit for. That's why I reject the idea that it is an absolute monarchy devoted to preserving tyranny. Aegon and his followers may not have formed formal counterbalances to their power, but they mostly implicitly recognized that they did not exist in a vacuum. What they are telling a very young knight who is in over his head about the situation may not be the same as what they believed. We don't know. Anyways, I grow tired of beating the same drum. I disdain absolute readings of the dynamics of some of these situations regarding the crown and the Kingsguard. They do not fit the spirit of the novels, where characters are shown to develop more complicated understandings of their vows and their performance (Jaime, Jon) or perform acts to save a king from himself (Davos) and these are presented as being at the heart of how to deal with reality, whereas characters overly devoted to absolutes (Ned and his honor, Stannis and his justice) are depicted as manufacturing their own downfalls through their unwillingness to negotiate that reality. I feel like I keep being pulled out of discussing R+L=J for some reason.
  4. I believe the default of WgMaxPageSize is 2048kb. I can change this to be higher, but Mediawiki's page does suggest that the preferred way to handle this is to split a page up into smaller articles. I think we also have a PHP upload limit of some sort that might come into effect if there's too much text, but I can't imagine there's going to be more than 2MB of raw text, so I don't think that should be an issue.
  5. More with Ygrain here. The Whent situation is, first, difficult -- what GRRM very deliberately presents in TWoIaF is _rumor_. It clearly means that the situation is more complex than the superficial understanding that we had at the outset, but it doesn't necessarily mean that things like the idea that Lord Whent couldn't have afforded the tourney without outside backing are correct. The vows are complicated. What does protecting a king mean? How about protecting him from himself? Jaime comes to realize that this is a factor in how the Kingsguard should treat commands from someone who may be incapable of giving a rational command. It's a world of greys, not black and white, so saying this is treason and that isn't feels like it's not following the spirit of the novels. Were lords meeting to discuss the fact that the king was irrational and incapable of good rule, through no fault of his own, actually committing an act of treason? Were their meeting with the crown prince and heir to discuss whether there might be some solution to preserve the king's life and crown against threats from lords who rebelled because of his breaking of the feudal contract to give protection and justice to his vassals really _treason_? Well, Aerys may say so, but Aerys was mad. Others, who present a picture of being loyal unto death to the Targaryens, who may have participated in such talk, may not have seen it as treason but merely an attempt to find a way to thread the needle between treason and loyalty for the greater good of the realm. It's all pretty complex stuff. I don't think any of the Kingsguard at the tower of joy were men who wished Aerys ill.
  6. Very impressive work. I'm not sure you'll save that much by using templates, but would have to research it.
  7. A place for people to post a message introducing themselves to the forum, if they wish to. It's entirely optional to post an introduction, but if you do want to post one, do so here rather than starting a new thread.
  8. Oh, that. No. This is a foundational part of the series, determined very early on. The stuff people speculate about are red herrings.
  9. I’m not sure any of it does, really.
  10. They were princes, Renly and Stannis were not. Royal princes trump lords, and Myrcella is ahead of Stannis and Renly. Primogeniture remains the default. It’s just a weak one. Given GRRM’s response, there’s no error with the Aelora situation, or the Daenora one. He seemed to have definite ideas about it that he did not explain.
  11. I'm posting here so that I'll be seeing when further posts happen. I'm perfectly willing to ban multiple people, to be honest. There's an ignore feature if you find someone's contributions unhelpful or uninteresting, folks -- use it.
  12. I'm referring to GRRM's write up on Egg which discusses the situation. In the course of editing we ended up compressing things so it's not explicit there.
  13. Yes. The text is explicit in running down through Aerys's various heirs before coming to Maekar, and explicitly links Aelora's death with Maekar becoming heir.
