The Wiki-Timeline Project v2

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 6/9/2021 at 9:48 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

The Arthur Dayne calculation does not add up right now:

Arthur is known to be Rhaegar Targaryen's "oldest friend".{{Ref|ASOS|8}} As Rhaegar met Jon Connington when he came to King's Landing to serve as a squire alongside him,{{Ref|ASWD|22}} Rhaegar must have met Arthur before that. Jon was born no earlier than 260 AC ''(see [[Years after Aegon's Conquest/Calculations Ages (Continued)#Jon Connington|Jon Connington]])'', so this would place the year he came to King's Landing as 268 AC at the earliest. Thus, Arthur would have met Rhaegar no later than 267 AC. As Arthur was ''at least'' sixteen years old when he joined the Kingsguard, he had to be ''at least'' sixteen years old in 267 AC, though possibly older. This means that Arthur Dayne was born in 251 AC at the latest.

This does not make any sense. Connington came to KL in or after 268, so the later he came, the more the latest point Rhaegar meets Dayne gets moved in that direction, as well. If Connington had arrived in 275, the latest option of Dayne's first meeting with Rhaegar would be 274 (or even in early 275).

Why would Dayne have to be a Kingsguard when he meets Rhaegar for the first time? They actually could have met at the age of six when both of them served at court or something like this.

In my opinion the whole section should be removed.

Apologies it took me a while to respond. My daily schedule has not permitted me with much time to check in, and I wanted to research a bit before responding.

You are absolutely correct. We do no know when Rhaegar and Arthur met, and whether it was before Arthur became a KG knight.

 

What I can find now, is that 276 AC (tournament in honor of Viserys's birth late in the year), is the first mention of Arthur as a knight of the Kingsguard (TWOIAF, Aerys II). Meaning that Arthur was at least 16 that year, and thus, had been born no later than 260 AC. 

I don't belief we have anything more to pinpoint it any further. If you know anything more, please share!

And as always, thank you for your comments!

On 6/13/2021 at 3:02 PM, direpupy said:

This is @Rhaenys_Targaryen project and Rhaenys and the people who helped him/her established some rules they work by so i would rather wait for them to weigh in before changing anything.

Just to make sure they do not have some more information relevant to why they choose to go with this.

As my user name might suggest, it's her, please

Discussions are always nice, as everyone, including me, can make mistakes in the calculations, and I always appreciate it when someone manages to catch one so it can be corrected!

[Corvus Black]

16 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

You are absolutely correct. We do no know when Rhaegar and Arthur met, and whether it was before Arthur became a KG knight.

 

What I can find now, is that 276 AC (tournament in honor of Viserys's birth late in the year), is the first mention of Arthur as a knight of the Kingsguard (TWOIAF, Aerys II). Meaning that Arthur was at least 16 that year, and thus, had been born no later than 260 AC. 

I don't belief we have anything more to pinpoint it any further. If you know anything more, please share!

I was the one to make the edit, and I followed the wiki rules. In most entries on the age calculation pages squires are assumed to be eight years old.

We do know for a fact that Arthur has been friends with Rhaegar for longer than Rhaegar has been friends with Jon Connington, who he squired alongside. We also know that Rhaegar did not travel to Dorne in his childhood, and that as far as we know Arthur did not travel to King's Landing to be one of Rhaegar's companions. 

Arthur is first mentioned as a Kingsguard knight in 276 AC, but to assume he is only 16 years old at the time is just that: An assumption. Notably, he is a renowned knight at the time, not an especially young knight. Certainly not the youngest Kingsguard knight in history at that point.

How you want to edit the calculation is up to you, but you can't use one assumption and not another.

[The Wondering Wolf]

 

1 hour ago, Corvus Black said:

We do know for a fact that Arthur has been friends with Rhaegar for longer than Rhaegar has been friends with Jon Connington, who he squired alongside.

Rhaegar was newly knighted in 276 AC, so he and Conninton could have squired alongside in KL as late as the same year. So just assuming Rhaegar met Arthur in 274 AC and 18-year-old Arthur was made a Kingsguard at that point, already shows your calculation is imprecise, because it would place his date of birth in 256 the latest. 

A calculation that rules out technically possible dates should not be used.

1 hour ago, Corvus Black said:

How you want to edit the calculation is up to you, but you can't use one assumption and not another.

