Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rhaenys_Targaryen

  1. On 12/10/2021 at 8:13 PM, Lord Varys said:

    For what it's worth, I think, there are sources from George that state that the Doom took place a century before the Conquest, and the Conquest began in 2 BC, so 102 BC would be the date of the Doom if 100 years/century time period were accurate.

    In that sense, we don't really need clarification for that.

    Just like events 'a decade ago' are not always exactly ten years, and 'a thousand years' does not always mean exactly a thousand years, 'a century' does not necessarily have to mean 'exactly a hundred years before'.

    And since the phrasing in TWOIAF resulted in discussion on the correct interpretation, it is nice to have now this confirmation

  2. On 12/17/2021 at 11:41 AM, direpupy said:

    @Thomaerys Velaryon has updated Visenya Targaryen's year of birth based on FaB stating she is 2 years older then her brother Aegon who was born in 27 BC.

    While that would most likely put her birth in 29 BC i have some doubts it can be stated as certainty because of 2 reasons.

    1: we do not know if its exactly 2 years or maybe a little more or less.

    2: we do not know where in the year Aegon was born

    This means that if Aegon was born early in the Year and its a little more then 2 years between them Visenya could have been born in late 30 BC and not 29 BC

    I do not want to change anything unless more people agree so i am asking for other people's opinion on this, spesificaly i am hoping @Rhaenys_Targaryen whille chime in since you are the driving force behind the wiki timeline project.


    On 12/17/2021 at 3:13 PM, direpupy said:

    That guideline (its not a rule) also states very explisitly that it does not always apply, unfortunatly its not described when it does and when it does not apply. 

    While I don't check the forum daily anymore, I do still check in with some frequency :)

    The situation you describe would be an exception to the guideline. If the source says Aegon was born in 27 BC and that Visenya was two years older, we should indeed place het birth in 29 BC, until a future source specifies the placements of the births in the respective years.

  3. Regarding  timelines, on the official George RR Martin Facebook there was a post today on Aenar the Exile. The post was accompanied bt the text:

    Kicking off  #TargaryenThursdays with Aenar Targaryen, The Lord who Left or Aenar the Exile.  In 114 BC, 12 years before the fall and after a prophetic dream from his Daughter, he fled  Valyria and moved the Targaryen name to a new land and establishing Dragonstone.

    As I remember that the way it was phrased in TWOIAF it was still unclear if 114 BC was the year of the Doom, or whether 114 BC was the 12th year before the Doom, the above post seems to make it clear that 114 BC was the 12th year before the Doom, making 102 BC the year of the Doom.

    My question, @Ran, how (semi)-canon can we consider this post to be? It is (most likely, but not certainly) not written by GRRM himself, but it is posted via his account. 

    As this would settle quite a long timeline argument, I am curious about your response :)

  4. 5 hours ago, Ser Jon Darry said:

    Maladon Moore was alleged to have been involved in the death of Ceryse Hightower, it was not proven. But he was found guilty in the death of Tyanna of the Tower and was executed for it. So I don't know why someone keeps adding that back in on the Kingsguard page.

    Sorry, I think that was my mistake. I had started writing this morning on a correction for the page and pressed save much later today, so some newer edits might have gotten lost in the mix there. I will double check, but I have at least corrected the Maladon Moore issue already.

  5. On 10/8/2021 at 6:20 PM, Ran said:

    That's a error in the app, and a rather big one! The event being recounted had nothing to do with Brandon -- it's when the Blackwoods and Brackens came to hash out issues under Lord Hoster's supervision, and Catelyn had danced a bunch of times with Littlefinger but seemed unaware that he was in love with her.

    Will make a note to the app people to get that fixed. I obviously conflated a couple of things, as Lysa (the source of the event) switches to talking about Brandon and the duel with Littlefinger. 

    It is good to have this information! Thank you! I have updated Catelyn's wiki page to reflect this.

  6. On 9/2/2021 at 11:56 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

    The article of Amory Lorch states about the last Lord Tarbeck incident: 

    Assuming that Amory Lorch was at least fifteen years old at the time of the Reyne-Tarbeck Rebellion (as he was already a knight), this would make him 37 years old or older during the Sack of King's Landing, and thus unlikely to be in prime condition to scale the walls of Maegor's Holdfast. Additionally, he would be 53 years old or older during the War of the Five Kings, and he is not mentioned to be an older man in his appearances in A Clash of Kings. This inconsistency may be why this incident was not included in the published Westerlands chapter of The World of Ice & Fire.

