[TWOIAF Spoilers] Inconsistency or Intentional?

[Mithras]

Had Dunk thrown Walder to a well, we could have avoided this problem and a few other unfortunate events.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Baelor becomes King in 161 AC, and walks from the Boneway to Sunspear and back, and falls unconscious for half a year. Upon return to KL, he has his sisters placed in the Maidenvault.

Did this still occur in 161 AC?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Daemon Blackfyre is granted lands twice.. Once by Aegon IV, when he is knighted, once by Daeron II, upon wedding Rohanne of Tyrosh.

The pages of the mistresses of Aegon IV display Aegor Rivers as Rivers, whereas Brynden isn't called Brynden Rivers, but simply Brynden. We know from the books/D&Es that he was called Brynden Rivers, so perhaps this should be listed for Brynden and his sisters on those pages as well.

Were Aegon's children by Megette also called Rivers? Megette came from the Riverlands (Fair Market).

[RumHam]

Daemon Blackfyre is granted lands twice.. Once by Aegon IV, when he is knighted, once by Daeron II, upon wedding Rohanne of Tyrosh.

Couldn't he have just been granted more land?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Couldn't he have just been granted more land?

Or a replacement of lands, I suppose, but I thought it worth mentioning.

ETA:

Early in the year 279 AC, Rhaegar Targaryen, Prince of Dragonstone, was formally betrothed to Princess Elia Martell, the delicate young sister of Doran Martell, Prince of Dorne.

Would this be Prince of Dorne as in the way Oberyn is a prince of Dorne, or as in ruling Prince of Dorne?

[The Grey Wolf]

In the section on Aegon's Conquest it says that attempts to conquer Dorne continued into the reigns of both his sons yet in the sections on Aenys I and Maegor I there is no mention of a Second or Third Dornish War, which should be important enough to at least warrant a passing mention.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

In he section on the Year of the False Spring, it is mentioned that Viserys is seven, but the text is about the year 281AC, and Viserys was born in 276.. thus, that should be five, not seven, for his age (page 125)

As to when Walter Whent announced the tourney.. many took it ad an attempt to outdo the former Hand (Tywin). As Tywin only became former Hand in 281 AC, it would seem that Walter announced the tourney in 281 AC?

[Moondancer]

In he section on the Year of the False Spring, it is mentioned that Viserys is seven, but the text is about the year 281AC, and Viserys was born in 276.. thus, that should be five, not seven, for his age (page 125)

As to when Walter Whent announced the tourney.. many took it ad an attempt to outdo the former Hand (Tywin). As Tywin only became former Hand in 281 AC, it would seem that Walter announced the tourney in 281 AC?

The timeline thickens*! :D

*is being narrowed down

[Takiedevushkikakzvezdy]

Page 129: "He sent his pregnant queen Rhaella and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, to Dragonstone"

Wasn`t Aegon alive at the time and rightful heir?

[Cubicz]

Page 129: "He sent his pregnant queen Rhaella and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, to Dragonstone"

Wasn`t Aegon alive at the time and rightful heir?

No, Aerys wasnt dead yet, so his heir is HIS next son, Viserys.

If they both died, then Aegon was next in line (Unless Daenerys claims the throne, flies in with thress dragons and an army--- oh wait, im getting ahead of myself)

[BaguastanSelmy]

In tWoIaF, Ser Symon Hollard was count as a good-brother of Lord Darklyn. But in aFfC,

Lord Denys lost his head, as did his brothers and his sister, uncles, cousins, all the lordly Darklyns.

Ser Jon Hollard the Steward was wed to Lord Denyss sister and died with his wife, as did their young son, who was half-Darklyn.

If the his sister was not a typo, that means Lord Denys had only one sister who was married to Jon Hollard. But tWoIaF tells us Symon Hollard was also a good-brother which means he would have married a sister of Lord Denys too.

I believe a good-brother means a brother-in-law. Unless sibling of brother-in-law is also counted as a good-brother...

[RumHam]

No, Aerys wasnt dead yet, so his heir is HIS next son, Viserys.

If they both died, then Aegon was next in line (Unless Daenerys claims the throne, flies in with thress dragons and an army--- oh wait, im getting ahead of myself)

That's not how it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primogeniture

[UnmaskedLurker]

Page 129: "He sent his pregnant queen Rhaella and his younger son and new heir, Viserys, to Dragonstone"

Wasn`t Aegon alive at the time and rightful heir?