If the section you wrote is removed, the calculation does not include any further assumptions, all it says then is the latest point Arthur could have been born (i. e. 260 AC). It's likely he was born a few years before, but how many? Impossible to tell, so best keep it like that and let people make their own conclusion.

[direpupy]

19 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

As my user name might suggest, it's her, please

I thought so but was not a 100% sure and did not want to risk it 

[StarksInTheNorth]

Hi! I'm super new to this, but I've been playing around with some numbers and noticed some math on the wiki that could be in need of change. I have no idea how to edit, but thought I'd share what I've seen here.

First, the wiki has Brandon Stark (son of Willam) dying at the latest in 229. 

However, he would have to have died in 226 or earlier. Brandon is the older son of Willam, but his younger half-brother Edwyle succeeded as the next Lord of Winterfell. This would suggest that Brandon was dead by the time his father was, or else he might have had a brief stint as Lord Brandon. We know Willam died at Long Lake in 226, meaning that the latest possible death date for Brandon is also 226.

This also means that Brandon's latest birth day would be 223, since he died at age 3 of a summer chill. If he was born after 223, he wouldn't have been 3 at death.

---

The wiki also has 179 as the latest possible birth year for Mariah Stark (the 4th daughter of Cregan). However, it should actually be 165. And for her other older sisters it should be:

• Sarra Stark born at the latest in 162

• Alys Stark born at the latest in 163

• Raya Stark born at the latest in 164

This is because their mother, Alysanne Blackwood, was born in 113 (she was 16 in 129 in F&B). That means she would hit menopause and no longer be fertile at the latest in 165 (113+52 = 165). Working backwards from that, we get the latest possible birth years for her daughters.

---

Next, the wiki has Beron Stark's latest year of death listed as 226. However, we know that he is dying during the next Dunk & Egg book, potentially titled She-Wolves of Winterfell, which is likely set soon after the events of the last D&B book in 212. Further, Egg marries Betha Blackwood in 220, which would presumably happen after he's done squiring. We also know that Aegon was summoned to King's Landing by Maekar when Maekar became king in 221, so the earliest that She-Wolves can take place, and Beron can die, is 212, and the latest is 221.

This would also make Beron's last possible year of birth 191. We know he is 30-40 when he dies ('in  his 30s') and so if he is 30 in 221, he would be born in 191.

[Corvus Black]

18 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

Rhaegar was newly knighted in 276 AC, so he and Conninton could have squired alongside in KL as late as the same year. So just assuming Rhaegar met Arthur in 274 AC and 18-year-old Arthur was made a Kingsguard at that point, already shows your calculation is imprecise, because it would place his date of birth in 256 the latest. 

A calculation that rules out technically possible dates should not be used.

You've cut out the part about me following the wiki rules with that calculation.

18 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

If the section you wrote is removed, the calculation does not include any further assumptions, all it says then is the latest point Arthur could have been born (i. e. 260 AC). It's likely he was born a few years before, but how many? Impossible to tell, so best keep it like that and let people make their own conclusion.

As I've said, to assume Arthur is 16 in 276 AC has no foundation. He was a renowned Kingsguard knight at that time, not the youngest Kingsguard knight in history at that point.

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 6/16/2021 at 8:51 PM, Corvus Black said:

I was the one to make the edit, and I followed the wiki rules. In most entries on the age calculation pages squires are assumed to be eight years old.

Nowhere is it stated that all squires are eight years old. Squires are at least eight years old, but could be older. Eight is the minimum age here.

On 6/16/2021 at 8:51 PM, Corvus Black said:

We do know for a fact that Arthur has been friends with Rhaegar for longer than Rhaegar has been friends with Jon Connington, who he squired alongside. We also know that Rhaegar did not travel to Dorne in his childhood, and that as far as we know Arthur did not travel to King's Landing to be one of Rhaegar's companions. 

We have no clue when Arthur met Rhaegar, or when he came to King's Landing for the first time. He has been Rhaegar's friend for longer than Jon Connington was, but we don't know when Jon befriended Rhaegar either.

On 6/16/2021 at 8:51 PM, Corvus Black said:

Arthur is first mentioned as a Kingsguard knight in 276 AC, but to assume he is only 16 years old at the time is just that: An assumption. Notably, he is a renowned knight at the time, not an especially young knight. Certainly not the youngest Kingsguard knight in history at that point.