    I can see no reason why a forty year old professional fighter wouldn't be able to scale some walls. And while no-one says Amory looks a bit older in 299 AC, the opposite isn't stated neither. So I would remove this part from the article.

    I agree with this conclusion, and have removed the note from the page. It is clearly stated that the information comes from a semi-canon source, and until there is something canon published that contradicts this semi-canon information, it should be fine to have it written like this without a note speculating why it might not have been included in the published materials.

  7. On 2/22/2021 at 10:35 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

    When Elissa Farman hired people for her voyage in Oldtown, it says that she succeeded in finding a crew because she had gold at the vaults of the Iron Bank. So she must have had some proof about that.

    Good catch! :)

  8. On 2/20/2021 at 2:37 PM, Ephraim'sFruit said:

    Does the Iron Bank issue note/paper currency to clients?

    Surely they arent still loading up boats with the literal amount of gold that they lend out?? Or are they?

    Paper currency has thus far not been described.

    We have seen examples of people signing contracts promising money to be paid at a later point in time (eg Tyrion for the Second Sons).

    The method the Brotherhood without Banners uses, shows that the smallfolk have no use for such promises on paper, though. Assuming the smallfolk of Essos feel the same way, if the Iron Bank does not pay out in actual coins, the client will still not be able to use it.

    Perhaps, where the loan concerns a really large amount, the Iron Bank does not pay everything out at once. Possibly, we'll learn more about it in Winds

  9. 3 hours ago, Old Valyria said:


    However, in the family tree of House Stark's page it's still mentioned Brandon Stark's supposed bastard children, although it was already removed from the family tree in his page. 

    I also noticed that in House Stark's page, in the Historical Members section, the birth orders of Sansa (daughter of Rickon) and Serena and Arrana and Aregelle Stark are switched, and that it says there that "Lord Jonnel Stark, known as One-Eye, married both Lady Robyn Ryswell and Lady Sansa Stark." when now we known that it was Sansa his first wife, while Robyn was his second.

    I don't see any potential issue depicted for Brandon.

    For Jonnel Stark, the texts accurately depicts the order of his marriage:

    Lord Jonnel Stark, known as One-Eye, married first to his half-niece Lady Sansa Stark and second to Lady Robyn Ryswell.

    If this is not the text you see, try clearing your cache.


    Arrana and Aregelle are depicted correctly. Arrana was the elder of the two.

    Sansa and Serena are also depicted correctly, as it has been confirmed that the order as presented in the book is incorrect compared to Martin's notes for the tree. Sansa was the elder of the two.


    Can you let me know if clearing your cache worked?

  10. On 1/23/2021 at 3:44 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

    I think we can further narrow the range of years for Vaegon's death. When Aegon III's regents are discussing the succession no one, not even Munkun, brings up Vaegon despite him being the only other male Targaryen left, which means he must have died in or before 132 AC, at which point he'd be sixty-nine, the same age as his father, which is believable.

    I'm not sure that we can take the absence of Vaegon being mentioned or considered as a confirmation that he had died previously. He had been ruled out on account of his vows during the Great Council, and that fact had not changed.

  11. @Lord Corlys Velaryon, @The Wondering Wolf and @Thomaerys Velaryon, thank you for the suggestions! I used the maximum age of a woman's fertile stage to somewhat decrease the possible years of birth for Lyarra.


    On 12/28/2020 at 5:42 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

    These calculations are always kind of ridiculous when basic rules meet common sense and the former wins. ^^ I am not a supporter of these 'born after the Conquest and died before AGOT' calculations, but if you stick to the rules, there is not much scope for interpretation.  Menopause could be a thing here, though.

     Luckily most are not that broad by far hahaha :p


  12. 10 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

    In my opinion the boxes are supposed to give a quick overview about data regarding a certain character. One could always add more stuff, but at some point it gets too convoluted. So giving possibilities for a character's age at the time of death is a bit over the top to me. In the end people can also do the calculation if they are interested in it.

