Jump to content
Ran

[Spoilers] Fire and Blood Errata

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

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?

Yeah, same could be with Cassells descending from some Stark and some western houses with lions in coats-of-arms descending from some younger son of Lannister King.

Real nobles most often used only their first names along with their titles like for example Duc Philippe III de Bourgogne. They also sometimes used their distant ancestors or country of origin(like hungarian Anjou and neapolitan Anjou) to differentiate between one another.

Plantagenet name originated from Henry II's father nickname and yes, only around XV century it started being used. From what I've read first Plantagenets were sometimes called Anjou dynasty for their original holdings in France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ran, not really an errata, but a question for you of which I didn't know where else to ask it.

The following statement from TWOIAF

Though in these days it is said that Lord Ellard Stark was glad to aid the Night's Watch with the Gift, and took little convincing, the truth is otherwise. Letters from Lord Stark's brother to the Citadel, asking the maesters to provide precedents against the forced donation of property, made it plain that the Starks were not eager to do as King Jaehaerys bid.

has since been changed into "[...] Lord Stark was glad to aid [...]", I was wondering.

Can you perhaps confirm that Alaric had, indeed, a brother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

@Ran, not really an errata, but a question for you of which I didn't know where else to ask it.

The following statement from TWOIAF

Though in these days it is said that Lord Ellard Stark was glad to aid the Night's Watch with the Gift, and took little convincing, the truth is otherwise. Letters from Lord Stark's brother to the Citadel, asking the maesters to provide precedents against the forced donation of property, made it plain that the Starks were not eager to do as King Jaehaerys bid.

has since been changed into "[...] Lord Stark was glad to aid [...]", I was wondering.

Can you perhaps confirm that Alaric had, indeed, a brother?

We discussed about it before, that information was changed, Alaric had no brother besides Walton. It is unknown which Stark tried to reverse the donation. As it stands now, whole statement with Starks being angry with donation makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paxter Redwyne said:

We discussed about it before, that information was changed, Alaric had no brother besides Walton. It is unknown which Stark tried to reverse the donation. As it stands now, whole statement with Starks being angry with donation makes no sense.

Would you happen to have the link to that? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Would you happen to have the link to that? :) 

Here is Ran's comment. 

Edit: On previous page of that thread there is more talk about the issue.

Edited by Paxter Redwyne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it stands now we know that Ran/Linda were charged by George to come up with an alternative version of the story where the Starks are unhappy about the New Gift.

It cannot have been a younger brother of Lord Alaric, since the man didn't have such a brother. Could have been one of Alaric's sons, or perhaps even a younger brother of Lord Edric - would be especially interesting if such a brother had been Lord Ellard.

I think I also said that I don't find it convincing that the Stark being unhappy about it would have written to the Citadel about it asking about precedents against the forced donation of property would have been a grandson of Lord Alaric since in his days the New Gift was already a thing.

If the letter thing were to be kept the complaining Stark in question should then be one of Lord Alaric's sons writing such letters while Jaehaerys and Alysanne were at Winterfell.

Overall, though, I'd prefer it if later generations had trouble with it since the entire Walton story gives us already enough tension between Alaric and Jaehaerys. It would feel better if the problems they had with the New Gift came later - either when it was already made, or when they had to see it through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Back in 2014 Ran also did not know they would split the book in two parts

From what we know, George's writing for GRRMillion stopped at the Regency in ~2013. So it didn't contain much info about the events after. If Ran knew how Munkun's issue would be solved back then, it's probably 1)George wrote a little more event at the end of Regency, such as Aegon III found a new Grand Maester, the False Daeron rebellions etc. or 2) from George's incomplete notes for the events after 136 AC.

Considering the word count of F&B v1 (~170k) is far less than George's claim in 2014(300~350k), subtracting the 7 kingdoms/Essos part in the world book, and the complete westerlands history preview, I guess there're still 20~50k materials we haven't seen. 