How you want to edit the calculation is up to you, but you can't use one assumption and not another.

4 hours ago, Corvus Black said:

You've cut out the part about me following the wiki rules with that calculation.

As I've said, to assume Arthur is 16 in 276 AC has no foundation. He was a renowned Kingsguard knight at that time, not the youngest Kingsguard knight in history at that point.

No one is saying Arthur was 16 years old in 276 AC. He was at least 16, if not older. He was a Kingsguard knight by then, which means he had at least turned 16, as Jaime would later be the youngest knight to become a Kingsguard ever at the age of 15.

So, while Arthur was at least 16 at the time, he could easily have been several years older. And we have absolutely no way of telling how many years that could possibly be.

As such, we can say he was born no later than 260 AC, but that does not mean that he could not have been born any earlier. Only that he could not have been born after 260 AC.

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

@StarksInTheNorth If you wish to have an editor account for the wiki, you can request one here.

If not, tell me and I will edit it myself later because I agree with your observations at least for little Brandon and Alysanne's daughters.

For the case of Beron, we are dealing with unpublished information here, thus subject to change (some people have even speculated in the past GRRM would change his mind and published "The Village Hero" before the "The She-Wolves of Winterfell").  I'm not sure how to deal with all that. @Rhaenys_Targaryen, you're the de facto authority with that kind of stuff, what do you think ?

While I agree with your reasoning, nothing in the quote you selected states that Dunk & Egg didn't travel around Westeros  after Maekar's coronation and stayed confined at King's Landing. Though in that scenario, Lord Dagon Greyjoy and his ironborn would have raided the west coast for more than a decade without the Targaryens stopping them (which we know they eventually did).

 

[StarksInTheNorth]

@Thomaerys Velaryon Thanks for the link, I'll def fill that out soon. I went digging to pull up some more information on my Beron claim. From ADWD, Victarion, we have:

Quote

Those words pleased Victarion Greyjoy mightily, as he told the dusky woman that night. "My brother Balon was a great man," he said, "but I shall do what he could not. The Iron Islands shall be free again, and the Old Way will return. Even Dagon could not do that." Almost a hundred years had passed since Dagon Greyjoy sat the Seastone Chair, but the ironborn still told tales of his raids and battles. In Dagon's day a weak king sat the Iron Throne, his rheumy eyes fixed across the narrow sea where bastards and exiles plotted rebellion. So forth from Pyke Lord Dagon sailed, to make the Sunset Sea his own. "He bearded the lion in his den and tied the direwolf's tail in knots, but even Dagon could not defeat the dragons. But I shall make the dragon queen mine own. She will share my bed and bear me many mighty sons."

I would argue that "a weak king" is Aerys I, who had two Blackfyre Rebellions during his time. I wouldn't describe Maekar as "weak," especially considering his own participation in beating back those rebellions (in particular the first). This is further backed up by AWOIAF, which has

Quote

A full account of their reigns can be found in Archmaester Haereg's History of the Ironborn. Therein you may read of Dagon Greyjoy, the Last Reaver, whose longships harried the western coasts when Aerys I Targaryen sat the Iron Throne.

I couldn't find any reference to Maekar and Dagon, which doesn't imply much but I feel like it would've been mentioned if Dagon spent the better part of a decade (and two reigns) reaving without repercussions. Of course this is all supposition, but added to that is that there were two other lords between him and Edwyle, and I'd argue it's more logical for them to have more than a few days each as Lord (Donnor and Willam, for context). 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 6/17/2021 at 4:50 PM, StarksInTheNorth said:

Hi! I'm super new to this, but I've been playing around with some numbers and noticed some math on the wiki that could be in need of change. I have no idea how to edit, but thought I'd share what I've seen here.

First, the wiki has Brandon Stark (son of Willam) dying at the latest in 229. 

However, he would have to have died in 226 or earlier. Brandon is the older son of Willam, but his younger half-brother Edwyle succeeded as the next Lord of Winterfell. This would suggest that Brandon was dead by the time his father was, or else he might have had a brief stint as Lord Brandon. We know Willam died at Long Lake in 226, meaning that the latest possible death date for Brandon is also 226.

