The Wondering Wolf

Something regarding the succession module on the bottom of the pages: Each of the lords Darklyn, Rosby, and Stokeworth during the Dance had an unnamed successor who was brought to King's Landing in 131 AC on the order of Aegon II. While these successors don't have a page on their own (and I'm not sure they need one), it's a bit confusing to have Denys Darklyn, Gyles Rosby, and Tanda Stokeworth as the next known heads of their houses.

Zelensky has dismissed Commander-in-Chief Valerii Zaluzhnyi, and appointed General Oleksandr Syrskyi in his place. https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-dismisses-commander-in-chief-zaluzhnyi/

Totally missed that.

You could be right, but is there a source for that?

The app states Edric was the successor of his father.

When I can't find it with the old search site, I always try it with the new one.

The title is mentioned in the appendices.

There is no need to ensure 1 BC is a full year because the moment Aegon decided to implement a new dating system, the 365 days (or whatever the number is in Westeros) before the starting point would automatically form 1 BC. There isn't any reason to assume that there was any confusion about Aegon's reign and the new calendar among the scholars. He was crowned in the city of the maesters at a point when he held huge power over a continent. That's not comparable to the birth of some child of a minority that would only later turn into some important religious figurehead and whose birth didn't really matter to most people back then.

Hm, that doesn't make much sense to me. Aegon dated the start of his reign to the second coronation. The second coronation marked the official end of the Conquest. So the Conquest was completed that day (we know it actually wasn't, but that doesn't have to bother us here). The coronation was the ending point of the Conquest. Why would Aegon decide that some events before the end of the Conquest (in your example three months) would be dated AC (= after the Conquest)? As Potsk says, this would defeat the purpose of the new dating system.

I think the text makes it pretty clear that the day of Aegon's coronation marked the beginning of his reign and of the new calendar: Births, deaths, battles, and other events are dated either AC (After the Conquest) or BC (Before the Conquest). [...] Even the start date is a matter of some misconception. Many assume, wrongly, that the reign of King Aegon I Targaryen began on the day he landed at the mouth of the Blackwater Rush, beneath the three hills where the city of King’s Landing would eventually stand. Not so. The day of Aegon’s Landing was celebrated by the king and his descendants, but the Conqueror actually dated the start of his reign from the day he was crowned and anointed in the Starry Sept of Oldtown by the High Septon of the Faith. I'm no native speaker but it seems to me that the official end of the Conquest (BC) and the start of the reign (AC) are tied to that coronation. Everything else seems like an assumption not based on the text. I mean when else would the new calendar have started? More than two years passed between Aegon’s landing and his Oldtown coronation [...] Since the text indicates that the day before the coronation was the last day of 1 BC, the Landing must have happend in 3 AC. Otherwise it wouldn't have been more than two years. This doesn't change the fact that most of the actual conquering indeed took place in 2 and 1 BC. While I agree that it's more likely that GRRM doesn't calculate with a year 0, in my opinion it's not up to us wiki editors to make that call.

We know it lasted more than two years, so it actually started in 3 BC. Anyway, the year 0 would be the first year of the new calendar, so the day of Aegon's coronation would be the first day of 0.

@Oneiros Drakontos I'm not sure about your recent changes to the errata pages concerning the year 0. These pages should only contain confirmed errors, and the situation is not really clear here, because GRRM never said that there isn't a year 0. If there was, it would be bad worldbuilding in my opinion and would raise the question why 50 AC is the 50th year after the Conquest and not the 51th, but even then GRRM could decide that this is just how they count the years in Westeros. Which would be a weak explanation in my opinion, but it wouldn't be an error then.

Well, I guess that's the question here. In Westeros it's not usual to have more than one seat (I know there a few exceptions), especially when they are in a different region. So is Baelish of the Fingers technically the same house as Baelish of Harrenhal? Maybe other editors can weigh in and give their opinions.

Cadet branch might not be the right term, indeed, I'm not sure it's the same house, though. Baelish of the Fingers is a vassal to some Vale house, Baelish of Harrenhal is lord paramount of the riverlands. At this point they both are ruled by Petyr in a way which I would describe as personal union.

There are only pages for years with many or at least important events. You can find the other years on an overall page.

@Thomaerys Velaryon has already changed the first part. But the part with the dragon on his surcoat is not based on the text, as well.

In the 'Appearance and Character' section of Daemon Targaryen, artwork is used to source his looks. As I understood, the artwork is not canon and thus can't be used as reference. @Thomaerys Velaryon Maybe also remove the statement about the Targaryen dragon on his surcoat.

'Semi-canon' refers to facts regarding the Ice and Fire books which can be traced back to GRRM himself, but haven't been published in a book of GRRM yet. So as long as GRRM doesn't say that these names are book names or anyone from the show says they got the names from GRRM, we can't consider them semi-canon. This also applies to places like Clegane's Keep. I guess the name has been used because it's similar enough to what we would have come up with if there hadn't been a show name.

I think the title should reflect the formally accurate name of a character, so regal numbers over nicknames or ephitets. Greenbeard should be moved to Pello of Tyrosh in my opinion. And it should be Brandon the Builder, as with all legendary characters.

In the version of The Rogue Prince, the silent fives were younger brothers, but this is outdated information.

The text doesn't mention siblings, but five cousins fathered by Corlys's youngest brother. I guess it's possible that some of them had children, too, but I'm not sure these children would have made appropriate wives for Alyn's son. A daughter of Daemion would have been a better match.

Aegon I was born in 27 BC, but he became 60 in 33 AC and 64 in 37 AC, which isn't possible without a year 0.

I think the Last Storm is the last event which definitively took place in 2 BC, after that it gets a bit blurry. The Field of Fire could have occured in the first days of 1 BC. Something I've just noticed: Aegon's coronation in Oldtown marked the beginning of a new calendar, so it was on the first day of 1 AC (there are some question marks on the 1, because GRRM seems to calculate with a year 0, which doesn't make much sense in my opinion, but doesn't matter here). Since more than two years passed between Aegon's Landing and his coronation, the former must have occured in 3 BC. This wouldn't change the fact that most of the conquering took place in 2 and 1 BC, but it would shift the starting point.

I think the MUSH marriage between Benjicot und Ellyn Baratheon is interesting, too, and in my opinion one of the likelier things from the MUSH to turn out canon. If that had happened indeed, the Blackwoods would have got some Targaryen blood via Alyssa Velaryon and Orys Baratheon. Benjicot's first son could have been born around 140 AC, the son's first son around 162 AC (this could have been Quentyn). Then it gets a bit complicated, because we know Betha was born in 201 AC and she was the daughter of Lord Blackwood. There are also the three or four Blackwood brothers at the tourney of Ashford in 209 AC, of whom Bennifer was heir (he must have been at least 20 years old at that point). No idea whether the Lord Blackwood then was his father or older brother. I guess there are a lot of possibilities for a family tree.

I guess it is because his mother wasn't a rock wife (as she was from the westerlands). But do we have any idea how the ironborn consider wives who both aren't ironborn and weren't kidnapped from the main lands?