Queen Rhaenyra

Errors in the WOIAF

167 posts in this topic

The source is Theon's claim that "a thousand years ago" the River King's sons were slaughtered there, obviously referring to the deaths of Bernarr II's sons... but Theon is not a historian, and "a thousand years" need not be taken literally.

Does this also apply to other mentions of "a thousand years"? In AFFC's The Princess in the Tower:

there was bad blood between their Houses going back a thousand years, from when the Fowlers had chosen Martell over Yronwood during Nymeria's War.

ADWD also indicates that the Valyrians defeated the Rhoynar a thousand years ago:

From ADWD's Tyrion III:

[Ghoyan Drohe] had been a fair place, green and flowering, a city of canals and fountains. Until the war. Until the dragons came. A thousand years later, the canals were choked with reeds and mud...

From ADWD's Tyrion V:

Tyrion: "The Palace of Love."

Haldon: "that was the Rhoynar name, but for a thousand years this has been the Palace of Sorrow."

These suggest the Rhoynar flight was around 700 BC. However, TWOIAF's "The Coming of the Rhoynar" indicates House Nymeros Martell was founded around 400 BC:

House Martell has guided Dorne for seven hundred years ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might be safe to say that whenever a character says 'a thousand years ago' it really just means 'a long time ago' unless they happen to be a maester or something.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also says that Aerion Brightflame helped put down the second Blackfyre Rebellion in 219 AC, but hadn't he already been exiled to Lys by that time, as is stated in The Hedge Knight?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also says that Aerion Brightflame helped put down the second Blackfyre Rebellion in 219 AC, but hadn't he already been exiled to Lys by that time, as is stated in The Hedge Knight?

It was the Third Blackfyre Rebellion, and he wasn't exiled forever, just a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another error - in the passage in the book discussing Robert's rebellion, Viserys is referred to as King Aerys II's "new heir" after the death of Rhaegar when the babe Aegon is still alive (this would be after the Battle of the Trident but before the Sack of King's Landing).



For example, King Edward III of England was succeeded by his 8 year old grandson Richard II. Edward had other sons, but Richard was the son of Edward's son & heir, Edward the Black Prince, who had pre-deceased King Edward III.



So, primogeniture demands that VIserys would NOT be the heir so long as Rhaegar's son Aegon was alive, baby or not. Viserys would be AFTER Aegon.


Edited by mrlopez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an error. Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king. We have other examples of people being passed over, or potentially passed over, for others.



Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed we didn't know of this earlier from Jaime's recount of the last days of Aerys's rule, but it changes things considerably. Obviously Aerys's paranoia over the dornish side of his grandchildren and his belief that the Dornishmen betrayed Rhaegar at the Trident played into this decision.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then, no one ever discusses the succession of the Iron Throne, or do they? When Dany thinks of Aegon, she does not remember whether he or Viserys came first in the succession, and it may actually be that Viserys himself was never told that he was Prince of Dragonstone now, as Rhaella supposedly shielded him from everything as well as she could.



This actually sheds an interesting light on all things Viserys, as was King Viserys III Targaryen in exile by right as well as by default, and thus one could assume that Varys and Illyrio's original plan was to have Viserys recognize Aegon as the real deal before they rid themselves of him.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another error - in the passage in the book discussing Robert's rebellion, Viserys is referred to as King Aerys II's "new heir" after the death of Rhaegar when the babe Aegon is still alive (this would be after the Battle of the Trident but before the Sack of King's Landing).

For example, King Edward III of England was succeeded by his 8 year old grandson Richard II. Edward had other sons, but Richard was the son of Edward's son & heir, Edward the Black Prince, who had pre-deceased King Edward III.

So, primogeniture demands that VIserys would NOT be the heir so long as Rhaegar's son Aegon was alive, baby or not. Viserys would be AFTER Aegon.

That really isn't right. As GRRM himself has noted when discussing the Hornwood inheritance, in medieval history there was a great debate between primogeniture and "proximity" to the most recent king. Thus, for example, when Richard the Lionheart died, he was succeeded by Prince John (younger son of a king) rather than Arthur of Brittany (son of John's older brother).

Not an error. Primogeniture is customary, but not binding... especially not to a king. We have other examples of people being passed over, or potentially passed over, for others.

Maester Yandel is merely reporting based on historical records on events of the time.

Is primogeniture customary for the Targaryens? It was not followed by either the Great Council of 101 or the Great Council of 233. If those Great Councils set precedents then after Rhaegar died, Viserys -- as the son of the king -- would come before Aegon -- as the grandson of a king -- automatically, with no need for a decree from Aerys. Edited by The Twinslayer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say both Great Council set a precedent against primogeniture, yes. Although others did not. If you closely check TWoIaF it seems that in the last century the kings more and more chose their heirs. Aerys I chose three heirs and named them Prince of Dragonstone (Rhaegel, Aelor, and Maekar), and when Maekar had no clear chosen heir a war of succession was only prevented when Bloodraven called a Great Council. Aegon V named both Duncan and Jaehaerys as his heir, as did Jaehaerys after him. Whenever there was no recognized heir things got touchier. Even back in the second century, after the Dance, when Baelor apparently died without having named Viserys his heir (some people thought Daena should inherit).