This also means that Brandon's latest birth day would be 223, since he died at age 3 of a summer chill. If he was born after 223, he wouldn't have been 3 at death.

---

Agreed!

 

Quote

The wiki also has 179 as the latest possible birth year for Mariah Stark (the 4th daughter of Cregan). However, it should actually be 165. And for her other older sisters it should be:

• Sarra Stark born at the latest in 162

• Alys Stark born at the latest in 163

• Raya Stark born at the latest in 164

This is because their mother, Alysanne Blackwood, was born in 113 (she was 16 in 129 in F&B). That means she would hit menopause and no longer be fertile at the latest in 165 (113+52 = 165). Working backwards from that, we get the latest possible birth years for her daughters.

---

Good observation!

 

Quote

Next, the wiki has Beron Stark's latest year of death listed as 226. However, we know that he is dying during the next Dunk & Egg book, potentially titled She-Wolves of Winterfell, which is likely set soon after the events of the last D&B book in 212. 

Likely, but we cannot be certain yet, as it has not yet been confirmed when She-Wolves takes place exactly, or how long Beron lingered.

Quote

Further, Egg marries Betha Blackwood in 220, which would presumably happen after he's done squiring. We also know that Aegon was summoned to King's Landing by Maekar when Maekar became king in 221, so the earliest that She-Wolves can take place, and Beron can die, is 212, and the latest is 221.

This would also make Beron's last possible year of birth 191. We know he is 30-40 when he dies ('in  his 30s') and so if he is 30 in 221, he would be born in 191.

While Aegon was eventually summoned to KL, that does not mean he could not have traveled back north afterwards, as @Thomaerys Velaryon  pointed out.

 

2 hours ago, StarksInTheNorth said:

I went digging to pull up some more information on my Beron claim. From ADWD, Victarion, we have:

I would argue that "a weak king" is Aerys I, who had two Blackfyre Rebellions during his time. I wouldn't describe Maekar as "weak," especially considering his own participation in beating back those rebellions (in particular the first). This is further backed up by AWOIAF, which has

 

I agree that the two sections you quote limit Dagon's reaving to Aerys's reign.

But, from those quotes we cannot deduce when Beron was attacked, or howlpng he was on his death bed. While I agree with you that he likely died not long after getting hurt, we do not have any data to rule out anything else, and so we must use, in my opinion, the dates we have of the lords that came after him.

[The Wondering Wolf]

@Ranivaka (took me some time to realise you changed your user name)

The wiki states Aerys I was born in 172 AC at the earliest, based on a statement by GRRM that when Aerys's aunt Daenerys was born, Daeron already had a son, not “sons”, thereby indicating that Daenerys was born after Baelor, but before Aerys. I think the evidence is a bit vague here, so do you think the statement actually rules out that Daeron had two sons at the time of Daenerys's birth?

[StarksInTheNorth]

Still need to request an account, but wanted to get others thoughts on changing Aenar the Exile's date of death to 102 AC or later, rather than 114 or later (and the same for Daenys and Gaemon)?

I'd argue that the following suggests that Aenar the Exile was alive when the Doom occurred:

Quote

"What followed in the sudden vacuum was chaos. The dragonlords had been gathered in Valyria as was their wont...except for Aenar Targaryen, his children, and his dragons, who had fled to Dragonstone and so escaped the Doom." (TWOIAF, Ancient History: The Doom of Valyria)

The Targaryens moved to Dragonstone in 114 AC, "twelve years before the Doom of Valyria." If Aenar were alive 12 years later at the time of the Doom, that would be his earliest possible year of death, in 102 (114-12). The same for Daenys and Gaemon, who are also currently listed as "died in or after 114").

[StarksInTheNorth]

@Rhaenys_Targaryen What are your thoughts or wiki rules on references to whether or not a girl has flowered and using that as a reference for age? In modern days, the average age is around 12, but can happen generally anywhere from 12-15. I read somewhere, but can't recall where, that menarche sets in earlier now because people are generally healthier than they were hundreds of years ago. Based on what little evidence we have, GRRM seems to be using ~12 as the age of menarche.

I ask in particular because of the age of three of the Four Storms (Cassandra, Maris, and Ellyn Baratheon). The age range for them all is currently based on the other sister, Floris, being born in 118[1], and Cassandra, the eldest, attending the Maiden's Day Cattle Show (making her younger than 30 in 133).

