Rhaenys_Targaryen

The Wiki-Timeline Project [Calculations]

170 posts in this topic

@All-Seeing Aye,

Aelor, Aelora and Daenora are added to the project. If you have anything to add, or see a mistake, please let me know!

 

@The Wondering Wolf,

An update:

Besides adding Aelor, Aelora and Daenora Targaryen, since the last update I've added a source for Barristan, relocated the "Girl General" to "Malazza" (her actual name), and rephrased the Lysa Tully entry and the Petyr Baelish entry.

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

@All-Seeing Aye,

Aelor, Aelora and Daenora are added to the project. If you have anything to add, or see a mistake, please let me know!

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')?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, All-Seeing Aye said:

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..."

Whoops! Thanks! :)

Quote

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')?

While there will always be exceptions (e.g., Tyrek Lannister marrying an infant Lady Ermesande Hayford, Tommen marrying Margaery, or Aegon III marrying Jaehaera), it does seem that usually marriages occur at a later age.

[...] I have a son. You have a daughter. My Joff and your Sansa shall join our houses, as Lyanna and I might once have done.”
This offer did surprise him. “Sansa is only eleven.”
Robert waved an impatient hand. “Old enough for betrothal. The marriage can wait a few years.” The king smiled. “Now stand up and say yes, curse you.”

Te age of eleven seems to be regarded as too young, in 'regular times' (i.e., not times of war, like had been the case for Aegon III and Jaehaera, or other special circumstances, like Tyrek and Ermesande). 

There's also this SSM, where Martin explains

A boy is Westeros is considered to be a "man grown" at sixteen years. The same is true for girls. Sixteen is the age of legal majority, as twenty-one is for us.

However, for girls, the first flowering is also very significant... and in older traditions, a girl who has flowered is a woman, fit for both wedding and bedding.

In AGOT Sansa tells us

"I'll get you with child as soon as you're able," Joffrey said as he escorted her across the practice yard. "If the first one is stupid, I'll chop off your head and find a smarter wife. When do you think you'll be able to have children?"

Sansa could not look at him, he shamed her so. "Septa Mordane says most … most highborn girls have their flowering at twelve or thirteen."

While you are definitly right that marriages can occur at an earlier age (earlier mentioned SSM)

In the "general Westerosi view," well, girls may well be wed before their first flowerings, for political reasons, but it would considered perverse to bed them. And such early weddings, even without sex, remain rare. Generally weddings are postponed until the bride has passed from girlhood to maidenhood.

Maidens may be wedded and bedded... however, even there, many husbands will wait until the bride is fifteen or sixteen before sleeping with them. Very young mothers tend to have significantly higher rates of death in childbirth, which the maesters will have noted.

As in the real Middle Ages, highborn girls tend to flower significantly earlier than those of lower birth. Probably a matter of nutrition. As a result, they also tend to marry earlier, and to bear children earlier.

There are plenty of exceptions.

I don't think it is right to assume that each case we are presented with is an exception unless we are told otherwise.

We don't know when Aelor and Aelora were betrothed, but I wouldn't say it is certain they had been betrothed since their youth. The current age of thirteen is mostly based on several marriages we've seen in asoiaf (Maegor I Targaryen (aged 13) and Ceryse Hightower, Helaena Targaryen (aged 13) to Aegon II Targaryen (aged 14), Sansa Stark (married in the year she turned 13)), as well as the aforementioned SSM in combination with the Sansa quote from AGOT.

I have been thinking about making a list of all the known ages at marriage. While usually the girls are older than their early teens, it would be good to have such a list to see an exact minimum, and to see what possibly could be exceptions. I haven't had the time yet, but perhaps when I have a few days off at Chistmas :) 

 

Edited by Rhaenys_Targaryen
Misspelled "Ermesande"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/12/2016 at 0:10 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

I have been thinking about making a list of all the known ages at marriage. While usually the girls are older than their early teens, it would be good to have such a list to see an exact minimum, and to see what possibly could be exceptions. I haven't had the time yet, but perhaps when I have a few days off at Chistmas :)

Have you seen this list by joannalannister at Tumblr? Might be useful for what you wanted.

Edited by Helled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Helled said:

Have you seen this list by joannalannister at Tumblr? Might be useful for what you wanted.

Very useful. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cregan Stark: Was made Hand in 131 AC, and at that point he was at least 21 (because Tywin was 20 and the youngest Hand in the history of the Seven Kingdoms). So Cregan was born in 110 AC the latest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Cregan Stark: Was made Hand in 131 AC, and at that point he was at least 21 (because Tywin was 20 and the youngest Hand in the history of the Seven Kingdoms). So Cregan was born in 110 AC the latest.

For what it's worth, the MUSH has Cregan's birth-year as 108AC - if there's any house whose details there are near-enough semi-canon & not essentially fanon, then it should be the Starks. Particularly with their family tree in The World of Ice & Fire & "She Wolves" coming eventually (hopefully not that long after Winds).

I know it's very easy to use this "excuse", but I'm not so sure how truthful that Tywin = youngest ever Hand statement is - Yandel states it, but most likely his source was Pycelle. Of course, it was only a few decades ago & so more easily verified information, but so was propaganda like the deaths of Elia, Rhaenys, & Aegon. It only suggested they were at Aerys' command (not the manner, but the notion is plausible) or Elia did it herself (lol, bash by baby's head in against a wall; stab my little girl dozens of times; then rape myself & bash my head in too). Not the open secret that Tywin himself ordered his dogs to kill them & specifically so. In-universe, TWoIaF is written for Tywin's family (perhaps even the monstrous abomination himself, in part). I take the semi-canon details from the extended Westerlands chapter over those from the full-canon TWoIaF, particularly when it highlights his war-crimes more & goes against the more favourable less heinous portrayal in the published material, during the Reyne-Tarbeck rebellion.

