[Spoilers] Fire and Blood Errata

[zionius]

1 minute ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

@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.

I can think of 3 possibilities:

1. Like the case of Sunspear got burnt. GRRM added the detail in a later version, but F&B was published based on an earlier draft.

2. Like the case of Ellyn Reyne's death. Someone found a conflict in that statement and decided to remove it.

3. Like the case of Raymont Baratheon, GRRM decided to remove it for unknown reasons.

The entry should be included in the worldbook errata for scenario 2/3, and in F&B errata for scenario 1. Without further info, I'd prefer to keep it in both erratas as a reference.

[Lord Varys]

44 minutes ago, zionius said:

I can think of 3 possibilities:

1. Like the case of Sunspear got burnt. GRRM added the detail in a later version, but F&B was published based on an earlier draft.

2. Like the case of Ellyn Reyne's death. Someone found a conflict in that statement and decided to remove it.

3. Like the case of Raymont Baratheon, GRRM decided to remove it for unknown reasons.

The entry should be included in the worldbook errata for scenario 2/3, and in F&B errata for scenario 1. Without further info, I'd prefer to keep it in both erratas as a reference.

@Ran has already told us that he and Linda added the Harrenhal tidbit to the TWoIaF version of 'Aegon's Conquest'. It is correct information drawn from the main series, yet it is not a sentence George R. R. Martin put into his manuscript and as such I'd count its existence as an error or a discrepancy in TWoIaF not in FaB. It has been pointed out to George that this sentence was missing from FaB before the book went into print and it still wasn't included in there. Thus until such a time as it is included in a later edition this does not constitute an error but constitutes the text as it is supposed to be.

[zionius]

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It is correct information drawn from the main series

Oh I forgot that line by Cat, dame...So no error here, yeah.

[Ran]

The sentence was actually put in by George after we pointed it out, but it was put in the TWoIaF draft by him, and as I've already noted, George ended up not working from his final and corrected files from TWoIaF but from his very original Wordstar files which meant some things got left out. I believe FaB's future editions will include the reference once more, provided we can fit it in.

 

So, it's not really "errata" in the sense of an error. Just an accidental omission.

[Lord Varys]

20 minutes ago, Ran said:

So, it's not really "errata" in the sense of an error. Just an accidental omission.

Do you guys know why George ended up working on the original files rather than with the material that had already been edited during the production process of TWoIaF?

One assumes that could have made the editing process much easier... From what I can see many typos in names and the like found their way even into the translations thanks to that.

[Ran]

1 hour ago, Lord Varys said:

Do you guys know why George ended up working on the original files rather than with the material that had already been edited during the production process of TWoIaF?

Because he works in Wordstar, and the final files were all in doc format.

[zionius]

On 12/30/2018 at 9:35 PM, Paxter Redwyne said:

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.

I think they only present in the Russian translation (you've read that one, IIRC), which was based on the earlier draft.

[The Wondering Wolf]

The Worldbook says about Ser Corwyn Corbray:

Husband to Rhaena Targaryen, replaced Lord Mooton in 134 AC, and killed by a crossbowman at Runestone that same year.

But I think it is clear now that he died in 135 AC.

[Lord Varys]

34 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

The Worldbook says about Ser Corwyn Corbray:

Husband to Rhaena Targaryen, replaced Lord Mooton in 134 AC, and killed by a crossbowman at Runestone that same year.

But I think it is clear now that he died in 135 AC.

Think I already pointed that one out to @Ran. Keeping events straight when cutting down the Regency material to fit in TWoIaF must have been a rather tedious business.

By the way - I think the Dance dragons sidebar for the Cannibal from TWoIaF should be changed. He did not 'disappear' after the Dance. He is still there. George has yet to reveal what happened to him (and Silverwing) in FaB II.

It would be better to have change that to him merely surviving the war and remaining riderless throughout the Dance.

[zionius]

Oh, I also find the worldbook errs about Thaddeus Rowan's retire year, which says 136 AC. But it's 135 AC in F&B

[Paxter Redwyne]

35 minutes ago, zionius said:

Oh, I also find the worldbook errs about Thaddeus Rowan's retire year, which says 136 AC. But it's 135 AC in F&B

Wasn't Marston's coup in 136?

[zionius]

2 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

Wasn't Marston's coup in 136?

