[TWOIAF Spoilers] Inconsistency or Intentional?

[FranklynFowler]

I found a couple of inconsistencies in the Westerlands chapter. Tyrion III is listed as being King when the Andals were beginning to conquer the Westerlands, his son was Gerold II (there has been several Gerolds to come after and at least 6 Lancels, 3 Loreons) so it's safe to assume it was earlyish into the reign of House Lannister as King's of the Rock. Later in the chapter an Tyrion II is mentioned (Tyrion the tormenter) he is described as a "later monarch", so i was wondering if that was a mistake. As the coming of the Andals was 6,000 years before the current story, 2,000 years after the first men. So any "later" monarchs would long long after the andals.

Another one is Gerold the Great (Number isn;t mention) is mentioned in the Ironborn chapter warring at a time when the First Men were still in control of Westeros and the very sentence after he was mentioned in the westerlands chapter Lancel IV is said to have beheaded Harrold Halfdrowned and his HEIR. Which would mean this was after Kingsmoots were discontinued which was before the coming of the Andals.

I hoping someone would have any ideas if this was an error, just really bad ordering.

[Hardstone]

That doesn't necessarily mean heir to the throne but heir to his lands and incomes.

[BaguastanSelmy]

In appendix of aSoS, aFfC and aDwD, all say Garth Greenhand was a gardener king of the First Men.

But in tWoIaF, we know that it's Garth the Gardener that found House Gardener. If Garth the Gardener is the first Gardener King, what does the gardener king in these appendix mean? Should we count Garth Greenhand as the first Garth Gardener, aka Garth I Gardener and his firstborn son a Garth II Gardener?

In short, what's the family name (if he has any) of Garth Greenhand? And who's the founder of House Gardener?

[Ramsay's Penguins]

In the riverlands it is said that the Tullys, Blackwoods and Vances rebelled against the Faith Militant and the Teagues (followers of the 7), but in the Tully section, it says the Tullys went over to the Andal warlord Armistead Vance?

So are the Vances Andals or First Men? Did they adopt the Old Gods, or was one branch an Andal house and the other a First Men house?

Another one. George said that the Jordaynes descend from the Daynes, while the book lists them as Andals. I'm assuming this is a mistake of the book?

[thelittledragonthatcould]

So are the Vances Andals or First Men? Did they adopt the Old Gods, or was one branch an Andal house and the other a First Men house?

In the Tully section it says that Armistead Vance was one of the mightiest Andal conquerors.

The Blackwoods rebelled for religious reasons but the Tullys and Vances may have done so for other reasons such as closer ties to the Backwoods than they had with the Teagues.

Another one. George said that the Jordaynes descend from the Daynes, while the book lists them as Andals. I'm assuming this is a mistake of the book?

They can be both. The founder of this cadet branch may have worshipped the 7 making him and his House Andal.

[Ramsay's Penguins]

They can be both. The founder of this cadet branch may have worshipped the 7 making him and his House Andal.

Thats what I had thought. The Jordaynes grew powerful thanks to their Dayne blood, and the power of the Andals.

They probably didn't rise to prominence until the Andals arose.

Thanks

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

The World Book states that Laena had been betrothed to the son of the Sealord of Braavos "for almost a decade", yet TRP tells us that she was 12 when she was betrothed, and 22 when she married Daemon (and her betrothed died).. That would actually make it a decade..

Question: Some early sources stated that Viserys I had two sons with his first wife (Aemma).. We've learned about Baelon (105 AC), but I was wondering whether the other boy still exists in-universe, and whether we will learn about him in Fire and Blood?

[Bael's Bastard]

I thought one of the novellas stated there were two?

[Bael's Bastard]

The Rogue Prince (page 775 in my copy) seems to indicate that Aemma had suffered several miscarriages, the death of one son in the cradle, and birth and survival of Rhaenyra by the time Viserys became king. It then goes on to say that Aemma was announced to be pregnant again in 105 (page 778 of my copy) when Viserys had already been king, and that the son, Baelon, was born in late 105 and died a day after his mother. I suppose it could somehow be explained that the son who died in the cradle was Baelon, but IMO this doesn't seem to be the simplest explanation. IMO, the simplest explanation is that Aemma had a number of miscarriages, then a son was born who died in the cradle before Viserys I became king, and then Rhaenyra was born before Viserys I became king, and then Baelon (who died within a day of his mother's death) was born years after Viserys I became king,

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Ran,

If Elia lived at Dragonstone, when was she attacked by the Kingswood Brotherhood? Elia and Rhaegar moved after they got married, and she became pregnant really soon. It doesn't sound like they visited court during the pregnancy, and after having given birth, Elia went on bedrest for roughly 6 months, after which quickly got pregnant again..

The Brotherhood seems to have been defeated a least a month or 2 before the tourney, and it would seem that Elia wasn't all that far along in her pregnancy when she was there.. But defeating the Brotherhood itself would have taken quite some time as well, which brings us back to the time Elia had just given birth/had just started her bedrest/ was still on Dragonstone.

When did the Brotherhood attack her? Was it around the time of her wedding to Rhaegar, and did it simply take quite a long time for hem to be defeated?

[Mithras]

I think Elia took Rhaenys to Dorne to show her to her brothers after Rhaenys grew old enough for such a travel. And then she took her to KL. Or vice versa. Do we have exact birth year of Rhaenys? I always thought that she was 5 years or so when she was murdered. The only clue is that Arianne hold Rhaenys at her arms but she was not old enough to remember that.