  14. I'm not sure that's quite right. GRRM doubles down on all this with later texts, so it's not as if he hasn't considered the situation. He already had the Rhaenyra-Aegon conflict from the very earliest times, as well. Instead, I think a more straightforward read is that the situation the respective branches of House Baratheon find themselves in -- namely that if Myrcella is ruled out, Tommen's heir is Stannis; and that Stannis has no other close kin of any note besides his daughter, and no one seems interested in digging up a family tree to find a cousin twice removed or what have you -- makes not only girls acceptable, it's making children acceptable despite a general aversion to child rule during difficult or trying times. And when Renly lived, Renly was a traitor to Stannis, was choosing to go for the crown rather than wait for Stannis to acknowledge him his heir, and so on. The situations of the past are not congruent with those of the present, really, so not relevant. For that matter, we've certainly discussed the value of precedent... but another question would be whether the precedents of the _Targaryen_ dynasty are necessarily in place for the Baratheon dynasty. It may well be that over the 15 years of Robert's rule, it's been made clear that there is a firm order of succession, with Myrcella ahead of Stannis. The machinations of Cersei and Tywin? One more sleight for Stannis to chew on? Mayhaps. Having seen the Targaryen family tree from its early form, I don't think the Viserys II change made much difference -- you're assuming that Daeron and Baelor had sisters back then... As to Aerys's heirs, Rhaegel _was_ his heir, and then Rhaegel's son Aelor, and then Aelora. These are all things George established before "The Sworn Sword" or "The Mystery Knight". (Yes, the mystery of Daenora remains -- something we brought up with George at the time and he insisted on our leaving things as he had written them, so I assuming there's a reason why Daenora is not considered at all when it's said Maekar is the only possible heir remaining.) The whole matter of lords leaving wills is, again, part of what I mean by the fact that primogeniture is a weak default. Most lords are happy to follow it. It seems some lords are not. We don't really know the circumstances as to why Lady Webber was forced to marry to keep her seat, or how that would be enforced. Was it a favor from Lord Rowan to Lord Webber? Was it based on precedents of some kind? Was she concerend not so much because she'd lose everything but that there was the slightest chance her distant relations would have more pull with whoever had authority on the matter? We don't know. All we really know is that, yes, a lord might try and rig up some sort of alternative to primogeniture if the mood took him. Whether it stuck or not, who knows. On a metatextual level, the reality is George likes having things be very messy and fluid so he has as many options as possible. Realistically, the incredibly weak legal system in Westeros doesn't make much sense. You sort of have a kind of Dark Ages level of jurisprudence (if you can stretch to call it that) in an otherwise Late Middle Ages society. ETA: Of course, I realize we have gone very far afield now.
  15. The latest text says no, but the Heirs of the Dragon says yes. It was one of those points where we had to make a choice, but F&B will sort out which is accurate. I doubt Marwyn personally gave Yandel an account, but rather prepared an account of Asshai for the Citadel, which is what Yandel is referencing. It's true enough that the main text suggests there are no accounts from Asshai to explain all these details, whether true or false, but I think this is more a reference to Marwyn himself only illuminating some details. Probably under a bit of duress.
  16. The world's largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church, has official doctrine regarding the validity of other faiths, so not sure how to square that with "the basic principle of the entire religion".
  17. The majority of American Christians are not fundamentalist. Evangelicals are estimated at anywhere from 25% to 30% of the overall population, but that's self-reporting and does not necessarily encompass the actual beliefs they have, just what they loosely associate themselves with. Only 9% of those who regularly attend church services self-identify as evangelicals. I'm unaware of any survey attempting to quantify what percentage of Americans would share Moore's belief, but I'd guess the number is very much a minority opinion.
  18. To be fair, Marwyn has written of his time in Asshai, and Corlys Velaryon got there as well, a journey that was the subject of a maester's later work based, presumably, on accounts of those who had participated. That said, perhaps there are children, they were just hidden away from people like Marwyn and Corlys.
  19. Save all those Christians who are not dogmatic fundamentalists. Which are a substantial number in the U.S. and Europe alike.
