[Spoilers] Fire and Blood Errata

[Lord Varys]

3 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

And yet, Gyldayn states that Jaehaerys and the Faith agreed to have that power being taken away from the Faith in the quoted part above (expanded shortly after posting and thus absent in the post of mine that you quoted). 

And even if the true reconciliation occurred in 54 AC (although Gyldayn calls the events of 48 AC the reconciliation on several occasions in the book), that still does not fit with Yandel's account, which states that Barth was sent to Oldtown by Jaehaerys to achieve the things Gyldayn states Jaehaerys himself achieved in 48 AC.

Yandel is pretty much wrong on all of that. He doesn't even mention the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.

It may be that Barth was sent to Oldtown later to deal with the final breaking of the Faith of the judicial powers, but Jaehaerys I and Alysanne reconciled with the Faith in 54 AC when they made clear who in the future would rule the Faith as much as everybody else in Westeros. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Yandel is pretty much wrong on all of that. He doesn't even mention the Doctrine of Exceptionalism.

Yandel doesn't mention a number of other things. His focus is elsewhere, but that does not automatically make him wrong about everything.

 

33 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

It may be that Barth was sent to Oldtown later to deal with the final breaking of the Faith of the judicial powers, but Jaehaerys I and Alysanne reconciled with the Faith in 54 AC when they made clear who in the future would rule the Faith as much as everybody else in Westeros. 

Perhaps Barth was sent later on, but the only account we have stating this (Yandel's) is contradictory nonetheless. So I suppose the question is: Do we have to consider this part of TWOIAF invalid now that F&B has been released, or should we treat this as two maesters reporting different accounts of history, leaving it unclear whether Yandel or Gyldayn (or neither) is correct?

Perhaps @Ran knows more about this matter?

[Lord Varys]

4 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Yandel doesn't mention a number of other things. His focus is elsewhere, but that does not automatically make him wrong about everything.

But the narrative there is completely different. Yandel has no Doctrine of Exceptionalism, no Septon Mattheus, no crony of Jaehaerys' taking over as High Septon, and no corrupt Lord Hightower to put pressure on the Faith.

4 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Perhaps Barth was sent later on, but the only account we have stating this (Yandel's) is contradictory nonetheless. So I suppose the question is: Do we have to consider this part of TWOIAF invalid now that F&B has been released, or should we treat this as two maesters reporting different accounts of history, leaving it unclear whether Yandel or Gyldayn (or neither) is correct?

Ran has commented on the fact that the Jaehaerys I chapter in TWoIaF is going to get some overhauls. No idea to what degree, but it seems pretty obvious that the Doctrine of Exceptionalism should be included there.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

Possibly an errata, although it could definitely be explained away.

A dragon egg was placed in Aemon's cradle shortly after his birth:

The king returned from the west a moon's turn before the queen was due, so he might be at her side when she delivered. The child came precisely when the maesters had said he would; a boy, clean-limbed and healthy, with eyes as pale as lilac. His hair, when it came in, was pale as well, shining like white gold, a color rare even in Valyria of old. Jaehaerys named him Aemon. "Daenerys will be cross with me,'' Alysanne said, as she put the princeling to her breast. "She was most insistent on wanting a sister." Jaehaerys laughed at that and said, "Next time.'' That night, at Alysanne's suggestion, he placed a dragons egg in the prince's cradle.

But Aemon at the age of seventeen claimed the dragon Caraxes from the Dragonpit, suggesting that he had not bonded with the dragon that hatched from his egg, if a dragon hatched from it at all. The fact that no further dragon (or the egg itself) is mentioned is a bit odd.

Of course it can be explained that a dragon hatched from the egg but Aemon did not bond with it, or that it died, or the egg never hatched at all. But the omission of such a mention is strange.

Was something edited out here?

[Lord Varys]

59 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Was something edited out here?

Not that I know. But this was pointed out to George.

I guess George originally wanted Jaehaerys/Alysanne to continue the dragon eggs in the cradle thing Rhaena started, but this obviously clashes with the death of Daenerys - who apparently was supposed to not have a dragon when she died - and the later purpose of the Dragonpit as a place to keep dragons away from such princes and princesses the king did not want to grant dragons.

If Aemon and the other children had gotten eggs in the cradle, then Maegelle, Vaegon, Daella, Saera, Viserra, and Gael should all have had eggs and little hatchlings, too (at least if the eggs hatched).

In the end, it might be that the entire Rhaena story about Vermithor and Silverwing might just be a legend and it was only the children of Viserys I who started this practice.

Aside from Aemon no other prince or princess until Rhaenyra's sons came along got an egg in their cradle.

[Nittanian]

On 2/10/2019 at 9:03 AM, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Could someone with a later print of TWOIAF than the first one (or perhaps with a ebook version which is up-to-date) check if Septon Barth's year of death as stated in the chapter on Jaehaerys I has been corrected from 99 AC to 98 AC?

My kindle version v3.1_r7 has "When Septon Barth passed away in his sleep in 99 AC ..."

[Bini]

On 12/24/2018 at 10:51 PM, 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.

 

Boremund indeed was great-uncle to Rhaenys and great-great-uncle to Laenor. Being half-brother to Jaehaerys and Alysanne, he was also uncle to Aemon, thus great-uncle to his daughter and great-great-uncle to his grandson.

I agree that the closest relation should be the one mentioned, though.

[Lord Varys]

7 minutes ago, Bini said:

Boremund indeed was great-uncle to Rhaenys and great-great-uncle to Laenor. Being half-brother to Jaehaerys and Alysanne, he was also uncle to Aemon, thus great-uncle to his daughter and great-great-uncle to his grandson.