    I agree.

  13. On 12/11/2020 at 5:33 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

    But where is the source for it?

    For Saera, I interpret the text as possibly including her (but I'm not a native speaker, so perhaps I am wrong). For Daemon, not so much.

    TWOIAF states only that there were 9 lesser claiments, and 2 finalists:

    At this council, nine lesser claimants were heard and dismissed, leaving only two primary claimants to the throne: Laenor Velaryon, son of Princess Rhaenys—who was the eldest daughter of Jaehaerys's eldest son, Aemon—and Prince Viserys, eldest son of Baelon the Brave and Princess Alyssa.


    Fire and Blood provides more info, and states as follows:

    No fewer than fourteen claims were duly examined and considered by the lords assembled. From Essos came three rival competitors, grandsons of King Jaehaerys through his daughter Saera, each sired by a different father. One was said to be the very image of his grandsire in his youth. Another, a bastard born to a triarch of old Volantis, arrived with bags of gold and a dwarf elephant. The lavish gifts he distributed amongst the poorer lords undoubtedly helped his claim. The elephant proved less useful. (Princess Saera herself was still alive and well in Volantis, and only thirty-four years of age; her own claim was clearly superior to those of any of her bastard sons, but she did not choose to press it. "I have my own kingdom here," she said, when asked if she meant to return to Westeros.) Another contestant produced sheafs of parchment that demonstrated his descent from Gaemon the Glorious, the greatest of the Targaryen Lords of Dragonstone before the Conquest, by way of a younger daughter and the lord she had married, and on for seven further generations. There was as well a strapping red-haired man-at-arms who claimed to be a bastard son of Maegor the Cruel. By way of proof he brought his mother, an aged innkeep’s daughter who said that she had once been raped by Maegor. (The lords were prepared to believe the fact of rape, but not that the act had gotten her with child.)

    The lords "examined and considered" fourteen claims. That does not necessarily mean that fourteen claims were presented. They were discusses. The paragraph identified Saera's three bastard sons, a descendant of Gaemon the Glorious, and a "bastard of Maegor".  That's five.

    The Great Council deliberated for thirteen days. The tenuous claims of nine lesser competitors were considered and discarded (one such, a hedge knight who put himself forward as a natural son of King Jaehaerys himself, was seized and imprisoned when the king exposed him as a liar). Archmaester Vaegon was ruled out on account of his vows and Princess Rhaenys and her daughter on account of their sex, leaving the two claimants with the most support: Viserys Targaryen, eldest son of Prince Baelon and Princess Alyssa, and Laenor Velaryon, the son of Princess Rhaenys and grandson of Prince Aemon. Viserys was the Old King's grandson, Laenor his great-grandson. The principle of primogeniture favored Laenor, the principle of proximity Viserys. Viserys had also been the last Targaryen to ride Balerion ... though after the death of the Black Dread in 94 AC he never mounted another dragon, whereas the boy Laenor had yet to take his first flight upon his young dragon, a splendid grey-and-white beast he named Seasmoke.

    The following paragraph tells us that a hedge knight , Archmaester Vaegon, Rhaenys, Laena, Laenor, and Viserys were further discussed. That is the two "finalists" and four other, 'lesser' claims. Nine lesser claims in total, leaving four unaccounted for.

    However, the text does state that Saera's claim was 'clearly superior' to those of her three sons. The text states that she choose not to press her claim, but that does not mean her claim could not have been discussed, as the only parent of royal blood of three of the claimants. The text is vague, IMHO, about whether or not she was included in the count. At most, I think, we can include a sentence stating that it is unclear from Gyldan's account if Saera's own claim was discussed by the lords or not.

    But no part of the text suggests that Daemon's claim was ever considered, especially not since he was a younger brother, and according to the laws of inheritance, the elder brother is customarily the first to inherit.

  14. On 12/7/2020 at 5:44 PM, The Dragon Demands said:


    It was right to remove the speculation that the 14th "Candidate" at the Great Council of Harrenhal was quite probably Rhaella Targaryen.

    The guideline for the wiki states that information should be provided objectively. Which means no theories or other speculation.