Rowan set out for his seat at Goldengrove, promising to return to King’s Landing once he had recovered his health, but he died upon the road in the company of two of his sons. For the rest of that year, the Grand Maester served as both regent and Hand, for the realm required governance and Aegon had still not reached the age of manhood. As a maester, chained and sworn to serve, Munkun did not feel it was his place to pass judgment on high lords and anointed knights, however, so the accused traitors languished in the dungeons, awaiting a new Hand.
As the old year waned and gave way to the new, lord after lord arrived in King’s Landing, answering the king’s summons. The ravens had done their work. Though never formally constituted as a Great Council, the gathering of the lords in 136 AC was the largest assembly of nobles in the Seven Kingdoms since the Old King had summoned the lords of the realm to Harrenhal in 101 AC.

[Paxter Redwyne]

3 hours ago, zionius said:

Rowan set out for his seat at Goldengrove, promising to return to King’s Landing once he had recovered his health, but he died upon the road in the company of two of his sons. For the rest of that year, the Grand Maester served as both regent and Hand, for the realm required governance and Aegon had still not reached the age of manhood. As a maester, chained and sworn to serve, Munkun did not feel it was his place to pass judgment on high lords and anointed knights, however, so the accused traitors languished in the dungeons, awaiting a new Hand.
As the old year waned and gave way to the new, lord after lord arrived in King’s Landing, answering the king’s summons. The ravens had done their work. Though never formally constituted as a Great Council, the gathering of the lords in 136 AC was the largest assembly of nobles in the Seven Kingdoms since the Old King had summoned the lords of the realm to Harrenhal in 101 AC.

135 seem like a really busy year then. I think we would need to make a little timeline of events. Gaemon's poisoning, Corwyn's deah, Robert's death, fall of Rogares, Marston's coup, regency of Munkun seemed to happen in very quick succession. There was also other stuff at the beginning of the year that I forgot about.

[Glypher]

@Ran

1. In the chapter Under the Regents: The Voyage of Alyn Oakenfist says:

Quote

the widow of the Knight of Kayce

But the rulers of Kayce are the Kennings, who in its turn are the lords.

In F&B a mistake?

2. In the chapter Under the Regents: War and Peace and Cattle Shows says:

Quote

Ser Victor Risley, Knight of Risley Glade

However, in The Mystery Knight the Risleys have the title of Lords.

So the Risleys are landed knights or lords?

3. According to the chapter The Dying of the Dragons: Rhaenyra Overthrown the Swyfts are the lords.

However, in TWOIAF, The Westerlands: House Lannister under the Dragons says:

Quote

Ser Harys Swyft, the Knight of Cornfield

So the Swyfts are landed knights or lords?

Thanks.

[Lord Varys]

26 minutes ago, Glypher said:

@Ran

1. In the chapter Under the Regents: The Voyage of Alyn Oakenfist says:

But the rulers of Kayce are the Kennings, who in its turn are the lords.

In F&B a mistake?

2. In the chapter Under the Regents: War and Peace and Cattle Shows says:

However, in The Mystery Knight the Risleys have the title of Lords.

So the Risleys are landed knights or lords?

3. According to the chapter The Dying of the Dragons: Rhaenyra Overthrown the Swyfts are the lords.

However, in TWOIAF, The Westerlands: House Lannister under the Dragons says:

So the Swyfts are landed knights or lords?

Thanks.

2. and 3. don't need to be addressed. The Swyfts could have lost their lordship in the meantime being demoted to landed knights, or there could be multiple branches of both houses, the Risleys and the Swyfts, with the lordly and a knightly branch being mentioned at different times.

Keep in mind that both the Westerlands and the Reach are very populous regions, and fertile noble bloodlines are bent to bring produce many cadet branches.

The fact that the world seems to have only lordly branches of pretty much all the noble houses that show up isn't exactly its most realistic feature...

In that sense, it is a good idea to try to make sense of such things that way.

[HexMachina]

WRT to 1. I don’t see an issue either. It would be like saying the Knight of Winterfell, or the Knight of Lemonwood, or the Knight of the Red Fork or the Barrowlands or anything like that. Could refer to a ruler of that place but could equally just be a name or title for a Knight in a given location

[Paxter Redwyne]

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

2. and 3. don't need to be addressed. The Swyfts could have lost their lordship in the meantime being demoted to landed knights, or there could be multiple branches of both houses, the Risleys and the Swyfts, with the lordly and a knightly branch being mentioned at different times.

Keep in mind that both the Westerlands and the Reach are very populous regions, and fertile noble bloodlines are bent to bring produce many cadet branches.

The fact that the world seems to have only lordly branches of pretty much all the noble houses that show up isn't exactly its most realistic feature...

In that sense, it is a good idea to try to make sense of such things that way.

