[Spoilers] Fire and Blood Errata

[zionius]

All "heir apparent" and "heir presumptive" are used oppositely...

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, zionius said:

All "heir apparent" and "heir presumptive" in the books are used oppositely...

No, 'heir apparent' is used when it is supposed to be used. The only guy being called 'heir presumptive' or 'presumptive heir' is Aegon the Uncrowned and he simply turned out to be merely his father's presumptive heir with hindsight in mind. When writing, Gyldayn knew he would not succeed King Aenys. As did the men dismissing him as 'Aegon the Pretender' and 'Aegon the Uncrowned'.

[zionius]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, 'heir apparent' is used when it is supposed to be used. The only guy being called 'heir presumptive' or 'presumptive heir' is Aegon the Uncrowned and he simply turned out to be merely his father's presumptive heir with hindsight in mind. When writing, Gyldayn knew he would not succeed King Aenys. As did the men dismissing him as 'Aegon the Pretender' and 'Aegon the Uncrowned'.

Oh, I shouldn't say all. But Aerea and Viserys II are called heir apparent, and I think Aegon the Uncrowned should be called heir apparent:

Quote

All his life Prince Aegon had been considered the heir presumptive to the Iron Throne, but now, suddenly, he found himself reviled by the pious and abandoned by many he had thought to be his leal friends.

It's not hindsight, it's Aegon's status for “all his life” before his royal progress.

[zionius]

Quote

 

Peace reigned over King’s Landing for the remainder of that year, marred only by the death of Manfryd Mooton, Lord of Maidenpool and the last of King Aegon’s original regents.

 

Munkun is the last.

[Lord Varys]

7 hours ago, zionius said:

Oh, I shouldn't say all. But Aerea and Viserys II are called heir apparent, and I think Aegon the Uncrowned should be called heir apparent:

Which implies that they actually were the heirs apparent at that time. Chances are not that bad that Aegon III is actually going to make Viserys Prince of Dragonstone, until he has a son, at least. And perhaps even longer. If they are as close as they seem to be he may be willing to grant Dragonstone to Viserys as a seat, just as Jaehaerys I gave it to Rhaena. If that were so, it came back to the main line when Viserys himself became king.

7 hours ago, zionius said:

It's not hindsight, it's Aegon's status for “all his life” before his royal progress.

Yeah, that's somewhat weird, but he wasn't the heir apparent for most his life, considering that this was his father Aenys until he became king. Aegon only became heir apparent in 37 AC, when his father took the crown. It may have been better to phrase the sentence there something along the lines of 'Prince Aegon had expected to inherit the Iron Throne all his life...'.

[zionius]

19 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Chances are not that bad that Aegon III is actually going to make Viserys Prince of Dragonstone, until he has a son, at least.

Is there anything wrong of my understanding of heir apparent? Dictionary says heir apparent is an heir whose claim cannot be set aside by the birth of another heir. Even if Aerea/Viserys are made Prince(ss) of Dragonstone, they're still heirs presumptive.

[Lord Varys]

1 minute ago, zionius said:

Is there anything wrong of my understanding of heir apparent? Dictionary says heir apparent is an heir whose claim cannot be set aside by the birth of another heir. Even if Aerea/Viserys are made Prince(ss) of Dragonstone, they're still heirs presumptive.

Yeah, that's correct. But this was a young dynasty. Who really knows whose claim was stronger and weaker, who knows whether Jaehaerys was the rightful king or not? Rogar Baratheon definitely didn't know that ;-). They had not reached a point in history where 'heir apparent' has the modern day meaning - because they knew little more than that an older son comes before a younger son. Rhaenyra is named 'heir apparent' in 105 AC in addition to 'Princess of Dragonstone' and this status does not change, never mind that Queen Alicent gives the king some sons.

In Aerea's case the 'heir apparent' thing could reflect both her status as Jaehaerys' acknowledged heir as well as the fact that she had a stronger legal claim than Jaehaerys himself. 

With Viserys the presumptive heir thing is more evident, but even there it might be to, well, risky for the people involved to not treat Viserys effectively as the heir apparent considering that he and his brother were still minors and the king also stuck with a child bride. Technically Daenaera could (and eventually would) have children, but that was years down the road when Viserys came back, and would have been years down the road even if Aegon III had consummated his marriage earlier.