    Which you know :)

  15. On 11/5/2020 at 7:34 AM, TheLastWolf said:

    1.       Please don’t take this as pretentious or something, but we really need a new Small Qs thread. Said so 5/6 pages ago. Please @Rhaenys_Targaryen. Getting really difficult to keep track and locate older questions. So it would be really great if some mod locks, unpins and/or archives this thread, pins the new one by Lady Rhaenys (presumably) and we all post away!


    On 11/10/2020 at 2:59 PM, TheLastWolf said:

    It's official. Snubbed. Not the first time. But yeah, senior members know better and they may have more than a valid reason to continue this small q thread

    It's official. Impatient and insulting people without reason.

    I don't visit the forum as frequently as I once used to. So don't take not receiving a response for some days as an insult. There is no reason for it, after all :)

    Usually, threads are closed after about 20 pages for length, but there are some exceptions. Those exceptions are made by the moderators. So should a moderator decide that a new version of this thread should be started, we will likely see a message here, or the thread will simply be closed.

    Either way, it is not my decision to make.

    (Nor does a threads length impact the search function of the forum, by the way ;)

  16. 5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    I also seem to recall to have read somewhere - no longer sure where or if I remember it correctly - that Rhaenyra was ten years younger than Alicent which - if precisely accurate - would make 87 AC her year of birth. But 88 AC works just as fine.

    Alicent was 'half again' Rhaenyra's age, in 117 AC. Perhaps that it what you are thinking about?


    6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

    That may be the case, but is not what's implied in the actual book. There the context of the fifteen-year-old daughter is the arrival of the new Hand and his family which took place in 101 AC. If the text is supposed to imply that Alicent only started to take care of Jaehaerys I in 103 AC then this should have been in the text ... or we should at least have the text only to give Alicent's age when her role as nurse is first mentioned.

    As his new Hand, he called upon Ser Otto Hightower, younger brother to Lord Hightower of Oldtown. Ser Otto brought his wife and children to court with him, and served King Jaehaerys faithfully for the years remaining to him. As the Old King's strength and wits began to fail, he was oft confined to his bed. Ser Otto's precocious fifteen-year-old daughter, Alicent, became his constant companion, fetching His Grace his meals, reading to him, helping him to bathe and dress himself. The Old King sometimes mistook her for one of his daughters, calling her by their names; near the end, he grew certain she was his daughter Saera, returned to him from beyond the narrow sea.

    Actually, the text only specifies that Alicent, at the age of fifteen, became Jaehaerys's companion as his strength and wits began to fail him. The text does not specify that this happened in 101 AC, when Otto arrived in KL with his family.


    On 11/1/2020 at 10:13 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

    I discussed this with Elio once and 88 AC seems to be the correct date. He suggested that Alicent only started to take care of Jaehaerys in 103 AC.

    Do you have the link for where this was said?

  18. 8 hours ago, Isobel Harper said:

    @Rhaenys_Targaryen On the wiki page for the Westerosi monarchs, there's a list of all monarchs at the end of the page.  Do you know why Rhaenyra isn't listed as one of the monarchs?  :idea:

    (Kudos to Clint of The Learned Hand Podcast for bringing this to my attention.) 


    Because Westerosi history recognizes it as the reign of Aegon II, with Rhaenyra as a rival claimant. 

    The wiki here follows the list of monarchs in the AGOT appendix and the World of Ice and Fire.

  19. 11 hours ago, Ran said:

    Can you give me an example of pages that have been edited that are not appearing?

    The Brandon Stark page does not show up on the overview at all, while for the page on the Dragonpit, only one of few edits is shown.

    The edits are all being saved, though, but this does suggest that something is not working as it should.

  20. On 10/6/2020 at 7:36 AM, HerblYY said:

    As I said, I was wrong about thinking that 50000 for Gulltown is canon. But on the link given, you can find another link which brings you to a YT video where this guy (who was part of the creating of AWOIAF) analyzes this question. He says that Gulltown might have around that amount of people living there.

    I found these links, and the one where George talks about the 5 cities compared to each other, on this forum, in a topic where the discussion was about how realistic is GRRM's worldbuilding.

    And as I said, I was wrong, it's not canon, but the most accurate speculation made by people who know better what they do than I.

    I have watched the video, but I did not catch anything about 50.000 people for Gulltown.

