Jump to content

The ASOIAF wiki thread


Onion Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Would it be appropriate to add characters for which there is only two possible ages too ?

In my opinion the boxes are supposed to give a quick overview about data regarding a certain character. One could always add more stuff, but at some point it gets too convoluted. So giving possibilities for a character's age at the time of death is a bit over the top to me. In the end people can also do the calculation if they are interested in it.

Edited by The Wondering Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, The Wondering Wolf said:

In my opinion the boxes are supposed to give a quick overview about data regarding a certain character. One could always add more stuff, but at some point it gets too convoluted. So giving possibilities for a character's age at the time of death is a bit over the top to me. In the end people can also do the calculation if they are interested in it.

I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lyarra Stark's birth-range could be brought forward a couple of decades, right? She had Benjen in 267 at the earliest & would've been at most in her 40s when she did, but was likely far younger. The only child of Lord Edwyle, Rickard, wouldn't be matched to a cousin far older than him, let alone possibly choose her himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Lyarra Stark's birth-range could be brought forward a couple of decades, right? She had Benjen in 267 at the earliest & would've been at most in her 40s when she did, but was likely far younger. The only child of Lord Edwyle, Rickard, wouldn't be matched to a cousin far older than him, let alone possibly choose her himself.

These calculations are always kind of ridiculous when basic rules meet common sense and the former wins. ^^ I am not a supporter of these 'born after the Conquest and died before AGOT' calculations, but if you stick to the rules, there is not much scope for interpretation.  Menopause could be a thing here, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that some characters, like Lyarra Stark, have such a big birth range is due to the fact we have little to none information on them except for the family trees. I agree that makes things a bit ridiculous sometimes like you said @The Wondering Wolf but we can't do much better for now.
That being said, @Lord Corlys Velaryon if you still intend on reducing the birth range for Lyarra, may I suggest you use the same processus we used for Dorna Swyft, which was to put 52 years old as the maximum age for birthing a child (see Dorna Swyft's birth range). Lyarra's birth range thus changes from 203/250 AC to 215/250 AC. It's not much but it's something.

Edited by Thomaerys Velaryon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord Corlys Velaryon, @The Wondering Wolf and @Thomaerys Velaryon, thank you for the suggestions! I used the maximum age of a woman's fertile stage to somewhat decrease the possible years of birth for Lyarra.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 5:42 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

These calculations are always kind of ridiculous when basic rules meet common sense and the former wins. ^^ I am not a supporter of these 'born after the Conquest and died before AGOT' calculations, but if you stick to the rules, there is not much scope for interpretation.  Menopause could be a thing here, though.

 Luckily most are not that broad by far hahaha :p

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Luckily most are not that broad by far hahaha :p

Sure. As you know, I am a huge fan of the whole project and totally understand the approach to do as many calculations as possible, but when the latest possibility of birth is later than the earliest possibility of death, it is more confusing than helpful in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A comment on terminology:

I see the 'Kings and queens in Westeros' box has a section 'rivals and claimants' which is misleading, in my opinion. A claimant would be a person putting forth a claim to the throne - like Laenor Velaryon, say, or Aenys Blackfyre. A claimant can become a pretender to the throne, but doesn't have to be such. And that section lists only pretenders, not people who tried to claim a throne peacefully or who were put forth/considered by others - like Maester Aemon.

A pretender to the throne (or a lordship) is a person who is proclaimed/crowned king/lord and styled as such by whatever followers and supporters he has - meaning this section should read 'rival pretenders'. Prince Aegon should not yet be listed among those since he has yet formally lay claim to the Iron Throne and actually become a pretender to the throne which necessitates that he is proclaimed/crowned king and styled by his followers as such. A prince isn't a king. And Aegon isn't yet King Aegon VI - neither to his followers nor to his enemies.

There is also no need to have a separate category for 'bastard pretenders'. They can be listed among a general pretender category. I guess one could make a Blackfyre pretenders category as has been done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Thomaerys Velaryon Well, I don't have an editor's account so I was merely suggesting the change for Lyarra's birth range, but yes, such datings solely/mainly dependent on the age of any woman's youngest child really should follow a consistent criteria. That said, Dorna's age has always seemed weird to me. Not because of the wiki editors, but George. Either she was very young when she became a hostage of the Lannisters & pedo Kevan married her while she was still a (young) child - yet they still only had Lancel when she was, at least, in her early 20s (though that could perhaps be explained if Kevan was mostly with Tywin in KL, while she stayed in the west, & they were just unlucky in conception on his occasional visit home, like in 273) - or she was an older child in 261 (still creepy Kevan), but didn't have her first child until her 30s (stretching the long-distance 'excuse' even further) & her youngest possibly in her 40s (not unheard of, by any means, but increasingly dangerous & utterly unnecessary unless they were trying for a daughter - & even then, they could've adopted their niece Joy for that, instead). I know little about fertility, but if the latter, I wonder if Dorna &/or Kevan had such issues in their younger years that somehow(?) improved in their 30s.