However, in 129 at the start of the Dance, Cassandra's father says that she will be the first to flower. Going off the current range of 103-116, Cassandra would be anywhere from 13 to 26. However, I'd argue the range should be 113-116 for Cassandra, putting her between 13 and 16, since she's expected to flower soon, but hasn't already as a woman older than 16 is probably expected to be. This would also adjust the ranges for her sisters as such:

• Maris 114-117 (known to be younger than Cassandra and older than Floris)
• Ellyn 115-129 (known to be younger than Cassandra and Maris, but unclear what her age is in relation to Floris)

--

[1] her age is stated in the text of F&B, so calculable. 

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 6/25/2021 at 7:15 PM, StarksInTheNorth said:

snp

I have been trying to respond all week but it is been busy, and my draft post was deleted.

Just to let you know, I will respond to you in detail this weekend!

[Thomaerys Velaryon]

@StarksInTheNorth @Rhaenys_Targaryen
I have identified several mothers to which we can apply the "menopause rule" to give them a range for their year of births rather than "born in or before ... AC".

• Alys Stackspear: 193-233 AC
• Alyssa Blackwood: 217-254 AC
• Amarei Crakehall: 212-246 AC
• Annara Farring: 240-273 AC
• Bethany Rosby: 230-266 AC
• Cassana Estermont: 225-250 AC
• Cyrenna Swann: 196-237 AC
• Dyanna Dayne: 149-179 AC
• Elenda Baratheon: 79-97 AC
• Ella Lannister: 204-261 AC
• Ellyn Reyne: 190-228 AC
• Gilliane Glover: 57-96 AC
• Hazel Harte: 75-115 AC
• Jeyne Marbrand: 203-230 AC
• Marna Locke: 178-238 AC
• Melessa Florent: 235-271 AC
• Perra Royce: 187-222 AC
• Serenei of Lys: 126-172 AC
• Sylwa Paege: 236-274 AC
• Tanda Stokeworth: 213-252 AC
• Teora Kyndall: 157-197 AC
• Tyanna Wylde: 217-261 AC
• Valaena Velaryon: 77 BC - 40 BC

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 6/25/2021 at 7:15 PM, StarksInTheNorth said:

@Rhaenys_Targaryen What are your thoughts or wiki rules on references to whether or not a girl has flowered and using that as a reference for age? In modern days, the average age is around 12, but can happen generally anywhere from 12-15. I read somewhere, but can't recall where, that menarche sets in earlier now because people are generally healthier than they were hundreds of years ago. Based on what little evidence we have, GRRM seems to be using ~12 as the age of menarche.

According to Martin's writing, we can assume that highborn girls have their first period at an age of twelve or thirteen, on average:

Sansa could not look at him, he shamed her so. "Septa Mordane says most … most highborn girls have their flowering at twelve or thirteen." (AGOT, Sansa VI)

 

He also states that

As in the real Middle Ages, highborn girls tend to flower significantly earlier than those of lower birth. Probably a matter of nutrition. As a result, they also tend to marry earlier, and to bear children earlier.

 

On 6/25/2021 at 7:15 PM, StarksInTheNorth said:

I ask in particular because of the age of three of the Four Storms (Cassandra, Maris, and Ellyn Baratheon). The age range for them all is currently based on the other sister, Floris, being born in 118[1], and Cassandra, the eldest, attending the Maiden's Day Cattle Show (making her younger than 30 in 133).

However, in 129 at the start of the Dance, Cassandra's father says that she will be the first to flower. Going off the current range of 103-116, Cassandra would be anywhere from 13 to 26. However, I'd argue the range should be 113-116 for Cassandra, putting her between 13 and 16, since she's expected to flower soon, but hasn't already as a woman older than 16 is probably expected to be. This would also adjust the ranges for her sisters as such:

• Maris 114-117 (known to be younger than Cassandra and older than Floris)
• Ellyn 115-129 (known to be younger than Cassandra and Maris, but unclear what her age is in relation to Floris)

--

[1] her age is stated in the text of F&B, so calculable. 

You make an interesting point. Using all that was stated in text, she would indeed be between 13 and 26 years old. However, for a girl who has not yet had her first period, being maximally 26 seems a bit at odds.