In the end, Westeros never had a proper law of succession for the Iron Throne the kings were bound to follow. We see this when the regents discuss the succession and come up with all kind of ideas who should succeed Aegon III.

[hiemal]

I don't know if this an error, history as yet unexplained, or my misinterpretation but the spring at Maidenpool is described in F+B as a being inside a spa-like structure (Maidenpool water instead of Lourde's water?) while when we see it later it seems to be as bare as any bather:

Quote

"The pool from which the town took its name, where legend said that Florian the Fool had first glimpsed Jonquil bathing with her sisters, was so choked with rotting corpses that the water had turned into a murky grey-green soup."

...AFFC

 

[Jaak]

3 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Yeah, that's correct. But this was a young dynasty. Who really knows whose claim was stronger and weaker, who knows whether Jaehaerys was the rightful king or not? Rogar Baratheon definitely didn't know that ;-).

Not really a young dynasty. As I pointed out in a separate (and so far unanswered) thread, in the century on Dragonstone alone, there had been three brother to brother successions. Plus the millennia of Targaryens back in old Valyria. For Gyldayn, it was out of scope of "Fire and Blood" - for a Targaryen follower vexed for a precedent, it was not going to be "out of scope".

 

Then again, possibly unfamiliar. Orys was from Dragonstone, but a nobody there. His court was Stormlanders, and Dragonstone before Conquest had been a small and unimportant lordship for others to write or sing about.

Is it likely that Rogar knew far less about Orys´ grandparents than about Argella´s?

[Werthead]

Not necessarily an error, but something that's very unclear and unchanged since TWoIaF: the way the Conquest chapter is written, it's impossible to tell if the Doom happened in 114 BC (and the Targaryens fled to Dragonstone in 126 BC) or in 102 BC (and the Targs fled in 114 BC). That could really do with being clarified.

[Ran]

2 hours ago, hiemal said:

I don't know if this an error, history as yet unexplained, or my misinterpretation but the spring at Maidenpool is described in F+B as a being inside a spa-like structure (Maidenpool water instead of Lourde's water?) while when we see it later it seems to be as bare as any bather:

 

That was noted more than once, with some suggestions, but it stayed as it was. I can only think that George's idea is that something will happen to it between F&B and when Jaime sees it.

[Lord Varys]

19 minutes ago, Jaak said:

Not really a young dynasty. As I pointed out in a separate (and so far unanswered) thread, in the century on Dragonstone alone, there had been three brother to brother successions. Plus the millennia of Targaryens back in old Valyria. For Gyldayn, it was out of scope of "Fire and Blood" - for a Targaryen follower vexed for a precedent, it was not going to be "out of scope".

My point being House Targaryen was a young royal dynasty. Dragonstone was Dragonstone, and the Iron Throne the Iron Throne. It is clear that customs of the Dragonstonian Targaryens - as well as bloodlines branching of from the dragon family tree before the Conquest (Velaryons, Baratheons, weirdo descendant of Gaemon the Glorious) - were not unimportant during the reign of the Conqueror, but there were a lot of opinions floating around. It was not clear whether Maegor came behind Aenys' sons and daughters or only behind his sons, for instance.

The Andals and First Men had their own view on kingship and succession and those clashed with or influenced the Targaryen practices. For instance, when Grand Maester Gawen declares Prince Aegon must succeed King Aenys on the basis of laws confirmed by the Conqueror he seems to be reaching a bit. Aegon may have confirmed succession and inheritance laws of the kingdoms he conquered, but those laws do not necessarily concern the Iron Throne.

Vice versa, later we have the Widow's Law reaffirming and confirming that a daughter comes before and uncle or cousin if there are no sons, but this same thing was not honored when Jaehaerys I took the throne nor when Prince Aemon died.

But the general point of the Rogar reference was just that laws and customs really are wax in the hands of the powerful if they are not happy with how things turn out. Originally, Westeros is not Dorne. Fine. But when the king doesn't do what Lord Rogar wants Aerea suddenly has the stronger claim, and Rhaena would make a fine regent.