There has been much speculation on other threads as to what this statement really implies.

The interpretation by Cubicz that Viserys automatically became the heir under Targ inheritance rules actually is the least popular theory (and seems to be incorrect). The consensus is that the Targs appear to use a form of primogeniture modified only to prefer males over females. Under normal primogeniture rules, the son of the older (but dead) son of the King (i.e., Aegon) comes before the younger son of the King (i.e., Viserys). Aegon and Viserys were both male, so the modification to put females lower in order is irrelevant. This modified form puts Viserys ahead of Rhaenys (normal primogeniture would put Rhaenys over Viserys), but Aegon would be ahead of Viserys under even the modified Targ rules.

The other two alternative explanations for this text are:

(i) Aerys named Viserys as his heir after the death of Rhaegar because he blamed the Dornish for the defeat at the Trident and did not trust Elia, who likely would become regent if Aegon became king before reaching majority

or

(ii) the maester knew in hindsight that Aegon died soon thereafter and that Viserys became the heir to the Targ throne and merely conflated that events for the readers' convenience.

Either one of these explanations seem possible. Cubicz's explanation appears to be inconsistent with the information the readers have been given about Targ inheritance rules.

[RumHam]

(ii) the maester knew in hindsight that Aegon died soon thereafter and that Viserys became the heir to the Targ throne and merely conflated that events for the readers' convenience.

That explanation would be a lot more convincing if it just said "heir" and not "new heir."

[UnmaskedLurker]

That explanation would be a lot more convincing if it just said "heir" and not "new heir."

Either way, at some point after the death of Rhaegar (and death of Aerys and Aegon), Viserys became the "new heir" to the Targ throne. Under the traditional inheritance rules, Viserys was never technically the heir to Aerys (new or otherwise) during the life of Aerys (assuming Aerys died before Aegon died), so use of the word "new" is not really determinitive. I acknowledge that we don't know for sure what the maester meant.

[Ser Lepus]

Either way, at some point after the death of Rhaegar (and death of Aerys and Aegon), Viserys became the "new heir" to the Targ throne. Under the traditional inheritance rules, Viserys was never technically the heir to Aerys (new or otherwise) during the life of Aerys (assuming Aerys died before Aegon died), so use of the word "new" is not really determinitive. I acknowledge that we don't know for sure what the maester meant.

Yandel implied that Aerys disinherited Aegon because he thought the Dornish had betrayed him and sided with Robert. That's the reason he kept Elia and her children at KL as hostages instead of sending them to somewhere safer (Dragonstone, or even Sunspear).

[UnmaskedLurker]

Yandel implied that Aerys disinherited Aegon because he thought the Dornish had betrayed him and sided with Robert. That's the reason he kept Elia and her children at KL as hostages instead of sending them to somewhere safer (Dragonstone, or even Sunspear).

Yes, I said that was a possible theory in post #493. I merely cited an alternative theory as well. I tend to agree that disinheritance is likely. I think the other explanation I suggested is possible. What I tend to discount is that Viserys "automatically" became the heir under Targ inheritance rules.

[Ser Lepus]

Yes, I said that was a possible theory in post #493. I merely cited an alternative theory as well. I tend to agree that disinheritance is likely. I think the other explanation I suggested is possible. What I tend to discount is that Viserys "automatically" became the heir under Targ inheritance rules.

I dunno. It seems that the Targaryen kings never hampered themselves with laws that would prevent them from choosing whatever heir they wished. The only law was that women couldn't be chosen over male relatives, and that was due to the Dance of Dragons.

Of course, a king would have trouble if he went against what his subjects saw as the "right" sucession according to Westerosi tradition. If Aerys the Mad or Aegon the Unworthy had tried to disinherit Rhaegar or Daeron the Good, their subjects could have rejected that decission and start a rebellion backing the discarded heir.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Lord Ellard Stark was the Lord of Winterfell in 101AC, but he's not on the Stark tree..

Is he the father of Lord Benjen Stark?

[History of Westeros]

Lord Ellard Stark was the Lord of Winterfell in 101AC, but he's not on the Stark tree..

Is he the father of Lord Benjen Stark?

I was wondering this same thing. Ellard was also Lord of Winterfell when Jaehaerys arranged for the Night's Watch to receive the New Gift.

So this bit with the New Gift was later in Jaehaerys's reign, or Ellard was Lord for a long time, or both.

Benjen could've ruled a rather short time, though I personally haven't tried to figure out when Cregan's reign started.