[Spoilers] Fire and Blood Errata

[Tha Shiznit]

On 12/22/2018 at 6:51 PM, LordSeaSnake said:

Lord Daemon is never mentioned to have died from the Shivers. He nearly did but recovered, but three of his daughters and second son died. 

I see my bad, I must mistaken his death with Eustace Hightower.

In page 350 of Fire and Blood, The Great Council of 101 Boremund Baratheon is mistaken for Princess Rhaenys great-uncle and the great-great-uncle of Laenor apposed to uncle and great-uncle. This retcon or mistake.

 

[Paxter Redwyne]

8 hours ago, Tha Shiznit said:

I see my bad, I must mistaken his death with Eustace Hightower.

In page 350 of Fire and Blood, The Great Council of 101 Boremund Baratheon is mistaken for Princess Rhaenys great-uncle and the great-great-uncle of Laenor apposed to uncle and great-uncle. This retcon or mistake.

 

Eustace Hightower didn't die either. He got ill but recovered.

[The Wondering Wolf]

25 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Eustace Hightower didn't die either. He got ill but recovered.

I guess he confused them with Manfred Mutoon who died from the Winter Fever.

[Paxter Redwyne]

2 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

I guess he confused them with Manfred Mutoon who died from the Winter Fever.

He didn't die from Winter Fever either! He recovered from illness and died sometime after because his health detoriated.

Wow, people really got confused with all those plagues.

[The Wondering Wolf]

23 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

He didn't die from Winter Fever either! He recovered from illness and died sometime after because his health detoriated.

Wow, people really got confused with all those plagues.

I just couldn't resist. When I saw this user presented two wrong victims, I had to give a third one.

[DanaKz]

 Aerea is named heir apparent and it's apparent mistake. 

Heir apparent: 

Quote

An heir apparent or heiress apparent is a person who is first in a line of succession and cannot be displaced from inheriting by the birth of another person

Heir presumptive:

 

Quote

 

An heir presumptive or heiress presumptive is the person entitled to inherit a throne, peerage, or other hereditary honour, but whose position can be displaced by the birth of an heir apparent male or female, or of a new heir presumptive with a better claim to the position in question

 

 

 

Examples: 

Quote

Elizabeth's father became king, and she became heir presumptive. If her parents had had a later son, she would have lost her position as first-in-line, as her brother would have been heir apparent and above her in the line of succession.

So, it means, heir apparent is to become king or queen even if current king or queen will have any other children. Yes, Maegor and Jaehaerys both recognized Aerea as their heir, but those wording which were used: 

Quote

1. In the aftermath of the wedding, Maegor declared Rhaena’s daughter Aerea his lawful heir “until such time as the gods grant me a son,”

She is heir but she can be displaced by Maegor's son. So, she is heir presumptive.

 

Quote

1. for until such time as Jaehaerys sired an heir of the body, Princess Aerea (or the girl who now bore that name) was the heir to the Iron Throne

She is Jaehaerys's heir until Jaehaerys has his own kids. Hence - she is heir presumptive. 

Same goes to Viserys - he is King's heir till he has heirs of his body (and this is what happened in the end - Daeron became Aegon's heir apparent. 

Quote

1. As the king’s brother, Viserys was the undisputed heir apparent, ahead of any child born to Baela Velaryon or Rhaena Corbray

 

Aegon son of Aenys has to be heir apparent. yes, (I've read a discussion) he never became a king, but it doesn't make him "heir presumptive". There are a lot of heir apparents who never became kings - for example James Stuart, son of James II, Demna of Georgia (who was killed by his uncle) and... Aemon and Daemon - both of them never made to the throne but they are called heir apparent

Quote

Prince Aemon reached his twenty-sixth nameday in 81 AC, and had proved himself more than able in both war and peace. As the heir apparent to the Iron Throne, it was felt desirable that he take

Quote

Prince Baelon was firmly ensconced as heir apparent by then

Quote

With both of the heirs apparent dead and burned, there was no longer a clear successor to the Iron Throne…

 

Well, @Ran is it possible to discuss this "heir apparent vs presumptive" issue with some real experts and fix it in next editions? At least to fix Aerea thing, because she was clearley named heir presumptive - heir till other kids are born.

[The hairy bear]

When describing the seven speakers that Jaehaerys sends to preach Exceptionalism, and after describing the four women, it is said:

"Three were young septons; cunning Septon Baldrick, learned Septon Rollo, and fierce old Septon Alfyn"

 

Emphasis mine. We are confirmed that Alfyn is old because three years later he is chosen High Septon under the assumption that he won't be living much longer.