If this is indeed a fabrication, the likes of Robar Baratheon or Valarr Targaryen (if indeed he was his grandfather's last Hand) may have been younger. I wonder if Aegon III made Viserys his Hand after dismissing his regents, or at least when his younger brother turned 16:

  • Who is that with Aegon in the art of him dismissing his regents? I'd say Viserys. It perhaps portrays him larger than he would've been at 14, but what other male of the court had Valyrian-silver hair AND would wear a coronet? Alyn Velaryon may have been considered Aegon's heir before Viserys' return, but he was almost certainly never proclaimed a prince like Stannis. And at this point, Viserys had returned & was presumably Prince of Dragonstone. I suspect Gaemon had already (fatally) fallen afoul of Unwinning Peake, but he was not a court fool, where he may where a "crown". Plus he only would've been nine at this time, definitely too small. Lysaro is not unlikely to have already returned to Lys & afawk, never assumed a royal title - only succeeding his father as First Magister for Life. Only Viserys fits. Of course, TWoIaF artwork can really only be used as speculation at best, despite George's input/approval on some pieces. (Something really went wrong with that depiction of Aegon's daughters - Magali Villeneuve has some of the best pieces in the book, but that one is wildly inaccurate).
  • If anybody could've been a younger (& far better) Hand than Tywin, it was Viserys. If he wasn't, I'd be extremely surprised if he at least didn't become say Master of Coin by 16. And Aegon had the power to not only dismiss his regents, but remove them (besides Munkun of course) from his Small Council. Baela, Alyn, Rhaena, the Rogares, etc would've supported him choosing Viserys, so I don't see how anybody could have any chance in being successful in trying to influence him o/w. Most particularly with the brothers' bonds anyway.
  • Mentions of Viserys as Aegon's Hand in all the books, make it seem (imo) as if he was for the (vast) majority of his reign, besides "who in his last years", which could be bolstering a possible youngest Hand = Tywin claim (which in itself is weakened by "yet together, Aegon & Viserys ably dealt with the remaining turmoil in the realm"). If Tywin was indeed the youngest Hand at ~20 (tbf to him, I wonder if he may have actually still been 19 at the time, only turning 20 later in 262), than Viserys only became Hand at 142/143 at the earliest. Even with the Daeron-pretenders, I think there was more likely greater turmoil before that; coming out of the regency & that devastating winter, the wounds of the Dance still fresh.
  • Although I believe it was in part also to try & help her brothers (definitely not, just not feeling a part of the Westerosi court), Larra is more likely to have returned to Lys as she did if Viserys kept busy with a hand (heh) in Westeros' governance, than if they just did comparatively sfa in KL (plus on Dragonstone & Driftmark). His duties, unfortunately, left him lacking to some degree as a husband & father (especially eldest, Aegon).
  • Who else could've been Aegon's Hand after Manderly? Perhaps Oakenfist, although I don't recall anything hinting at such, other than he would be a logical choice. The only other person I think who may have possibly been hinted is Kermit Tully - "brought the Tullys to the height of their power".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that Tywin being the youngest hand ever is a statement like Jaehaerys I being the oldest Targaryen king ever. There are a lot of chronicles about that kind of stuff, so it is rather easy to find out the truth.

On 23.5.2017 at 4:01 AM, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

If this is indeed a fabrication, the likes of Robar Baratheon or Valarr Targaryen (if indeed he was his grandfather's last Hand) may have been younger. I wonder if Aegon III made Viserys his Hand after dismissing his regents, or at least when his younger brother turned 16:

Robar could easily have been 25 or even older in 48 AC, while Valarr (if he actually was Hand) could have been around that age in 209 AC, as well.

As you mentioned, about Viserys it says:

Though he strove to give the realm peace and plenty in the wake of the Dance, Aegon III proved unwilling to court his own people, or his lords. His might have been a very different reign were it not for that one flaw in him—his coldness when it came to those he ruled. His brother, Prince Viserys - who in his last years served as his Hand - had the gift of charm, but he himself grew stern after his wife abandoned him and their children for her native Lys.

I don't see how Viserys becoming Hand in 136 AC or even prior to 143 AC would work with this statement in mind. And Viserys did not need to be hand to help his brother dealing with the issues. At least he was the only person Aegon ever trusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-5-22 at 9:41 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

Cregan Stark: Was made Hand in 131 AC, and at that point he was at least 21 (because Tywin was 20 and the youngest Hand in the history of the Seven Kingdoms). So Cregan was born in 110 AC the latest.

Good catch!

 

On 2017-5-24 at 3:56 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

I think that Tywin being the youngest hand ever is a statement like Jaehaerys I being the oldest Targaryen king ever. There are a lot of chronicles about that kind of stuff, so it is rather easy to find out the truth.

Robar could easily have been 25 or even older in 48 AC, while Valarr (if he actually was Hand) could have been around that age in 209 AC, as well.

As you mentioned, about Viserys it says:

Though he strove to give the realm peace and plenty in the wake of the Dance, Aegon III proved unwilling to court his own people, or his lords. His might have been a very different reign were it not for that one flaw in him—his coldness when it came to those he ruled. His brother, Prince Viserys - who in his last years served as his Hand - had the gift of charm, but he himself grew stern after his wife abandoned him and their children for her native Lys.

I don't see how Viserys becoming Hand in 136 AC or even prior to 143 AC would work with this statement in mind. And Viserys did not need to be hand to help his brother dealing with the issues. At least he was the only person Aegon ever trusted.

I agree. The quote plainly states that Viserys served as Hand to Aegon only during the last few years of Aegon's reign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now