[Helled]

I think Elia took Rhaenys to Dorne to show her to her brothers after Rhaenys grew old enough for such a travel. And then she took her to KL. Or vice versa. Do we have exact birth year of Rhaenys? I always thought that she was 5 years or so when she was murdered. The only clue is that Arianne hold Rhaenys at her arms but she was not old enough to remember that.

Rhaenys is stated to have been born in 280 AC in TWoIaF (so she died aged 3).

[Krugal]

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but on the map of Dorne, shouldn't Vulture's Roost and Tower of Joy be marked as ruins rather than castles? Summerhall is.

[J. Stargaryen]

Ran--Did you ever clarify whether the Anniversary Tourney of 272 occurred in KL (as indicated on p. 116) or Lannisport (as stated on p. 124)?

King's Landing. It's up thread somewhere.

That this would be an event of unrivaled magnificence was clear from the first, for Lord Whent was offering prizes thrice as large as those given at the great Lannisport tourney of 272 AC, hosted by Lord Tywin Lannister in celebration of Aerys II’s tenth year upon the Iron Throne.

- The Year of the False Spring, page 124.

In that case, does Yandel mean the great Anniversary Tournament of 272 in KL, or the great Lannisport Tournament of 276? I'm assuming it's the latter, but I just wanted to make sure.

[UnmaskedLurker]

- The Year of the False Spring, page 124.

In that case, does Yandel mean the great Anniversary Tournament of 272 in KL, or the great Lannisport Tournament of 276? I'm assuming it's the latter, but I just wanted to make sure.

To make your question even more clear, the text should read something like either: "the great anniversary tourney of 272 AC, host by Aerys II in celebration of his tenth year upon the Iron Throne" or "the great Lannisport tourney of 276 AC, hosted by Lord Tywin Lannister in celebration of the birth of Prince Viserys." Either way, the sentence needs a bit of re-writing, but I agree that the latter version (in which the 276 tourney was the intended reference) makes more sense in context.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Hand of the King Tyland Lannister died in 133 AC, and after him, Lord Unwin Peake became Hand. But Peake did not resign as regent until 134 AC...

Yet a page later (on page 84), he's already named as Hand in 133 AC.

So, was Peake both Hand and Regent for one year? Otherwise, there's a mistake here..

Also, is Peake the Hand who send Alyn to fight against the Stepstones?

ETA: Or, is Peake resigning as Hand in 134 AC, the same moment where he resigned as Hand (mentioned on page 84)?

[Bael's Bastard]

Not an inconsistency, but did Munkun the sole regent for a couple years, or did I miss something? I don't have the book on me, but it seemed like some people died pretty early and were never replaced until the year Aegon III began to rule on his own.

[HexMachina]

Hand of the King Tyland Lannister died in 133 AC, and after him, Lord Unwin Peake became Hand. But Peake did not resign as regent until 134 AC...

Yet a page later (on page 84), he's already named as Hand in 133 AC.

So, was Peake both Hand and Regent for one year? Otherwise, there's a mistake here..

Also, is Peake the Hand who send Alyn to fight against the Stepstones?

ETA: Or, is Peake resigning as Hand in 134 AC, the same moment where he resigned as Hand (mentioned on page 84)?

I don't see why he couldn't be both Hand and Regent. There is no rule against it I don't think. And it seems totally in character for someone like Peake to grab as many positions of power as he can

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Not necessarily an inconsistency, but it seems to go against something Ran said a few days ago.

In the chapter of the reign of Aegon III, it is said Aegon died at the age of 36. Aegon died in 157 AC, and was born in 120 AC.

I do not think that Yandel looked to count up exact days and months between nameday and an event. Our own histories are riddled with questions about whether something happened in this year or in the year prior/following because of similar issues with medieval historians.

I think it's fair to say that Maegor would always have been called 13 years old in 25 AC if the maester knows he was born in 12 AC, except in those cases where his sources are clear that he was not-quite-13.

In this case, this way of thinking is off.. Aegon III is stated to have been born in the last days of 120 AC..

So did Yandel here did take the placing of the birth in the year into account? Is this an exception?

Or has this been changed to thirty-seven in the later prints (I have a first print)?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

That the Mystery Knight took place in 211 AC is still strange.. Walder Frey was 4 years old in 211 AC, according to he World Book, meaning that he was born in either 207 AC (3 turning 4) or 206 AC (4 turning 5).

But in A Game of Trones, in 298 AC, Walder is still 89 yeas old (mentioned when Catelyn abducts Tyrion). That means that potentially, he could have been either 88 turning 89 that year, and was thus born in 209 AC, or he was 89 turning 90 that year, meaning he was born in 208 AC.

The fact that Walder is 91 years old in 299AC (mentioned when Cat and Edmure are aruing on their way to he Twins), Walder was either 90 turning 91, thus born in 208 AC, or 91 turning 92, thus born in 207 AC.

Walder can't have been born in 206 AC, one of the options you get with TMK in 211, because then he wouldn't have been 89 in 298 AC, and 91 in 299 AC. Same as with 207 AC, the other option you get with TMK in 211 AC. In hat case, Walder couldn't have been both 89 in 298 AC and 91 in 299 AC.

So something doesn't add up here..