Jump to content

Small Questions v 10019


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Aenar Targaryen was the head of House Targaryen at the time where the Targaryens still lived in Valyria. It was his daughter, Daenys the Dreamer, who dreamed of the Doom, and Aenar decided to trust her vision about the Doom, causing him to relocate his entire family to Dragonstone. The Houses Velaryon and Celtigar moved with them. The rest of the population of Valyria didn't think Daenys' dream was anything but a dream. This feeling might have been reinforced by the fact that the Doom happened only 12 years after Aenar had left. They thought Aenar leaving was a sign of weakness, and even though it technically wasn't really exile, they called him The Exile for leaving.

You are beautiful. Now, in TP&TQ,

Aegon II dons an iron & ruby crown

but the crown of Aegon I was Valyrian steel with rubies (http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Targaryen_Kings/). Can anyone explain the discrepancy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are beautiful. Now, in TP&TQ,

Aegon II dons an iron & ruby crown

but the crown of Aegon I was Valyrian steel with rubies (http://www.westeros.org/Citadel/SSM/Entry/Targaryen_Kings/). Can anyone explain the discrepancy?

:D Thank you!

The information about Aegon I's crown comes from a SSM. The words in the SSMs are things GRRM had thought of at one point, though should he decide to chance his mind, he is allowed to. Whatever we read in the asoiaf books, the Dunk & Egg stories, and now also the Princess and the Queen, is canon, and is, as I like to call it, asoiaf-fact. Should any information from the written material contradict the information from an SSM, than the information from the written material is correct.

From the SSM page

"I would have no problem with you collecting my "words" (by which I assume you mean interviews, public comments, letters, etc, rather than fiction), provided that I could ask you to pull down anything I decided I did not want up there -- misquotes, outdated info, slips of the tongue, etc."

Does the Wife of a Knight become a Lady? Or recieve any other title? Or does it perhaps depend on them level of knight (i.e. hedge, landed, etc.) I know Davos had a ship, The Lady Marya for his wife, but I didn't really see that as an answer to what I wanted to know.

A Knight get's the title Ser. The title lady indicates someone of high birth. Although there are some exceptions. For instance, in tPatQ

Prince Aemond refers to his bedmate Alys Rivers as his "lady"

thought this is without the capital L.

When it's "Lady" this means the wife of a ruling Lord.

The title Lady, I think, can only be received by either birth (highborn) or marriage to a highborn man (whose father or brother is a lord, or whose own title is Lord). For instance, Ser Garlan doesn't have the title Lord, though he can be called my lord just as Tyrion is referred to as "my lord". Garlan's wife Leonette is a lady by birth.

It's all in the capital letter, really. When it's Lord and Lady, it's a title, when they say "lord" and "lady" it simply refers to the status of birth.

Davos wasn't only a knight, he was a Lord in his own right, having received some lands from Stannis prior to the start of the books. His wife being referred to as Lady is quite right here, actually.

I hope this helps :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D Thank you!

The information about Aegon I's crown comes from a SSM. The words in the SSMs are things GRRM had thought of at one point, though should he decide to chance his mind, he is allowed to. Whatever we read in the asoiaf books, the Dunk & Egg stories, and now also the Princess and the Queen, is canon, and is, as I like to call it, asoiaf-fact. Should any information from the written material contradict the information from an SSM, than the information from the written material is correct.

From the SSM page

A Knight get's the title Ser. The title lady indicates someone of high birth. Although there are some exceptions. For instance, in tPatQ

Prince Aemond refers to his bedmate Alys Rivers as his "lady"

thought this is without the capital L.

When it's "Lady" this means the wife of a ruling Lord.

The title Lady, I think, can only be received by either birth (highborn) or marriage to a highborn man (whose father or brother is a lord, or whose own title is Lord). For instance, Ser Garlan doesn't have the title Lord, though he can be called my lord just as Tyrion is referred to as "my lord". Garlan's wife Leonette is a lady by birth.

It's all in the capital letter, really. When it's Lord and Lady, it's a title, when they say "lord" and "lady" it simply refers to the status of birth.

Davos wasn't only a knight, he was a Lord in his own right, having received some lands from Stannis prior to the start of the books. His wife being referred to as Lady is quite right here, actually.

I hope this helps :)

Thank you, that helps a lot :-) Though if you don't mind me pointing out, Davos was actually a Knight at the beginning of Clash of Kings. His Lordship came afterwards. Although I don't recall exactly when, I seem to think after the Storm's End Shadowbaby. However I realise he did hold some lands and a keep in Cape Wrath. Which then makes him a Landed Knight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davos wasn't only a knight, he was a Lord in his own right, having received some lands from Stannis prior to the start of the books. His wife being referred to as Lady is quite right here, actually.