[Lord Varys]

@DanaKz

I guess it would be possible to deal with the heir business somewhat, but a true Heir Apparent in the modern sense of the word actually entails that it is crystal clear who is an heir who cannot possibly be supplanted by another - and is that situation actually given in Westeros? Aegon IV's threat to disinherit Prince Daeron as his heir in favor of one of his bastard seems to imply that we don't really have Heirs Apparent in a modern sense here.

[Alyssa of House Arryn]

2 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@DanaKz

I guess it would be possible to deal with the heir business somewhat, but a true Heir Apparent in the modern sense of the word actually entails that it is crystal clear who is an heir who cannot possibly be supplanted by another - and is that situation actually given in Westeros? Aegon IV's threat to disinherit Prince Daeron as his heir in favor of one of his bastard seems to imply that we don't really have Heirs Apparent in a modern sense here

Aegon IV was a rather odd case. But the fact that he had to make up rumours about Daeron's parentage shows that indeed, Daeron was his father's heir apparent because no thing other than Daeron being illegitimate could truly get him out of the line of succession.

[Lord Varys]

5 hours ago, Alyssa of House Arryn said:

Aegon IV was a rather odd case. But the fact that he had to make up rumours about Daeron's parentage shows that indeed, Daeron was his father's heir apparent because no thing other than Daeron being illegitimate could truly get him out of the line of succession.

No, it is made clear that Aegon IV could have disinherited Daeron but chose/dared not to do that because Daeron had a very powerful ally in the Prince of Dorne.

A modern understanding of the concept of an 'Heir Apparent' implies that there is absolute certainly about the line of succession.

For instance, is there any doubt that Aegon the Conqueror could have disinherited the weakling Aenys in favor of Maegor the great warrior-prince, never mind that the latter was his second son? Or that Princess Aerea could have remained Jaehaerys I's heir even after the births of Daenerys and Aemon simply because Aerea's claim via Rhaena and Aegon was stronger than Jaehaerys' own claim?

There is no clear law of succession in Westeros, and the succession of the Iron Throne is pretty unclear, especially in the early days of the Targaryen dynasty.

In that sense it might actually be better to drop 'Heir Apparent' entirely and only talk about heirs (when they are named as such) and use presumptive heir for such heirs who are obvious placeholders.

[Alyssa of House Arryn]

15 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

No, it is made clear that Aegon IV could have disinherited Daeron but chose/dared not to do that because Daeron had a very powerful ally in the Prince of Dorne.

Of course Aegon could have disinherited Daeron. Law of succesion exists, but that doesn't mean that a king will always go by it (see Jaehaerys I and Viserys I). That doesn't change the fact that no child's birth can possibly push Daeron down the line of succesion, since he's the oldest legitimate male child of Aegon IV. Aegon IV made threats to disinherit him, because if he did not outright disinherit him, Daeron would succeed peacefully and unimpededly (like it sorta happened) because he is heir apparent.

[Jaak]

How does the chronology of Jaehaerys I´s regency work?

Precisely how long was it?

There was big deal made of Jaehaerys´ birthday in 50... on 20th of September, in Fire and Blood. So in which month of 48 did Jaehaerys´ reign start?

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

3 hours ago, Jaak said:

How does the chronology of Jaehaerys I´s regency work?

Precisely how long was it?

There was big deal made of Jaehaerys´ birthday in 50... on 20th of September, in Fire and Blood. So in which month of 48 did Jaehaerys´ reign start?

Gyldayn states:

Prince Jaehaerys was still a year and a half shy of manhood when he first ascended the Iron Throne.

So his reign would have begun close to the 3rd month of the year, give or take.

[Jaak]

1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Gyldayn states:

Prince Jaehaerys was still a year and a half shy of manhood when he first ascended the Iron Throne.

So his reign would have begun close to the 3rd month of the year, give or take.

Except that a year and a half after March 48 is September 49 - not September 50!

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

1 hour ago, Jaak said:

Except that a year and a half after March 48 is September 49 - not September 50!

Besides the "year and a half" quote, I have been able to find this:

 

Whilst Rhaena Targaryen was celebrating her marriage on Fair Isle, back in King's Landing King Jaehaerys and his mother, the Queen Regent, were busy selecting the councillors who would help them rule the realm for the next two years.  Conciliation remained their guiding principle, for the divisions that had so recently torn Westeros

Rhaena got married in early 49 AC, so the "two years" refers to 49 AC and 50 AC.

