Potsk Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) What day of the year the coronation was is inconsequential. If there's no year zero and it was in the "fourth moon," the first through third moons would also be considered part of Year 1. If there was a year zero (which wouldn't make any sense in this instance) the coronation would be Fourth moon 0 AC while the first through third moons would make up the entirety of 1 BC, and 2 BC would be only half a year in the past. This of course defeats the purpose of a Before/After dating system. Edited January 29 by Potsk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wondering Wolf Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, Oneiros Drakontos said: In my opinion it doesn't seem the text states that the day of the coronation is also the first day of 1 AC. It's mentioned that the start date of the reign is the second coronation instead of the first (Even the start date is a matter of some misconception. Many assume, wrongly, that the reign of King Aegon I Targaryen began on the day he landed at the mouth of the Blackwater Rush, etc.), not that the first day of 1 AC and the first day of the reign are the same. The day of the coronation in the Starry Sept could be in the middle of the year 1 AC, for all we know. Hm, that doesn't make much sense to me. Aegon dated the start of his reign to the second coronation. The second coronation marked the official end of the Conquest. So the Conquest was completed that day (we know it actually wasn't, but that doesn't have to bother us here). The coronation was the ending point of the Conquest. Why would Aegon decide that some events before the end of the Conquest (in your example three months) would be dated AC (= after the Conquest)? As Potsk says, this would defeat the purpose of the new dating system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potsk Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 (edited) 44 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said: Why would Aegon decide that some events before the end of the Conquest (in your example three months) would be dated AC (= after the Conquest)? As Potsk says, this would defeat the purpose of the new dating system. That's not what I said. I said having the first year before the Conquest not last a full actual year would defeat the purpose of having a Before/After (BC/AC) system. Events before his coronation being dated AC to ensure 1 BC and 1 AC are two full years wouldn't be stranger than Jesus being born 6-4 BC. Edited January 29 by Potsk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wondering Wolf Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 31 minutes ago, Potsk said: Events before his coronation being dated AC to ensure 1 BC is a full year wouldn't be stranger than Jesus being born 6-4 BC. There is no need to ensure 1 BC is a full year because the moment Aegon decided to implement a new dating system, the 365 days (or whatever the number is in Westeros) before the starting point would automatically form 1 BC. There isn't any reason to assume that there was any confusion about Aegon's reign and the new calendar among the scholars. He was crowned in the city of the maesters at a point when he held huge power over a continent. That's not comparable to the birth of some child of a minority that would only later turn into some important religious figurehead and whose birth didn't really matter to most people back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potsk Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said: There is no need to ensure 1 BC is a full year because the moment Aegon decided to implement a new dating system, the 365 days (or whatever the number is in Westeros) before the starting point would automatically form 1 BC. Then they would have to change what the "first moon" of the year is to whatever point Aegon was crowned, and that sounds like a lot of unnecessary hassle. And then if it was in the middle of the month they would have to redefine which lunar phase marks the beginning of the month. More unnecessary hassle. Although, you might point out that they may have scheduled the coronation to specifically the first day of the first moon... which would eliminate any need for a year 0. 1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said: There isn't any reason to assume that there was any confusion about Aegon's reign and the new calendar among the scholars. I didn't say there would be, I'm saying they would do it that way out of necessity, because besides a tiny semantic issue that only affects possible a couple months before Aegon's coronation, it would be the solution that makes the most sense. It wouldn't be any weirder than some details about the starting points of calendars in the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneiros Drakontos Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 On 1/28/2024 at 1:00 AM, Potsk said: What in the books indicates that Littlefinger created a completely new House separate from the original House Baelish? He has new lands and arms but that doesn't mean he founded what the article describes as a "cadet branch." He was already Lord Baelish, he isn't a younger son. I think you're right. There's no clear indication that Littlefinger founded a new House. House Baelish is a single House with two seats, just like the Targaryens had Dragonstone, the Red Keep and Summerhall. I'd merge the pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potsk Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 The Lord of Sunspear article doesn't have any references backing up the existence of the title. On the search website I can find nothing that mentions the title "Lord of Sunspear." Doesn't seem like it actually exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaerys Velaryon Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Can anydoby point to me a passage where it is said that Edric Dayne’s father was the Lord of Starfall ? I found a mention of him in ASOS Arya VIII but not of him having this title. Quote My father was Ser Arthur's elder brother. Lady Ashara was my aunt. I never knew her, though. She threw herself into the sea from atop the Palestone Sword before I was born. If he was not a Lord then we should edit the ”House Dayne”, ”Edric Dayne” and ”Lord of Starfall” articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said: Can anydoby point to me a passage where it is said that Edric Dayne’s father was the Lord of Starfall ? I found a mention of him in ASOS Arya VIII but not of him having this title. If he was not a Lord then we should edit the ”House Dayne”, ”Edric Dayne” and ”Lord of Starfall” articles. I think its based on Edric being the current Lord and his father being the eldest known sibling among the four known Dayne's from the previeus generation. So no book confirmation there, which does leave the posibility of a different Lord, an even older sibling or a childless uncle or cousin of Edric's father. I think they article should be changed to reflect that while its possible his father was the Lord there is the posibility he was not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 11 hours ago, Potsk said: The Lord of Sunspear article doesn't have any references backing up the existence of the title. On the search website I can find nothing that mentions the title "Lord of Sunspear." Doesn't seem like it actually exists. As far as i can tell the historical title of house Martell before they united with the Roynar is Lord of the Sandship, so i think your right. The fact that the two towers of Sunspear's old palace where build in roynish style seems to suggest that Sunspear was build after the Roynar came to Dorne at which point the Martell's would have already used the title Prince, so that backes up the idea that this title does not exist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wondering Wolf Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 12 hours ago, Potsk said: The Lord of Sunspear article doesn't have any references backing up the existence of the title. On the search website I can find nothing that mentions the title "Lord of Sunspear." Doesn't seem like it actually exists. The title is mentioned in the appendices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
direpupy Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, The Wondering Wolf said: The title is mentioned in the appendices. A thats why i could not find it, i have put the reference behind the title in the opening sentence of the page so its more clear now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wondering Wolf Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 10 minutes ago, direpupy said: A thats why i could not find it, i have put the reference behind the title in the opening sentence of the page so its more clear now. When I can't find it with the old search site, I always try it with the new one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaerys Velaryon Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 3 hours ago, direpupy said: I think its based on Edric being the current Lord and his father being the eldest known sibling among the four known Dayne's from the previeus generation. So no book confirmation there, which does leave the posibility of a different Lord, an even older sibling or a childless uncle or cousin of Edric's father. I think they article should be changed to reflect that while its possible his father was the Lord there is the posibility he was not. Yes. Or another possibily would be for Edric to have inherited his lordship from his Dayne grandfather or grandmother and it skipped Edric's father who did not outlive his Lord father/Lady mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wondering Wolf Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 5 hours ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said: Can anydoby point to me a passage where it is said that Edric Dayne’s father was the Lord of Starfall ? I found a mention of him in ASOS Arya VIII but not of him having this title. If he was not a Lord then we should edit the ”House Dayne”, ”Edric Dayne” and ”Lord of Starfall” articles. The app states Edric was the successor of his father. Edited February 2 by The Wondering Wolf Thomaerys Velaryon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaerys Velaryon Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 (edited) 26 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said: The app states Edric was the successor of his father. I've just checked as well. Quote "Coming young to the lordship after his father's untimely death, Edric becomes Lord Beric Dondarrion's page when his aunt, Allyria Dayne, is betrothed to Lord Beric. Edric is seven at that time." As I understanded it,Edric was already the lord when he became Beric's page at seven years old. Since Edric was born in 287 AC, he would have turned 7 in 294 AC and was still seven in early 295 AC. Meaning he moved to Blackhaven in 294 or 295 AC. Thus the maximum range of death for Edric's father is in between 286 AC (if Edric was a posthumous son) and 295 AC (if the father died when Edric was still seven but close to his 8th nameday). Edited February 2 by Thomaerys Velaryon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wondering Wolf Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 1 hour ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said: As I understanded it,Edric was already the lord when he became Beric's page at seven years old. You could be right, but is there a source for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomaerys Velaryon Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 29 minutes ago, The Wondering Wolf said: You could be right, but is there a source for that? The quote from Edric's entry in AWOIAF from above. The Wondering Wolf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wondering Wolf Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 23 minutes ago, Thomaerys Velaryon said: The quote from Edric's entry in AWOIAF from above. Totally missed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneiros Drakontos Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 House Farring's coat of arms is incorrect and should be fixed. The current COA depicts two knights on a horse, but according to Citadel the knights are on foot. Indeed, the Farring knights are simply blazoned as knights combatant, without any reference to horses, differently from the knight of House Risley, who is appropriately blazoned as a knight on a horse. This is how the fixed COA could be: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gotascent/images/d/d5/250px-House_Farring.PNG/revision/latest?cb=20170830110718 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.