I hope this helps :)

Just because Davos had land does not mean he was necessarily a Lord. 'Lady' and 'lady' are fairly generic and seemingly interchangeable. This may also be related to the issue that GRRM mentioned, namely that he should have had more levels of nobility Duke, Baron, Viscount, etc. He likely would have had more titles for women as well. It was not something he could retcon.

ETA: Davos was not a lord at the outset of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, that helps a lot :-) Though if you don't mind me pointing out, Davos was actually a Knight at the beginning of Clash of Kings. His Lordship came afterwards. Although I don't recall exactly when, I seem to think after the Storm's End Shadowbaby. However I realise he did hold some lands and a keep in Cape Wrath. Which then makes him a Landed Knight?

Ah yes, that's right. Davos was a landed knight, though landed Knights usually have smallfolk and men at arms serving under them. I'm not sure Davos had those.

Davos does indeed only become a Lord when Stannis names him so, at the same moment he names him Hand of the King.

Just because Davos had land does not mean he was necessarily a Lord. 'Lady' and 'lady' are fairly generic and seemingly interchangeable. This may also be related to the issue that GRRM mentioned, namely that he should have had more levels of nobility Duke, Baron, Viscount, etc. He likely would have had more titles for women as well. It was not something he could retcon.

Davos was named Lord of the Rainwood by King Stannis, so that would make him a Lord. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wasn't Prince Daemon Targaryen considered by the Great Council of 101 and who were his parents?

Prince Daemon was the younger brother of Viserys I. There are several reasons why he wouldn't have been considered:

(1) He's a younger brother. He cannot sit the throne whilst his elder brother lives. Viserys, by then might still have had more than 1 child (I can't recall exactly if it is stated when his two sons exactly die, but they were very young and it happened before 105 AC)

(2) He might not have been in Westeros. Daemon was known to travel Across the Narrow Sea. Though I personally don't believe this would have been the reasons for Daemon not to have been considered.

I personally think reason 1 is the reason why. Viserys was the elder, and Viserys already had children. A younger brother cannot inherit before an elder one, even the Great Council must surely have known that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prince Daemon was the younger brother of Viserys I. There are several reasons why he wouldn't have been considered:

(1) He's a younger brother. He cannot sit the throne whilst his elder brother lives. Viserys, by then might still have had more than 1 child (I can't recall exactly if it is stated when his two sons exactly die, but they were very young and it happened before 105 AC)

(2) He might not have been in Westeros. Daemon was known to travel Across the Narrow Sea. Though I personally don't believe this would have been the reasons for Daemon not to have been considered.

I personally think reason 1 is the reason why. Viserys was the elder, and Viserys already had children. A younger brother cannot inherit before an elder one, even the Great Council must surely have known that.

If Viserys and Daemon were brothers, was their father Baelon? And was Rhaenys Balon's older sister? And were Laenor and Laena her children? And was Laena older than Laenor? If so, it all makes sense, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Viserys and Daemon were brothers, was their father Baelon? And was Rhaenys Balon's older sister? And were Laenor and Laena her children? And was Laena older than Laenor? If so, it all makes sense, no?

Who Baelon was, is not exactly sure. To me it seems logical that Baelon was the father of Viserys and Daemon, but others have suggested he might have been another son of Jaehaerys, or that he might have been a younger brother of Rhaenys. We only know Baelon's first name, and that he was once considered the heir to the trhone.

Laenor and Laena were most likely the children of Rhaenys and Corlys Velaryon. It isn't stated explicitly, but it is the most logical thing. That would explain why Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor could have a claim for the Driftmark - Corlys was the Lord of the Driftmark after all.

It would also explain why Laena and Laenor were considered for the throne. Especially if Laena was the eldest, which isn't known. If they are indeed both children of Rhaenys, their claim could come from her.

To really know who Baelon was, and to confirm if Laena and Laenor were brother and sister (most likely, seeing their names being so similar), and Rhaenys' children (again, most likely, she is the only female Targaryen to have married a Velaryon Lord), and to get a confirmation about who was the eldest, I think we have no choice but to wait for the World book - or an SSM which might clear up some confusion.

My bets are on the World book! :)

To add: if Baelon was a brother to Rhaenys, he could not have been the father of Viserys and Daemon. If Baelon was the father of Viserys and Daemon, he could not have been the brother of Rhaenys. Rhaenys' claim comes from the fact that she was Aemons eldest (or only) child. Also, Rhaenys and Daemon differ 6 years in age. Rhaenys and Viserys would differ even less in age. No father of Daemon and Viserys could be Rhaenys' younger brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who Baelon was, is not exactly sure. To me it seems logical that Baelon was the father of Viserys and Daemon, but others have suggested he might have been another son of Jaehaerys, or that he might have been a younger brother of Rhaenys. We only know Baelon's first name, and that he was once considered the heir to the trhone.