If we take Jaehaerys's "year and a half" in the widest interpretation possible, we might be able to stretch it to mean that he came to the throne in very late 48 AC.

Which would fit with this statement of Gyldayn:

Jaehaerys I Targaryen ascended the Iron Throne in 48 AC at the age of fourteen and would rule the Seven Kingdoms for the next fifty-five years, until his death of natural causes in 103 AC.

If Jaehaerys's nameday is on the 20th day of the 9th moon of the year, and he had already turned fourteen by the time he ascended the throne, he ascended after the 20th day of the 9th moon of 48 AC.

We know that Maegor reigned for six years and 66 days, but IIRCS we have no quote confirming when in the year Aenys died and Maegor's reign began. (Or would you happen to recall a quote to that regard?)

In that case, it would mean that Aenys died somewhere past the half-year mark of 42 AC, and Maegor died six years and two months later, after the 20th day of the 9th month of 48 AC, making Jaehaerys fourteen years old at the time. If Gyldayn is indeed stretching the use of "year and a half" this would fit all the quotes.

If you know of any other quotes that might help, please let me know.

[zionius]

On 12/22/2018 at 10:55 AM, The Bard of Banefort said:

The US version of Fire and Blood states that Daemon was born in 76 AC, but that he was only twenty at the Great Council of 101. 

Where did you find that line? As my kindle version goes:

Quote

Prince Aemon reached his twenty-sixth nameday in 81 AC, and had proved himself more than able in both war and peace. As the heir apparent to the Iron Throne, it was felt desirable that he take a greater role in the governance of the realm as a member of the king’s council. Accordingly, King Jaehaerys named the prince his justiciar and master of laws in place of Rodrik Arryn.
“I will leave the making of law to you, brother,” Prince Baelon declared, whilst drinking to Prince Aemon’s appointment. “I would sooner make sons.” And that was just what he did, for later that same year Princess Alyssa bore her Spring Prince a second son, who was given the name Daemon.

@Rhaenys_Targaryen I was editing the wiki errata page and found 3 listed errors that're not present in my US/UK kindle version. Could you confirm them in the hardcover?

• The name of Prince Valerion Targaryen is misspelled as "Velarian". (US hardcover, page 305) 
• Rogar Baratheon is once mistakenly called Roger Baratheon.
• Ser Jon Hogg is once mistakenly called "John" Hogg.

[Jaak]

On 12/28/2018 at 11:54 PM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

We know that Maegor reigned for six years and 66 days, but IIRCS we have no quote confirming when in the year Aenys died and Maegor's reign began. (Or would you happen to recall a quote to that regard?)

When Aenys is fled to Dragonstone, looks 60 age 35, and suffers frequent stomach upsets, coming of new year 42 is mentioned. Not exact time until he collapses on hearing of news of siege of Crakehall, but leaving impression of a few days, not seven months.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

7 hours ago, zionius said:

 

@Rhaenys_Targaryen I was editing the wiki errata page and found 3 listed errors that're not present in my US/UK kindle version. Could you confirm them in the hardcover?

• The name of Prince Valerion Targaryen is misspelled as "Velarian". (US hardcover, page 305) 

I found this one myself, so I can confirm this one.

 

7 hours ago, zionius said:

• Rogar Baratheon is once mistakenly called Roger Baratheon.
• Ser Jon Hogg is once mistakenly called "John" Hogg.

@Paxter Redwyne, could you tell us the page numbers for these two?

 

[Paxter Redwyne]

1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

@Paxter Redwyne, could you tell us the page numbers for these two?

I tried to search for them in my digital version of the book, but unfortunately I haven't found them. Maybe it exist only in certain versions of the book. I have found however by accident that on page 529 Bold Jon Roxton is called John.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

@zionius,

you added the following to the errata of TWOIAF

*''The World of Ice & Fire'' states that [[Harrenhal]] was completed "on the very day Aegon landed in what would one day become King's Landing",{{Ref|twoiaf|The Conquest}} but that sentence is deleted in "Fire & Blood".{{ref|fab|Aegon's Conquest}}

The fact that this sentence has been removed in F&B does not make its presence an error in TWOIAF, I think. It's just additional information that TWOIAF mentions, that F&B does not. As long as F&B does not contradict it, the information stands.