Rogar Baratheon embodies what George said back in that SSM on the succession issues. They are deliberately imprecise and don't really matter all that much. Important is that you have the strength to push a claim. Whether you have 'the right' on your side is irrelevant if you are in a weak position lacking support.

4 minutes ago, Ran said:

That was noted more than once, with some suggestions, but it stayed as it was. I can only think that George's idea is that something will happen to it between F&B and when Jaime sees it.

That would be my idea as well. Not everything stays the same.

[hiemal]

2 hours ago, Ran said:

That was noted more than once, with some suggestions, but it stayed as it was. I can only think that George's idea is that something will happen to it between F&B and when Jaime sees it.

That was my thinking- a lot can happen in two and a half centuries. I hope we find out more in the future. A shift in attitude among the Faithful, for example. I'm also getting a very strong Canterbury Tales vibe in this era- starting with the salacious "cautionary tale" related by a septa/prioress and Alysanne's wife-of-bath-thing/women's court and I feel like maybe having the spring developed in this era is related in some way?

Probably just reading too much into it- I have a habit of doing that- but its deliberate inclusion does set my mind in motion.

 

[Lord Varys]

A pretty good explanation for the missing bathhouse might be that they actually tore it down afterwards, out of shame that it was misused in this manner. 

[The Bard of Banefort]

It's said that Alysanne was nursed by a servant:

Quote

As an infant certainly she would have had a wet nurse; like most noble women, Queen Alyssa did not give suck to her own children.

pg. 154 (US edition)

But is that true? We know both Cersei and Elia breast-fed their children, and they're royalty. 

[Lord Varys]

53 minutes ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

It's said that Alysanne was nursed by a servant:

But is that true? We know both Cersei and Elia breast-fed their children, and they're royalty. 

As the quote says, most noble women do that. Queen Rhaenys also breastfed Aenys because he didn't accept any wetnurse brought to him, but that's the usual take. Alysanne also didn't breastfed any of her children, as far as we know. It is especially confirmed for Saera, and Viserys I also gets a wetnurse.

Old Nan also came as a wetnurse to Winterfell, etc.

[Lord Varys]

As for the Redwynes:

Wouldn't it make more sense if Lord Manfryd's second son, Ser Rickard, were named commander of the City Watch rather than the older son Ser Robert? Usually heirs are groomed to rule, not to command City Watches. And despite the fact that Ser Robert outlived his lord father he is not called Lord Robert when his death is mentioned.

[Lord Varys]

Archmaester Vaegon is not forty years old in 101 AC, as is claimed. He is born in 63 AC, which makes him thirty-eight at the Great Council (or thirty-seven, depending when exactly the man was born in the year 63 AC).

Other thing:

That dragon skulls thing from AGoT @Free Northman Reborn has correctly complained about earlier and elsewhere - that Meraxes and not Vhagar seems to have the second largest skull after Balerion - should seriously be considered to be changed considering George himself publicly talked about Vhagar being the second largest dragon after Balerion.

[Werthead]

7 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Archmaester Vaegon is not forty years old in 101 AC, as is claimed. He is born in 63 AC, which makes thirty-eight at the Great Council (or thirty-seven, depending when exactly the man was born in the year 63 AC).

Other thing:

That dragon skulls thing from AGoT @Free Northman Reborn has correctly complained about earlier and elsewhere - that Meraxes and not Vhagar seems to have the second largest skull after Balerion - should seriously be considered to be changed considering George himself publicly talked about Vhagar being the second largest dragon after Balerion.

I wonder if the point that the oldest Targaryen dragon skull is 3,000 years old also needs to be revisited, as I'm trying to work out how and why the Targs (who we keep getting told left Valyria in something approaching a hurry, and weren't the richest family) decided to load up a ship - possibly an entire ship - with a massive dragon skull.

Also errata for World of Ice and Fire: "the Sea Snake never saw Asshai" is clearly incorrect, as he is now the first Westerosi to ever lie eyes on Asshai, on his second trip on the Sea Snake.

[Ran]

Big juju in that dragon skull, obviously.