Laenor and Laena were most likely the children of Rhaenys and Corlys Velaryon. It isn't stated explicitly, but it is the most logical thing. That would explain why Rhaenyra's sons by Laenor could have a claim for the Driftmark - Corlys was the Lord of the Driftmark after all.

It would also explain why Laena and Laenor were considered for the throne. Especially if Laena was the eldest, which isn't known. If they are indeed both children of Rhaenys, their claim could come from her.

To really know who Baelon was, and to confirm if Laena and Laenor were brother and sister (most likely, seeing their names being so similar), and Rhaenys' children (again, most likely, she is the only female Targaryen to have married a Velaryon Lord), and to get a confirmation about who was the eldest, I think we have no choice but to wait for the World book - or an SSM which might clear up some confusion.

My bets are on the World book! :)

To add: if Baelon was a brother to Rhaenys, he could not have been the father of Viserys and Daemon. If Baelon was the father of Viserys and Daemon, he could not have been the brother of Rhaenys. Rhaenys' claim comes from the fact that she was Aemons eldest (or only) child. Also, Rhaenys and Daemon differ 6 years in age. Rhaenys and Viserys would differ even less in age. No father of Daemon and Viserys could be Rhaenys' younger brother.

Probably Rhaenys was the daughter of the eldest son on the Old King and Viserys and Daemon sons of a younger son, probably Baelon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably Rhaenys was the daughter of the eldest son on the Old King and Viserys and Daemon sons of a younger son, probably Baelon.

I agree, this is the most likely course. Most people agree on Rhaenys. Though for Baelon, there are plenty of possibilities that have to be at least considered until we have more information. For lengthy discussions on this topic, you should read this thread:

http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/100284-spoilers-the-princess-and-the-queen-complete-spoilers-discussion/page-1

It is completely filled with spoilers, so if you haven't read the Princess and the Queen yet, and you don't want it spoiled, I suggest you don't read it.

Especially from page 52 onwards, at least until page 56, this is heavily discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are dothraki bows ever described?

The only ones ever mentioned in Dany's chapters are Dragonbone.

Haggo gave her a great leather whip with a silver handle, Cohollo a magnificent arakh

chased in gold, and Qotho a double-curved dragonbone bow taller than she was.

On the platform they piled Khal Drogo’s treasures: his great

tent, his painted vests, his saddles and harness, the whip his father had given him when he came

to manhood, the arakh he had used to slay Khal Ogo and his son, a mighty dragonbone bow.

These are the only ones I see so far that give any kind of description.

edt And one mention from Tyrion:

Dragonbone is black because of its high iron content, the book told him. It is strong as steel, yet lighter and far more flexible, and of course utterly impervious to fire. Dragonbone bows are greatly prized by the Dothraki, and small wonder. An archer so armed can outrange any wooden bow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Do we know of any knights who have never believed in the faith?

Jorah Mormont might be a case. He was knighted for his actions in the Greyjoy Rebellion, one of the first through the breach at Pyke.

There seem to be two ways of being dubbed a knight. The full ceremony (vigil, anointed by oils, in the sept, etc.) and those given right on the battlefield.

This always seemed a little unclear to me, no matter how many times I have read the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jorah Mormont might be a case. He was knighted for his actions in the Greyjoy Rebellion, one of the first through the breach at Pyke.

There seem to be two ways of being dubbed a knight. The full ceremony (vigil, anointed by oils, in the sept, etc.) and those given right on the battlefield.

This always seemed a little unclear to me, no matter how many times I have read the books.

But for all we know Jorah may have followed the Seven. He may have been from.the North but that is no guarantee of following the Old Gods (see the Manderlys). Of course he may not have followed the Seven too, but it sprung to mind that Thoros was not knighted for his action in the Greyjoy Rebellion, despitr being first through the walls
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But for all we know Jorah may have followed the Seven. He may have been from.the North but that is no guarantee of following the Old Gods (see the Manderlys). Of course he may not have followed the Seven too, but it sprung to mind that Thoros was not knighted for his action in the Greyjoy Rebellion, despitr being first through the walls

But he was a priest. This was not a world where Elton John and Paul McCartney would have been knighted. Tyrion's acts through the Battle of the Blackwatter were clearly deserving of a knighthood and it would have served Tywin to have it done bit nobody, including Tywin could ever consider a dwarf to be a knight. In the eyes of the aristocracy knighting Thoros and Tyrion would devalue the honor even more than UnBeric's actions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.

Do we know of any knights who have never believed in the faith?

Then we have the case of anyone in the BwB who was knighted by Beric Dondarrion. Gendry for instance. Did he or any of them never believe in the Fot7? Do they currently not believe in the Fot7? As I said in the other response, it seems unclear.

There is a good SSM about the importance from whom one gets the knighthood. (Which is only sort of related to your question.) And another, which is also confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...