At the same time, cadet branches historically often took another name to differentiate themselves from the main branch. Of course given how for some reason Flints and Vances use same name even after probably thousand of years, anything is possible. 

There is no Lord Swyft in the main series so they had to be reduced to mere landed knights, perhaps after Blackfyre Rebellion. And given name of the Victor's seat - Risley Glade - I think he was head of the main house and they were just elevated some time after - maybe by Daeron I during conquest of Dorne.

4 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

WRT to 1. I don’t see an issue either. It would be like saying the Knight of Winterfell, or the Knight of Lemonwood, or the Knight of the Red Fork or the Barrowlands or anything like that. Could refer to a ruler of that place but could equally just be a name or title for a Knight in a given location

If it was mere knight from the location, then 'knight' should not be written in capital letter. 

[Lord Varys]

3 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

At the same time, cadet branches historically often took another name to differentiate themselves from the main branch. Of course given how for some reason Flints and Vances use same name even after probably thousand of years, anything is possible.

Not in Westeros, apparently. The Royces are all Royces, too. Bastard cadet branches take new names, it seems, but not legitimate offshoots. Even the Karstarks are still Starks - the name 'the Karhold Starks' was just shortened to 'Karstark' later on. Might be similar with the Greystarks.

3 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

There is no Lord Swyft in the main series so they had to be reduced to mere landed knights, perhaps after Blackfyre Rebellion.

There has been no Lord Swyft being mentioned in the main series up to this point. Without actual confirmation by the author this is no confirmation that there is no lordly branch of the house. The appendices are just indications. And this goes for all houses for which we have only knights at this point without knowing for a certainty that there are no lordly branches. For instance, there may be a petty lord named Heddle somewhere in the Riverlands. The fact that Tomard was a just a knight in TMK and in the main series the Heddles we meet are only innkeeps could mean they were never lords and declined further after Whitewalls, but it is also possible that all the Heddles we have met to this point were only distant relations of the actual lordly branch of the family. I don't think this is very likely but names without context/family trees really don't tell us anything about a family.

3 hours ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

And given name of the Victor's seat - Risley Glade - I think he was head of the main house and they were just elevated some time after - maybe by Daeron I during conquest of Dorne.

That might be. Or not. Think about the green apple Fossoways. They have the castle of New Barrel, too, yet as far as we know they are not lords. Victor Risley could just have been the knight of some castle or keep in the Risley lands that was held by knightly branch of the house.

Especially in the Reach we should have many branches of the great lordly houses, making the Peakes no exception insofar as the number of castles a house can hold - although the other houses may hand additional castles to cadet branches of the family. Just as the Royces of the lesser branch must have had some keep/castle to live in before Nestor got the Gates. After all, Lord Raymar Royce, a lord of the lesser branch and the father of Benedict Royce, the husband of Lady Jocelyn Stark, must have had some seat of his own - as must have had Benedict and Jocelyn after their marriage (likely an even lesser keep that Lord Raymar Royce - with Benedict being a younger son of Lord Raymar Benedict wouldn't have inherited his father's seat).

A similar thing should also be true for the Lannisters in the West - both branches of the Lannisters of Casterly Rock as well as those of Lannisport.

[Paxter Redwyne]

29 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Not in Westeros, apparently. The Royces are all Royces, too. Bastard cadet branches take new names, it seems, but not legitimate offshoots. Even the Karstarks are still Starks - the name 'the Karhold Starks' was just shortened to 'Karstark' later on. Might be similar with the Greystarks.

The naming in Westeros is really unrealistic. Different branches of Capets constantly used different names and coats-of-arms, but oh well, what can you do. I had hope that some of the lesser houses are actually cadet branches of bigger houses like Starks or Hightowers, but it looks like every house descends from different legendary ancestor.

[Lord Varys]

14 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

The naming in Westeros is really unrealistic. Different branches of Capets constantly used different names and coats-of-arms, but oh well, what can you do. I had hope that some of the lesser houses are actually cadet branches of bigger houses like Starks or Hightowers, but it looks like every house descends from different legendary ancestor.

We have this kind of thing with some obscure Stormlander houses. There are some there which may be bastard cadet branches of House Durrandon or Baratheon, if their arms are any indication.

Real world heraldry is much more complex than what George came up with. And family names as such really didn't matter all that much in the middle ages anyway. Men had a given name and were the king of this or that people or the earl or lord of such-and-such. Many of those 'family names' were only attached to dynasties later. Didn't 'the Plantagenets' only name themselves in this way centuries after Henry II?