@Rhaenys_Targaryen Thanks. I've also noticed that the Fighting at Sow's Horn source on the House Karstark page links to Dany III of ASoS (Chapter 27), instead of Jaime III of Feast (also Chapter 27). Additionally, the source for "an unnamed village" possibly attacked by the Karstarks links to Cat II of ASoS (Chapter 14), when the Karstark desertion doesn't occur until Cat III. I'm guessing it's meant to be Brienne III of Feast (Chapter 14, again) when she's travelling with Pod from Duskendale to Maidenpool, but I'm not sure what exactly the quote is that refers to the attacked-by-northmen-village.

Edited by Lord Corlys Velaryon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
35 minutes ago, Lord Corlys Velaryon said:

Along with Arrax's, it seems like Vhagar's colouring has finally been confirmed! Looks similar enough to TWoIaF piece currently her wiki photo, too. Scroll through the comments for link of artist's comment about it coming from George:

I asked her the moment the picture is revealed https://twitter.com/zionius/status/1289229676775268358, but I understood her saying "I may have asked for an official take on it" as "I should have asked for an official take on it", so...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, zionius said:

I asked her the moment the picture is revealed https://twitter.com/zionius/status/1289229676775268358, but I understood her saying "I may have asked for an official take on it" as "I should have asked for an official take on it", so...

 

She seems to have confirmed it in a more clear manner in a different tweet so it does seem to be confirmed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zionius You are the master when it comes to little mistakes. I'd like to run something by you before putting it in the Errata.
 

In ADWD Jon X: Cregan Karstark comes to Castle Black with four mounted men-at-arms, one huntsman, and a pack of dogs. One of Karstark's men is killed after shooting a crossbow quarrel at Ty. Cregan and his men are taken captive and put in ice cells below the Wall.

Cregan + 4 men-at-arms + 1 huntsman - 1 killed = 5 captives in the ice cells
 

In ADWD Jon XIII: When asked how many prisoners are in the ice cells, Bowen Marsh says "Four living men. Two dead ones." (the two corpses were brought back from the weirwood grove north of the Wall in Jon VII).

Did one of Cregan's men died during his imprisonment and we never heard of it ? Or did GRRM made a mistake ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

Did one of Cregan's men died during his imprisonment and we never heard of it ? Or did GRRM made a mistake ?

I think someone yielded and  joined the black, or died.

Quote

 Lady Alys will pardon the women who betrayed her and allow the men to take the black.

Quote

"How many men do we have in ice cells?" he asked Bowen Marsh.

Jon didn't know the number, suggests the number is changing. Maybe more than one of Cregan's men were not in the cell now. And some NW or wildling were in it for some crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, zionius said:

Jon didn't know the number, suggests the number is changing. Maybe more than one of Cregan's men were not in the cell now. And some NW or wildling were in it for some crime.

Jon puts three of his men in the ice cells after they try to rape wildling women, and we don't hear about them after that.

I guess it's possible the "four living men" are those three and Cregan if Cregan's men took the black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we can further narrow the range of years for Vaegon's death. When Aegon III's regents are discussing the succession no one, not even Munkun, brings up Vaegon despite him being the only other male Targaryen left, which means he must have died in or before 132 AC, at which point he'd be sixty-nine, the same age as his father, which is believable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Grey Wolf Good point. Although by 101 AC he was already forgotten by most.

Quote

Moreover, King Jaehaerys still had one surviving son: Vaegon, an archmaester at the Citadel, holder of the ring and rod and mask of yellow gold. Known to history as Vaegon the Dragonless, his very existence had been largely forgotten by most of the Seven Kingdoms. Though only forty years of age, Vaegon was pale and frail, a bookish man devoted to alchemy, astronomy, mathematics, and other arcane arts. Even as a boy, he had never been well-liked. Few considered him a viable choice to sit the Iron Throne.

Fire & Blood, The Heirs of the Dragon - A Question of Succession

Munkun was chosen as Grand Maester in 131 AC and left the Citadel, he would have known who the Archmaesters of the time were.

Edited by Thomaerys Velaryon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...