Of course, we have a minimum age for girls who have had their first 'flowering', in accordance with the quote above. But, that does not automatically mean that all 12/13 year old highborn girls in Westeros have had their first period  by that age. 

In addition, although the age of majority in Westeros is 16, that does not mean that every girl has had her first period by that age.

If we can find a good scientific source, we can attach a (give or take) maximum age to a girl getting her first period. ScienceDirect shows part of a book (Environmental Exposures and Women's Reproductive Health) which contains these two pasages:

Menarche symbolizes the onset of sexual maturity and is characterized by the onset of the first menstrual bleeding. The average age at menarche is 13.8 years; however, it ranges from 9 to 18 years and varies by race and ethnicity [1]. The median age at menarche for European girls ranges from 12.6 years (Italy and Greece) to 15.2 years (Russia). The median age for North American girls varies from 12.5 years (U.S. blacks) to 13.8 years (U.S. Eskimos), the median age for Asian girls ranges from 12.7 years (Singapore) to 18.1 years (Nepal), and the median age for African girls varies from 13.2 to 17.0 years (Rwanda) [1].

[...]

European studies indicate that age of menarche has declined from 17 years in 1840 to about 13 years in 1970 [1,40]. North American studies show that the age at menarche declined from about 15 years in 1890 to approximately 13 years in 1920 [1,41]. 

However, as the book is not available online, I cannot check which sources are being used here.

Nonetheless, 18 could be a valid maximum age for menarche with ScienceDirect as a reference.

That would mean that in 129 AC, Cassandra was at most 18 years old, which would place her birth between 111 AC and 116 AC. (And subsequently Maris's birth between 112 AC and 117 AC)

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 7/3/2021 at 9:45 PM, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

@StarksInTheNorth @Rhaenys_Targaryen
I have identified several mothers to which we can apply the "menopause rule" to give them a range for their year of births rather than "born in or before ... AC".

• Alys Stackspear: 193-233 AC
• Alyssa Blackwood: 217-254 AC
• Amarei Crakehall: 212-246 AC
• Annara Farring: 240-273 AC
• Bethany Rosby: 230-266 AC
• Cassana Estermont: 225-250 AC
• Cyrenna Swann: 196-237 AC
• Dyanna Dayne: 149-179 AC
• Elenda Baratheon: 79-97 AC
• Ella Lannister: 204-261 AC
• Ellyn Reyne: 190-228 AC
• Gilliane Glover: 57-96 AC
• Hazel Harte: 75-115 AC
• Jeyne Marbrand: 203-230 AC
• Marna Locke: 178-238 AC
• Melessa Florent: 235-271 AC
• Perra Royce: 187-222 AC
• Serenei of Lys: 126-172 AC
• Sylwa Paege: 236-274 AC
• Tanda Stokeworth: 213-252 AC
• Teora Kyndall: 157-197 AC
• Tyanna Wylde: 217-261 AC
• Valaena Velaryon: 77 BC - 40 BC

(I have not checked the years for all of the above, but) that approach sounds logical to me, yes  

[direpupy]

17 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

If we can find a good scientific source, we can attach a (give or take) maximum age to a girl getting her first period. ScienceDirect shows part of a book (Environmental Exposures and Women's Reproductive Health) which contains these two pasages:

There is an artical on medieval menarche from the American journal of human biology that could be usefull, it focuses on changes in menarge before and after the Black Death i have put the link below.

Its a bit long and more focused on explaining how you can tell if someone is pre- or post-menarcheal from skeletons and how you can tell at what age menarche occured in someone from there bones. but basicaly it puts 19 to 22 as they upper limit depending on time and nutrition with 17 being they average, they do admit that these are skeletons of commoners and that among highborn women it would have been lower, they quote a london cleric from the 14 century who wrote “In ancient times, the menses did not begin to flow until the fifteenth or fourteenth year, or certainly not before age twelve. But now they begin in certain girls in the eleventh or in the tenth year” (Green, 2005; p. 55).

This is the link:

Medieval menarche: Changes in pubertal timing before and after the Black Death - DeWitte - 2021 - American Journal of Human Biology - Wiley Online Library

[The Wondering Wolf]

On the death of Floris Baratheon:

The wiki states she died in 134 Ac, but I think that isn't true.

