Jump to content

Archived

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

Rhaenys_Targaryen

[TWOIAF Spoilers] Inconsistency or Intentional?

Recommended Posts

Ran has already said that this thing is apparently intentional. Something for 'Fire and Blood'. A guess could be that Aegon III fired Munkun as Regent and Grand Maester when he took over, not merely as Regent. After all, he would have to be (partially) blamed for a lot of the shit that happened during the Regency, especially the stuff involving Thaddeus Rowan's torture and the siege of Maegor's Holdfast.



Later on, some other king may have reinstated him - possibly Daeron I or Baelor I - after Alford's death. Thus Munkun would also have had the time to write his account on the Dance. The office of Grand Maester should not give you all that much leisure time.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Lord Varys, I missed this one.



Someone should compile of Ran's comments and clarifications these days. Too much to digest in so little time!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Ran. I'll try to get that one into the German version. It never occurred to me that this may have been a mistake. I thought the Harroways fall from grace as well as the death of Tyanna and the other wives could have occurred all in 48 AC.



THB,



somebody really should. Rhaenys is already looking for the Ran/Linda comment that confirmed that Tywin was named Hand only in 263 AC, not in 262 AC. If that's not found soon, I'll start thinking I'm imagining postings/revelations.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Ran. I'll try to get that one into the German version. It never occurred to me that this may have been a mistake. I thought the Harroways fall from grace as well as the death of Tyanna and the other wives could have occurred all in 48 AC.

THB,

somebody really should. Rhaenys is already looking for the Ran/Linda comment that confirmed that Tywin was named Hand only in 263 AC, not in 262 AC. If that's not found soon, I'll start thinking I'm imagining postings/revelations.

I still haven't been able to find it.. Perhaps Ran could clarify it here? :)

Thanks Lord Varys, I missed this one.

Someone should compile of Ran's comments and clarifications these days. Too much to digest in so little time!

All of the clarifications are in the first list of the OP, all the potential mistakes that people have discovered are listed there as well, in a separate list.

The clarifications from other threads, I haven't listed.. It would indeed be a good idea to keep up with it all.

In any case, the 48AC -> 44AC is added to the OP ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran has already said that this thing is apparently intentional. Something for 'Fire and Blood'. A guess could be that Aegon III fired Munkun as Regent and Grand Maester when he took over, not merely as Regent.

Only the conclave can unmake a Grand Maester, remember? I mean I guess in practice Tyrion unmade Pycelle for a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p. 228, first column reads on two separate occasions 'Prince Laenor' instead of merely 'Laenor of House Velaryon' (when the Great Council is discussed) or a 'Ser Laenor' when his children by Rhaenyra are mentioned.



This contradicts TPatQ and TRP insofar as Laenor is never referred to as 'Prince' therein, most likely because a royal princess could not pass on that title to her children (i.e. Princess Rhaelle's son Steffon Baratheon wasn't a prince, either - and neither is Princess Anne's daughter, by the way).



A similar thing happens with Daemon's daughters Baela and Rhaena - both a called princess(es) on multiple occasions in the book, whereas Gyldayn sticks to the honorific 'Lady' in both TRP and TPatQ. That is most likely so because, even in the male line, a prince of royal blood passes down titles only up to a certain point. The grandson of a king in the male line is still a prince, whereas his great-granddaughters are not.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess the fact that Yandel calls Rhaena and Baela princesses, and Laenor a prince, might just be his personal choice of favoring that choice, whereas Gyldayn likes using the terms "ser" and "lady" more in this situation.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baela and Rhaena also have thr benefit of being half-siblings to the King. That could also give a reason for the 'Princess' titles.

ETA; it is also not likely to be a mistake because of Jacaerys offered Cregan a Targaryen Princess...which was possibly one of the twins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bran refers to Donnor Stark as Lord Donnor (in aCoK, of course) but the Stark tree doesn't have him as such.



It could easily be that Bran is incorrect, but then we'd have yet another Stark in the crypts that wasn't a Lord, along with Lyanna/Brandon and Artos the Implacable.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donnor was a lord. Rodwell, too. Something the third print should already have in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that doesn't seem to add up are the dates of Jaehaerys and Alysannes marriage and death. (p.60)
Jaehaerys became king at the age of 14 in 48 AC (-->born 34 AC) and married his sister once he reached his majority (16 years-->50 AC). It is said that the marriage lasted 46 years placing Alysanne's death in 96 AC however a few pages later we learn that she died less than a year after their daughter Gael in 99/100 AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took that as a sign that Jaehaerys and Alysanne did not marry in 50 AC but rather some years later. But if that's not the case the real dates should be given.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's possible though 53/54 AC would be a bit late for Westerosi standard. Alysanne was only 2 years younger according to the LonCon reading and Jaehaerys was the only male Targ left, so producing heirs would have been of very high priority. A possible reason could be that they wanted to get the Faith's approval before another incestous marriage, which was not given for a few years.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donnor was a lord. Rodwell, too. Something the third print should already have in place.

Ahh cool, thanks!

That fits with the preview we got of the She-Wolves of Winterfell, then. We were told 4 lords Stark died relatively close together, with Lord Beron soon to join them given his mortal wound at the hands of Dagon Greyjoy's reavers. So the four would be:

- Rodwell, Beron's older brother. (probably died from Dagon's reavers as well?)

- Brandon, father of Beron.

- Barth Blacksword, Brandon's older brother. Barth died in the Skagosi rebellion.

- Jonnel One-Eye, Barth and Brandon's older brother.

This does have the side effect of making Bran's reading of the statues a bit odd order-wise, but that is pretty easy to dismiss as "just the way Bran thought about it" or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The information is correct, but there are details about the marriage that will have to wait until Fire and Blood to explain how forty-six years of marriage works in the timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×