The Wondering Wolf

Members
  • Content count

    319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Wondering Wolf

  1. To quote @Rhaenys_Targaryen's statement from Quicksilver's Talk Page in the wiki: I've removed the statement that Quicksilver was born in 7 AC as I must say that the text remains vague about it. The Sons of the Dragon discusses Aenys's health in the paragraph discussing his birth, ending with the fact that his poor health sparked rumors about Aenys being Rhaenys's bastard instead of Aegon's son, and with the fact that these rumors ended only after Aenys bonded with Quicksilver. Yet next, we also read that Aenys deteriorated when he was three years old, when Rhaenys died. However, it is not stated that Aenys deteriorated afterhaving been given Quicksilver. In fact, The World of Ice & Fire tells us that "But though his father and brother, Maegor (who was Visenya's child), were both warriors born, Aenys was made of different stuff. He had begun life as a weak and sickly infant and remained so throughout his earliest years. Rumors abounded that this could be no true son of Aegon the Conqueror, who had been a warrior without peer. In fact, it was well-known that Queen Rhaenys delighted in handsome singers and witty mummers; perhaps one of these might have fathered the child. But the rumors dampened and eventually died when the sickly child was given a young hatchling who was named Quicksilver. And as the dragon grew, so too did Aenys." Especially the bolded part implies that Quicksilver was actually born a few years after Aenys's birth, as he "remained [a weak and sickly infant] throughout his earliest years". Only after been given Quicksilver, did the sickly child thrive. So the sentence from The Sons of the Dragon(which I think that the 7 AC was based on), "And the prince was slow to grow as well. Not until he was given the young dragon Quicksilver, a hatchling born that year on Dragonstone, did Aenys Targaryen begin to thrive." is not saying that Quicksilver was born the same year as Aenys was born. All it says is that Quicksilver was given to Aenys in the same year that his egg hatched (which says nothing about how old Aenys was at the time).
  2. I am very sure it does not take half a year to get from King's Landing to Oldtown.
  3. That would work very well.
  4. I guess this is the simplest solution, but then there is that quote: His followers were largely westermen and river lords; the Lords Tarbeck, Piper, Roote, Vance, Charlton, Frey, Paege, Parren, and Westerling were amongst them, joined by Lord Corbray of the Vale, the Bastard of Barrowton, and the fourth son of the Lord of Griffin’s Roost. The Parrens are listed among the lords from the westerlands and riverlands. If they actually were a house from the Reach, they should be mentioned in the "joined by" section.
  5. So what to do with House Parren? The corrected version of The World of Ice and Fire states that the house was founded in the Reach, while the Citadel makes them a house of the westerlands. Now there are two possibilities: Either the Parrens were founded in the Reach and are still there, or they were founded in the Reach, but at one point they switched to the westerlands.
  6. Maegelle, Daeron II, Valarr and Matarys will be glad to hear about their immunity to diseases. ;-)
  7. The World of Ice and Fire states that Ceryse was Martyn's daughter, so there is an inconsistency there. Ran is trying to fix this for Fire and Blood.
  8. Of course we can try to make it fit, but in my opinion it does not really work. If Dunk had started sqiring for Arlan in 200 AC, Arlan would not have had a squire for around three years. That does not really make sense to me, since there must have been a lot of boys who could have replaced his former squire.
  9. Alright, then the German translation got it wrong, as well. But is that not an inconsistency? I think we can deduce from the text that Dunk was not present, although he already was Arlan's squire.
  10. In The Hedgeknight Baelor states regarding the tourney where he unhorsed Ser Arlan: "It was nine years past, at Storm's End." Now there are two ways to read that. Some people (and the wiki) use the statement to place said tourney in 200 AC, nine years earlier. But I think there is a second, more accurate way to read it. Baelor answers Maekar's question: "How can you possibly remember some insignificant hedge knight who chanced to unhorse Damon Lannister sixteen years ago?" So in my opinion Baelor's time specification refers to the date of the Lannisport tourney and means "nine years later". Since Dunk does not seem to have been present at the Storm's End tourney despite already being Arlan's squire, 200 AC does not really fit the timeline anyway. So what is the proper way to read Baelor's statement?
  11. Oh, I actually thought that someone really changed it all over the wiki, but apparently that is not the case. So yes, I do not think that the wiki needs such a category. Is it not the same with Category:Ironborn?
  12. Some time ago someone decided to go with culture instead of origin. I am not really sure on the reason, but I guess it is somewhere in this thread.
  13. Can you tell me where that is stated in the books?
  14. Yes, with their 300 years of existence the Baratheons are one of the youngest houses in Westeros. The only time the Strongs might have been interesting enough for the Baratheons to intermarry with them was when they held Harrenhal, a period of around 40 years. So yeah, technically it might be possible. But then can also add the Crakehalls and Bulwers. And are the Kettleblacks actually a proper house?
  15. The Strongs seem to be an ancient house from the riverlands, the Baratheons are a rather new house from Dragonstone. I can not see the connection between them.
  16. In my opinion these are no inconsistencies. Yandel and Gyldayn are two different historians who could have used different sources. What Yandel finds interesting and noteworthy Gyldayn could consider unconvincing.
  17. Actually he never calls the match incestuous, but warns Aegon that the Faith would not look upon it with favour.
  18. And GRRM should consider the lack of a year 0 when it comes to Aegon's I age in 33 and 37 AC.
  19. @King Maegor 284 AC as date for the Sack of King's Landing is surely wrong. The appendix of A Game of Thrones states that Aerys was killed during the Sack in 283 AC. The Worldbook states that Rhaegar was killed at the Trident in 283 AC. Which is supported by Eddard's thought in 298 AC that Rhaegar died 15 years ago.
  20. Actually GRRM was just not confident with the Dayne words and that is why he told Elio and Linda to hold them back.
  21. It was a joke by Elio, and now you do not get it out of the community. I had some strange encounter with these Order of the Green Hand guys when they promoted their Old Nan is Rohanne Webber theory. I told them that the Brandon Stark Old Nan nursed was born in 227 AC the latest, but Rohanne disappeared in 230 AC. Their response was that GRRM was known to make mistakes and they did not trust his dates. And even before that I was kind of speechless when they did some calculation on the date of Brandon and LF's duel which took around ten minutes, and then they came to the conclusion that it took place in 283 AC. Now it takes 30 seconds to find out the fact that Brandon already died in 282 AC, but yeah... After these experiences I chose to ignore them.
  22. The first known Grand Maester is Gawen who is mentioned in 19 AC for the first time. He serves for Aenys as well and is killed by Maegor in 42 AC. I think that is all we know.
  23. I think there's a ton of new information, you just don't see it. Sorry, could not resist. My main problem is that it felt kind of static. There are always the same lords running through Westeros. We get the name of some lords fighting against Maegor, we learn that he punished them by executing them or stripping them of their lands, and two pages later the same lords appear running through Westeros again. GRRM should have included some houses that really died out.
  24. Yes, that was my assumption. I still think the tree I presented to you is the most plausible version so far. But I guess we will be smarter after the release of Fire and Blood.