Early in 135 AC, the Conclave sent forth its white ravens from Oldtown to herald the end of one of the longest and cruelest winters that the Seven Kingdoms had ever known. [...] Only in the Vale did fighting continue. Furious at the refusal of the Arryn claimants to come to King’s Landing and submit their dispute to the judgment of the regents, Lord Thaddeus Rowan sent a thousand men to Gulltown under the command of his fellow regent, Ser Corwyn Corbray, to restore the King’s Peace and settle the matter of succession. [...]

During the first quarter of 135 AC, two momentous events were the occasion of great joy throughout the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. On the third day of the third moon of that year, the people of King’s Landing woke to a sight that had not been seen since the dark days of the Dance: a dragon in the skies above the city. Lady Rhaena, at the age of nineteen, was flying her dragon, Morning, for the first time. [...] Less than a fortnight later, Larra of Lys gave birth to a son, Prince Viserys’s firstborn child. 

The first omen of the dark times to come was seen on Driftmark, when the dragon’s egg presented to Laena Velaryon upon her birth quickened and hatched.

This seems to happen after the third moon of the year. Aegon III decides all eggs must be removed from the Red Keep which leads to 

Prince Viserys refused to speak to King Aegon for a moon’s turn.

So we should be in the fifth moon now. Then Gaemon Palehair dies and they investigate the incident. At that point it says:

The Hand was in a black state even before the poisoning, for he had only recently suffered his own personal tragedy when his young wife, the Lady Floris, died in childbirth.

Since we are some moons into the year and there is no mention of Floris's death when Thaddeus sent Corwyn to the Vale, I think Floris died in 135 and not in 134 (although there is this statement that she died two years after the betrothal to Thaddeus in 132 AC, but this would also work if the betrothal took place rather late in the year).

[Rhaenys_Targaryen]

On 7/28/2021 at 6:33 PM, The Wondering Wolf said:

On the death of Floris Baratheon:

The wiki states she died in 134 Ac, but I think that isn't true.

Early in 135 AC, the Conclave sent forth its white ravens from Oldtown to herald the end of one of the longest and cruelest winters that the Seven Kingdoms had ever known. [...] Only in the Vale did fighting continue. Furious at the refusal of the Arryn claimants to come to King’s Landing and submit their dispute to the judgment of the regents, Lord Thaddeus Rowan sent a thousand men to Gulltown under the command of his fellow regent, Ser Corwyn Corbray, to restore the King’s Peace and settle the matter of succession. [...]

During the first quarter of 135 AC, two momentous events were the occasion of great joy throughout the Seven Kingdoms of Westeros. On the third day of the third moon of that year, the people of King’s Landing woke to a sight that had not been seen since the dark days of the Dance: a dragon in the skies above the city. Lady Rhaena, at the age of nineteen, was flying her dragon, Morning, for the first time. [...] Less than a fortnight later, Larra of Lys gave birth to a son, Prince Viserys’s firstborn child. 

The first omen of the dark times to come was seen on Driftmark, when the dragon’s egg presented to Laena Velaryon upon her birth quickened and hatched.

This seems to happen after the third moon of the year. Aegon III decides all eggs must be removed from the Red Keep which leads to 

Prince Viserys refused to speak to King Aegon for a moon’s turn.

So we should be in the fifth moon now. Then Gaemon Palehair dies and they investigate the incident. At that point it says:

The Hand was in a black state even before the poisoning, for he had only recently suffered his own personal tragedy when his young wife, the Lady Floris, died in childbirth.

Since we are some moons into the year and there is no mention of Floris's death when Thaddeus sent Corwyn to the Vale, I think Floris died in 135 and not in 134 (although there is this statement that she died two years after the betrothal to Thaddeus in 132 AC, but this would also work if the betrothal took place rather late in the year).

Indeed, there are some months that pass between the turning of the new year (135 AC) and the statement of Floris having "recently" died. But what limits "recently"? A month? Half a year? We cannot use the phrase to determine how long Floris has been dead but this point. He could certainly still be mourning the loss of his young wife, as well as his child. He was considered a "doting husband", so it would not be surprising if he had truly cared about Floris as a spouse, instead of seeing her only as a politically gained price..

So, with the uncertainty considering the "recently" statement, I think we should follow the "two years later" reference, as that one presents a clear date that still fits with the other one.