    The description of the cities compared to each other as stated in the article you have linked I cannot find anywhere.

    Fire and Blood states the following:

    No one planned King's Landing. lt simply grew… but it grew quickly. At Aegon's first coronation, it was still a village squatting beneath a motte-and-bailey castle. By his second, it was already a thriving town of several thousand souls. By 10 AC, it was a true city, almost as large as Gulltown or White Harbor. By 25 AC, it had outgrown both to become the third most populous city in the realm, surpassed only by Lannisport and Oldtown.

    Which tells us that in 10 AC, King's Landing was almost of the same size as Gulltown and White Harbor, and in 25 AC, it was the third most populous city. So, in 25 AC, the order was (largest to smallest) Oldtown, Lannisport, King's Landing, and Gulltown and White Harbor (the latter two in an unspecified order at the time).

    The World of Ice and Fire tells us that White Harbor is (currently) the smallest city of the Seven Kingdoms, and the only city in the North. So at least we know that Gulltown has a larger population than White Harbor in 300 AC.

    Archmaesters can and do quibble about the numbers, but most agree that the population of Westeros north of Dorne doubled during the Conciliator's reign, whilst the population of King's Landing increased fourfold. Lannisport, Gulltown, Duskendale, and White Harbor grew as well, though not to the same extent. 


    We also know from Fire and Blood that, while King's Landing was the third most populous city in 25 AC, and had 100.000 people living in it in 33 AC, during the reign of Jaehaerys I (48 AC - 103 AC), its population increased fourfold. It is not odd to think that the city grew further after Jaehaerys's reign, keeping in mind the peaceful reigns that followed (most notably the reign of Viserys I, which was considered "the most prosperous era in the history of the Seven Kingdoms", the reign of Aerys II, and the reign of Robert I). Of course, that would also have been balanced by losses following the Shivers (more severely than Oldtown, which lost a quarter of its people) and later the Winter Fever (133 AC, one fifth of the population) and the Great Spring Sickness (King's Landing hit hardest, where the sickness took 40% of the population).

    Nevertheless, an increase from 400.000 to ~500.000 people in 200 years following multiple prosperous reigns does not seem that odd, I'd say. It would be far stranger if there was no further increase, especially considering that it had grown to 400.000 people within a hundred years.


  21. 9 hours ago, Old Valyria said:

    @Rhaenys_Targaryen Brandon Stark's (Ned's brother) wiki page, as well as every family tree he's in, states as a fact that he had bastard children. The source for this statement is the SSM: Asshai.com Interview in Barcelona. However, when you read Martin's answer in that source he only says that "It'd be an exaggeration to say that Brandon died before he could have children." and that "He could very well have left behind some little Snows in the various places he visited." So, GRRM didn't explicitly say that Brandon had bastard children, he said that he could very well have had. This shouldn't be treated in the wiki as a confirmation, when it's only an assumption.

    I agree. I don't know who added it, but I will remove it.

  22. On 10/4/2020 at 8:19 PM, HerblYY said:

    I looked after it, and you were right, nowhere is mentioned a fix population of Gulltown.


    Here's the full discussion, it does include informations from one of GRRM's interviews (When he exatly says that the biggest is KL, then a little drop down to Oldtown, then a big drop down to Lannisport and in the end and even bigger down to Gulltown and White Harbor) and speculations of a guy who actually was part of the AWOIAF book. It is also written down why only 400000 people are given to KL. And the thing that even they did not mention is that even if many people are coming to KL from the Riverlands for the call of he Faith, at the same time many people are leaving it too, because of starving.

    I'd be interested to see the source for that, because the article you linked does not specify where the info exactly came from. The order of the cities is, if I recall correctly, described in the books, but the differences between Lannisport and Oldtown, or White Harbor and Gulltown, I cannot recall being described.

    I cannot check the books at the moment. Is there a quote from the books or a semi-canon source for this?

    On 10/4/2020 at 8:19 PM, HerblYY said:

    I can't say you anything more, I'm not a specialist, neither are you, but whoever wrote this knew what he was talking about. And 50000 people for Gulltown is fair enough.

    After all, we are all just speculating, including you.

    I'm not speculating at all, I am merely asking you for a source of the information that you give, my friend :)


  • Create New...