Rhaenys_Targaryen

Shouldn't the primary page (if it does not lead to the disambiguation page) be the page of the character most prominently featured? And they are both somewhat equally featured, I think..

Welcome! The Timeline Project is meant for all ASOIAF materials, including Fire & Blood! So please share your thoughts, I'd be very interested!

The maps "The Known World" and "The West" from The Lands of Ice and Fire.

Should "King of Meereen" be a separate page from Queen of Meereen? Queen of Meereen is a title Daenerys uses as ruling monarch, but as far as we know, she is the only one to have had the title. King of Meereen, on the other hand, was also used by the Meereenese rulers of old

I don't see what taking the mushrooms has to do with him confiscating Pycelle's poisons back in KL the year before? Perhaps you can elaborate? If Tyrion took the poisons from Pycelle, he would have lost all access to them upon his arrest... if he had not already lost them while he was unconscious and recovering from his wounds after the Blackwater.

Tyrion stealing the laxative while Pycelle is still serving as Grandmaester and Tyrion possibly confiscating (some of) Pycelle's possessions after Pycelle has been arrested are two different events. The former was described in Tyrion's POV, the latter only retrospectively during the trial, as far as I recall. So in that sense, it is not confirmed by Tyrion himself, but considering that both Pycelle and Varys claim it (and Varys would have no reason to claim it if it hadn't happened), I see no reason why it shouldn't be true. Tyrion's other option would have been leaving the poisons where they were, where everyone could have taken them to use them against him.

The text only describes him taking one (to poison Cersei) when he is meeting with Pycelle, but Pycelle claims (and Varys confirms) that Tyrion took the other poisons after Pycelle had been arrested. That was a little while later.

Not a mistake, but something that will eventually be revealed in Fire and Blood (volume 2). The question and confirming answere can be found here.

That only a daughter is identified does not mean Lyonel did not have any sons. Or, he did not die in battle, but from an illness, or accident, or something like that.

They are not related. The RPG provides some general history, but that can also be found in the main novels. The World of Ice & Fire gives much more history, newly written.

We don't know. It is possible he had send a raven ahead, but nothing about it has been mentioned so far.

From the wiki's talk page of Ned Bean by user @Potsk

The wine from ADWD is unlikely to indicate a pregnancy, since she hasn't been with a man since Drogo's death a year before at that point. But later on, it is certaibly possible, after having had sex with Daario and later on Hizdahr. Martin draws attention to the potential absence on Dany's period for a few months, and on the morning of her wedding, she is said to be "glowing". "Magnificence, every day you grow more beautiful. I think the prospect of your wedding has given you a glow. Oh, my shining queen!" Perhaps it means nothing, but perhaps it does indicate a pregnancy.

Tyrion claims half a million in ASOS, and as far as I am aware, no higher number has been stated so far.

@Ran Errata question: In TWOIAF, Laenor Velaryon is called "Prince Laenor" twice when discussing the Great Council of 101 AC in the chapter The Stormlands: House Baratheon, and Baela and Rhaena are described as "princess" once in The Targaryen Kings: Aegon III. This contradicts Gyldayn's work (and the remainder of Yandel's own work), in the sence that Laenor is otherwise always referred to as Ser, and Rhaena and Baela always as "Lady". Can we count the usage of "Prince" for Laenor and "princesses" for Baela and Rhaena as an errata? Do you know if this had been changed in later prints?

Thanks!

Could someone help me find the quote that says that Aemon the Dragonknight took his vows of the KG shortly after Aegon and Naerys were wed? All I can find are the quotes that say Aemon was seventeen when he took his vows, and that Aegon and Naerys were wed in 153 AC (the year Aemon turned 17). Looking specifically for the "shorty after the wedding" quote. Help would be much appreciated!

Nothing more recent as far as I am aware.

All possible. However, if it was indeed a person from KL who provided Ned with the information, why did Ned first go to lift the siege of Storm's End, instead of sending another to do the task while he himself went to retrieve Lyanna? Entire threads can be filled with speculation about this

We don't know. Readers have suggested Ethan Glover, originally a companion of Brandon but at the end of the war among Ned's companions. Other readers have suggested one or more of the loyalists at Storm's End provided Ned with the information when he came to lift the siege. It is also possible he heard rumours and managed to piece it together. Or someone else told him. At the moment, we can only speculate.

Done, Falena's page, the House Stokeworth page, and the calculation have been adjusted

It is always possible it is a bit of loose wording, of course, but if Daemon had been Lord at the time of Aenys's death, I would expect it to read "her lord brother's castle" or "her brother's castle" or something to that effect. So, I personally think that, until other confirmation, we should take it to mean Aethan was still alive. After all, that Alyssa, her brothers, and her cousins went to King's Landing to do homage and not Aethan does not have to mean Aethan had already died. He could have send his children to KL but stayed at home himself (for example because of his age or health). It is not stated anywhere? Unless we can get confirmation, it should not be there. Perhaps @Ran knows whether the six year old daughter of Lord Stokeworth is supposed to be a young Falena? As to the discrepancy between FaB and TWOIAF, "ten years his elder" might not have been precise (although I always assume it is until there is evidence to the contrary). And even so, being six in 130 AC and, 8 in 133 AC, and 24 in 159 AC is possible. It would only mean that, in the second two instances, her age is stated as it was at the time of the event (so she would still have to celebrate her nameday those years), which could again point to loose wording on Yandel's part ("ten years his elder"), while for Gyldayn it would only be a slight deviation from his usual writing style (he does not state the age a character would turn that year in all instances of his story, although the exception is usually limited to monarchs, as far as a quick analysis tells me. A mistake made in editing, clearly. Hmm.. while I agree it is highly likely that Quenton is Leowyn's son, I agree that there are too many other possibilities that we cannot exclude, as mentioned by @The Wondering Wolf. So I vote for not depicting them as father and son i the family tree, unless we can get some confirmation somewhere.

No. We only know he was knighted at the age of seventeen, but not who had knighted him.

We don't know, and as such, cannot use it for any calculations. With regards to the birth/death years project, we have this thread to discuss anything regarding the project figured you might like to know.

We don't know where it came from. The dagger was, is Ned's mind, proof of the assasination attempt on Bran. So he kept it. He is last described as having it in Eddard 13, carrying it at his waist. Although not explicitly stated, Baelish later uses the dagger Ned carries at his waist to arrest him. Presumably, it is the Valyrian steel daggar, meaning Baelish likely has it now himself. The dagger is, as far as I am aware, not described as appearing anymore later on. Possibly Baelish still carries it around and uses it on a daily basis, perhaps he has it hidden away. But at least our most recent information tells us that most likely Baelish took possession of it during Ned's fall in KL.