  20. Little Walder doesn't assume it, since he asks. But yes, he's confused on the issue because as I've repeatedly said, arguments for proximity over precedence can and are made, and sometimes are followed for various reasons. Doesn't change the fact that Big Walder is reflecting the default situation. They are when you just look at precedence. Doesn't change the fact that it's a weak default in Westeros, which has been George's point. "With his father dead, Ryman was heir to the Twins." I mean, that's pretty straightforward. There's no sign of Walder Frey sending out ravens proclaiming that Ryman is now his heir, etc. It is, again, a reflection of a default understanding. And when Ryman dies, no one starts wondering if Emmon is heir again. It's worth noting that Jaime treats Edwyn as being the rightful leader of the Frey encampment following the dismissal of his father, as well, again favoring precedence over ... well, anything else he might choose, such as experience, where he might have named Walder Rivers the leader. Yeah, Walder says a lot. But the fact is that he's probably right that the lord's wishes can carry the day. Look at the situation of Rohanne Webber, who inherits... but from beyond the grave her father's will can control whether she continues to rule or not depending on whether she marries by a certain time, otherwise it goes to some cousin. It's a default position in Westeros, but a weak default. It's also why Valarr and Matarys were ahead of Aerys and the rest, per AWoIaF. "Traditional primogeniture" -- as GRRM refers to it in his write up for the Ironborn chapter (the context is that there are some advantages from the kingsmoot compared to "traditional primogeniture", i.e. no babies or boys, women or cravens, men given to unnatural practices or councils of regents, no madmen or halfwits) -- in our world includes the idea that the eldest sons children have a right to substitute him as heir if he predeceases his father. We have examples of this being the case. We also have examples where it's clear that a choice was made to do something else due to extenuating circumstances. But in all these cases, it's something argued for, not something assumed to be a default. If we agree that primogeniture is a norm in Westeros -- and it obviously is -- there's no reason to then doubt evidence in support it just because of an e-mail where George revealed that Westeros has a very weak legal code in regards to inheritance, and this means that the argument from proximity gains more ground especially with extenuating circumstances (i.e. the heir by precedent is incapacitated or an infant). Long and short of it, after Rhaegar's death, the default assumption was that Aegon was heir. But he was an infant, a classic extenuating circumstance in Westeros, so perhaps people should not have been too surprised by Yandel's report.
  21. Dorne practices absolute primogeniture instead, yeah. The case of Egg is, again, a situation where the heir by primogeniture is an infant and so gets passed over. The case of Viserys I is that Laenor was favored by primogeniture, but the lords preferred the male line to take precedence, so it was accounted better to go by proximity instead. From A Clash of Kings, the Frey boys reveal their understanding of the situation: Later Catelyn confirms that Ryman is heir by dint of being the eldest son of the late heir, Ser Stevron. And after Ryman is dead, Edwyn -- _his_ eldest son -- is heir, at least according to Edwyn and (implicitly) Walder Rivers. GRRM's remark is more about the way that people can certainly argue all sorts of things. Which is true! Their specific situation may make some argument stronger than some other argument, often on the basis of ideas such as experience or a time of crisis needing a firm hand or what have you. But in general in Westeros, the heir's offspring count ahead of the heir's siblings... except when they don't, as we see with the Frey bunch very much preparing to go for one another's throats, or as we see the Hunters apparently doing according to Littlefinger.
  22. There's also the fact that the past precedents against women inheriting may be a point of argument. Even with Aegon III, where the straightforward approach is to see his claim descending from his mother, he also happens to have been the son of Daemon Targaryen, brother to the last uncontested king. If you're inclined to discount Rhaenyra, and all of Viserys's children by Alicent are dead but for a daughter, Daemon would have been next by proximity, and Aegon following him. In any case, the general "default" in Westeros is primogeniture. The Targaryens sort of/kind of tried to establish that as far as the throne goes, women and the heirs of women cannot inherit, a rule that was followed by Viserys II at least. But whole proximity business raised its head in 92AC because of the specific situation where it was either a woman or an infant (or, later, a boy) vs. an adult. Had Laenor been 18 instead of 8 at 101AC, he may well have been selected over Viserys.
  23. Indeed. ~1200 miles. A leisurely 20 miles a day gets you 2 months.
  24. @Lost Melnibonean Yes, that seems to be a possibility. @maudisdottir No real explanation needed, as far as the app goes. I absolutely believe that Melisandre is not from Asshai... or rather, Melony is not from Asshai. "Melisandre", OTOH, seems to have her origin there.