And in Aerys' days people could actually have supported a younger son with about as many good legal arguments as an elder son or a grandson from the elder line. In fact, I guess this is what leads to Renly casually claiming the Iron Throne as if this was no big deal. There were no binding rules, just guidelines, and Robert delivered a severe blow to them by winning the rebellion and bragging that his strength rather than 'the law' made him king.


Edited by Lord Varys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick understanding of precedent, precedent is not a law nor is it legally binding in anyway. It is and always has been simply an example of something used for consideration in relatable circumstance. A monarch also does not have to call a great council for anything if he does not wish, hence the term monarch.

An example of precedent "Nymeria set a precedent for female rule in Westeros." "Aerys established a counter precedent for primogeniture, said precedent was never challenged"

No matter what I highly doubt we get book 7 ASOIAF Law and Order addition "The Primogeniture hearings"

I am also pretty sure Elio and Martin who Co authored the book know what they are talking about as it is their book and Martin' series. The debate on the validity of his statment on the matter is getting rediculous. If people are worried about why it was not addressed it was addressed in the World book and by Ran. If they wanted it clarified it just was twice.

Did that happen?

Yes.

No but did it really happen?

Yes.

Ok but serieously it's a mistake?

It's not a mistake.

No but you and Martin must be wrong, Jon is supppose to have the Throne handed to him and everything should be easy for him. That's how it suppose to be I read about it in a theory so it must be right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only precedent one can take from the Great Councils was that a woman could not sit the Iron Throne. As Varys says, the rest are guidelines -- even primogeniture, as I said.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has already been mentioned but at the back of the book with the targaryen family tree, it says that rhaenys targaryen (daughter of rhaegar) is a boy. Maybe this is just my book but it has a square underneath her name (which means she's a boy) rather than a triangle (which means she's a girl)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran,



well, from what we know even the female inheritance thing were a serious of precedents rather than one clear precedence. In favor of female inheritance was Maegor-Aerea (apparently pretty toothless, but I don't know much about that), and then of course Viserys-Rhaenyra (sort of successfully challenged). Can you by any chance elaborate a little bit on Aerea as Maegor's heir? Was this a desperate move in the end since he had no heir of his body, or were quite a lot of people actually accepting it. And where were Alyssa and Rhaena standing in regards to the claims of Rhaena's daughters by Aegon? They seemed to have supported Jaehaerys, but was Rhaena still completely in camp Jaehaerys after Maegor was gone?



Against female inheritance was Jaehaerys-Baelon, the Dance (sort of, in the sense that Aegon II refused to acknowledge Rhaenyra as queen), Viserys over Daena, and Aerys I passing over Aelora (if she still lived) and Daenora in favor of Maekar. The Great Council of 101 seems to have been more male line vs. female line - not males vs. females - as you have said that it was Viserys vs. Laenor rather than Viserys vs. Rhaenys. The Velaryon faction seems to have relented and accepted that a woman should/cannot sit the Iron Throne and put thus forth Laenor's claim instead.



But even after the Dance female inheritance did not seem to have been dead completely. The last nail in the coffin of that thing seems to have been the ascension of Viserys II against Daena, Rhaena, and Elaena. But if we imagine there was no Maidenvault, and Daena married to Oakenfist's hair with sons of her own upon Baelor's death Daena could have had a strong enough party to demand the Iron Throne either for herself or her son.



Another thing I'm wondering is if you know whether Jaehaera was Aegon II's official/acknowledged Heir Presumptive after his restoration? I'd think so but this is not stated anywhere. We know he wanted to marry one of Borros' daughters - presumably to father new sons, if he was still capable - but it seems very unlikely that he considered Aegon the Younger his heir. After all, the boy was Daemon and Rhaenyra's get, a hostage he wanted to mutilate shortly before he died.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, that's the only precedent that came out of it. No woman ever did sit the Iron Throne, after all, and even vague moves in that direction failed.


Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Rhaenyra did sit on it, but I get your meaning. Lets cross fingers that Dany does not suffer the same fate - being remembered as a 'false queen' even if she should die.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so viserys was aerys heir after rhaegars death. But why was aegon then called PRINCE? And why does jorah tell daenerys in qarth that PRINCE aegon was rhaegars heir?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so viserys was aerys heir after rhaegars death. But why was aegon then called PRINCE? And why does jorah tell daenerys in qarth that PRINCE aegon was rhaegars heir?

He is still Rhaegar's heir regardless of the decree. He just is not Aerys's heir, or at least not the first in line to the throne after the decree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so viserys was aerys heir after rhaegars death. But why was aegon then called PRINCE? And why does jorah tell daenerys in qarth that PRINCE aegon was rhaegars heir?

In addition to SFDanny's comments, I'll add that Prince has several meanings, but it never means "heir". The simplest definition is "close male relative of the royal family" or something similar.

Bran & Rickon were Princes after Robb became King in the North, for example. Tommen was a Prince at birth, not because Robert died, etc.

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