I agree that the closest relation should be the one mentioned, though.

This is an error that crept in during editing. George's manuscript has Boremund as Rhaenys' uncle and as Laenor's great-uncle, and that's how it should be - and likely how it will be in the later prints.

[zionius]

In the preview of TWOIAF, in the Stark family tree Cregan has a brother named Bennard, who was removed in the published one.

Now that we know he indeed has a brother in F&B, is Bennard official now and will future prints of TWOIAF bring Bennard back?

[zionius]

Quote

Maegor declared Rhaena’s daughter Aerea his lawful heir “until such time as the gods grant me a son,” whilst sending her twin, Rhaella, to Oldtown to be raised as a septa. His nephew Jaehaerys, the rightful heir by all the laws of the Seven Kingdoms, was expressly disinherited in the same decree. -FAB

Is this an error? Daughter comes before an uncle, for sure.

The novella version seems to be corrected:

Quote

His nephew Jaehaerys, felt by many to be the rightful heir, was expressly disinherited in the same decree. -TSOTD

 

[zionius]

Quote

 

In the days that followed, the dungeons of King’s Landing were emptied. -Prince into King

He further commanded that the dungeons beneath the Red Keep be cleaned and emptied out, and that all the prisoners found in the black cells be brought up into the sun, bathed, and allowed to make appeal. Some, he feared, might well be innocent men imprisoned by his uncle (in this Jaehaerys proved sadly correct, though many of those captives had gone quite mad during their years in darkness, and could not be released). -Time of Testing

 

So the dungeons didn't get emptied in 48 AC.

[zionius]

Quote

and the young king less than a year away from his sixteenth nameday. - Year of 3 Brides.

The remark was made before the Golden Wedding on July 7, 49 AC,  whereas Jaehaerys' 16th nameday is on Sep.20, 50 AC. So it's more than a year apart.

[zionius]

Quote

The First Dornish War began boldly in 4 AC, and ended in 13 AC after years of tragedy and spilled blood. Many were the calamities of that war. The death of Rhaenys, the years of the Dragon’s Wroth, the murdered lords, the would-be assassins in King’s Landing and the Red Keep itself; it was a black time. -TWOIAF

The Red Keep was built years after the First Dornish War.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

@zionius,

I saw you added to the wiki that F&B states that Maegor had just turned 11 when Visenya proposed a betrothal between Maegor and Rhaena, but my print states "just turned twelve".

Do you have the ebook?

[zionius]

1 hour ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

@zionius,

I saw you added to the wiki that F&B states that Maegor had just turned 11 when Visenya proposed a betrothal between Maegor and Rhaena, but my print states "just turned twelve".

Do you have the ebook?

Yes, it's "Queen Visenya proposed to settle the matter by betrothing the infant Rhaena to Maegor, who had just turned eleven." in both US/UK kindle versions.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

2 hours ago, zionius said:

Yes, it's "Queen Visenya proposed to settle the matter by betrothing the infant Rhaena to Maegor, who had just turned eleven." in both US/UK kindle versions.

Interesting.

@Ran, am I correct in assuming that in these instances, we should follow the ebook version and consider the printed text to be in error?

[Ran]

I'd have to double check this particular change, but generally yes, updates seen in the Kindle are things that are being corrected.

[The Wondering Wolf]

It is stated about Cregan Stark's trials:

Quote

Ser Gyles Belgrave was also put down for death; [...] Three of Belgrave’s Sworn Brothers had been present at King Aegon’s death and were similarly condemned, though their complicity in the plot could not be proved (the three Kingsguard who were not in the city were judged innocent).

So four Kingsguard in the city, three elsewhere (Marston Waters in Essos, Willis Fell in Storm's End, no idea about the third one).

But when the riverlords entered King's Landing two days after Aegon's death, they were welcomed by 

Quote

Lord Larys Strong the Clubfoot, Grand Maester Orwyle, Ser Perkin the Flea, Mushroom, Septon Eustace, Ser Gyles Belgrave and four other Kingsguard

Not sure where the fifth Kingsguard suddenly would have come from (and where he would have gone before Cregan's arrival), so one of the quotes seems to be wrong. Either there were five Kingsguard present at the time of Aegon's death (and four Kingsguard sent to the Wall) or there were just three Kingsguard with Belgrave when the riverlords entered King's Landing.

[zionius]

TWOIAF error.

Quote

The Lannisters of Lannisport prospered, built great walls around their city to defend it from those (chiefly ironborn) who sought to steal their wealth, and soon became kings.

In GRRM's full sample, the line is

Quote

The Lannisters of Lannisport prospered, and built great walls around their city to defend it from those who sought to steal their wealth (chiefly ironborn).  The Lannisters of Casterly Rock became kings.

The latter should be correct.

[zionius]

4 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

It is stated about Cregan Stark's trials:

So four Kingsguard in the city, three elsewhere (Marston Waters in Essos, Willis Fell in Storm's End, no idea about the third one).

But when the riverlords entered King's Landing two days after Aegon's death, they were welcomed by 

Not sure where the fifth Kingsguard suddenly would have come from (and where he would have gone before Cregan's arrival), so one of the quotes seems to be wrong. Either there were five Kingsguard present at the time of Aegon's death (and four Kingsguard sent to the Wall) or there were just three Kingsguard with Belgrave when the riverlords entered King's Landing.

I think it's OK for the 5th KG to be not in the Red Keep when Aegon died, and come back later? So he could escape the trial.