Edited by zionius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think it again, maybe Ran just meant they will find a solution with GRRM to solve Munkun's issue, just as solving Gerardys's issue. 

In 2014 the solution to the Gerardys's issue was still Orwyle cutting Viserys II's fingers, but that was changed in F&B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zionius said:

From what we know, George's writing for GRRMillion stopped at the Regency in ~2013. So it didn't contain much info about the events after. If Ran knew how Munkun's issue would be solved back then, it's probably 1)George wrote a little more event at the end of Regency, such as Aegon III found a new Grand Maester, the False Daeron rebellions etc. or 2) from George's incomplete notes for the events after 136 AC.

Considering the word count of F&B v1 (~170k) is far less than George's claim in 2014(300~350k), subtracting the 7 kingdoms/Essos part in the world book, and the complete westerlands history preview, I guess there're still 20~50k materials we haven't seen. 

What I meant is Ran was asked about Munkun when he and even GRRM himself thought the book would be published in one volume, so F&B would have given the answer. I do not know if GRRM has already written about it (and Ran knows the answer) or GRRM has not written about it (and Ran just expects the matter to be adressed), but there was some stuff cut from the later kings as well. I seem to remember a word count of 20000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One assumes that Ran noticed the Alford-Munkun discrepancy and asked George about it - he doesn't have to know the entire story to know that this is intentional and that there is a story to this whole thing.

And with Munkun pulling what he pulled I don't see Aegon III being able to work with this man. Even if he didn't consider him an enemy, would you be able to have a trusting relationship with Munkun if you were Aegon III? I don't think so. The Grand Maester has to be a man the king actually trusts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laena Velaryon is supposed to be Daemon Targaryen's second wife right? I've encountered at least two instances where she is introduced as Daemon's first wife, once during the dance and once in the Under the Regent section. Both times are reminders of the parentage of Baela or Rhaena.

Quote

His decree did not satisfy his restless charge, Baela Targaryen, Prince Daemon's daughter by his first wife, Laena Velaryon.

and

Quote

In truth, there were only two claimants the realm was like to accept: the king's half-sisters Baela and Rhaena Targaryen, Prince Daemon's twin daughters by his first wife, Lady Laena Velaryon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've found another one.

Lord Corlys and his fleet set sail from Driftmark on the ninth day of the third moon of 92 AC. Prince Aemon followed a few hours later, after bidding farewell to Lady Jocelyn and their daughter, Rhaenys. The princess had just learned she was expecting, else she would have accompanied her sire on Meleys.

and

the unborn child who had been the subject of so much debate, proved to be a girl when born in 93 AC. Her mother named her Laena.

Rhaenys getting pregnant from Corlys before he departed is already stretching things to the limit, since 9 March + 40 weeks = 14 December. But I don't think it's possible for her to know she was pregnant before he left.

Edited by The hairy bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 5:26 AM, SailfromHere said:

Laena Velaryon is supposed to be Daemon Targaryen's second wife right? I've encountered at least two instances where she is introduced as Daemon's first wife, once during the dance and once in the Under the Regent section. Both times are reminders of the parentage of Baela or Rhaena.

That is a very unpleasant mistake.

57 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

At which point is it possible to know that one is pregnant?

In Westeros most likely only in the second month of pregnancy - i.e. when the moon blood doesn't come.

Laena may have been a latecomer. Not every pregnancy lasts nine months. Still, she would have to be born more or less on the first day of the new year for this to be believable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where to post a likely error in ASOS. In Chapter 27, Daenerys III, it's stated Rakharo put an arrow through Grazdan mo Ullhor's mouth to kill him. However, it's Aggo in Path of the Dragon. The latter should be correct, since Aggo used bow, while Rakharo used arakh, as stated even in the previous paragraph.

Edited by zionius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet. TWOIAF includes the Battle of the Gullet in the Battles of 129 section.

FAB says "In the early morning hours of the fifth day of the 130th year since Aegon's Conquest, battle was joined."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×