Jump to content
Onion Knight

The ASOIAF wiki thread

Recommended Posts

Pale Griffin,

New question. When Stannis made Salladhor Saan Lord of Blackwater Bay...did he establish a new noble house...or is it just a title like Shield of Lannisport or Warden of the North?

I don't think it's a "commander"-style title, like Warden. "Lord" seems to have pretty distinct meaning in this culture: if you're meant to be only a warden, or a commander, they call you "shield" or "commander" or "warden." When they use the word lord, they seem to mean it. And what is it they mean? Well, usually, yes, a castle, but at the very least there are lands (not always described at the creation of the lordship), and presumably vassals. The only vassals may be serfs, but at least somebody owes you fealty.

Possibly, Stannis intends to make Sal a sort of lord-paramount-in-miniature. Instead of being Lord of the Riverlands or Lord of the North, which are enormous regions, it's a similar setup, with some vassal lords, but on a much smaller scale. Probably, the lands with which the King intends to invest that title are whichever it turns out belonged to the least loyal houses whose territory is on or near the Bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pale Griffin,

I don't think it's a "commander"-style title, like Warden. "Lord" seems to have pretty distinct meaning in this culture: if you're meant to be only a warden, or a commander, they call you "shield" or "commander" or "warden." When they use the word lord, they seem to mean it. And what is it they mean? Well, usually, yes, a castle, but at the very least there are lands (not always described at the creation of the lordship), and presumably vassals. The only vassals may be serfs, but at least somebody owes you fealty.

Possibly, Stannis intends to make Sal a sort of lord-paramount-in-miniature. Instead of being Lord of the Riverlands or Lord of the North, which are enormous regions, it's a similar setup, with some vassal lords, but on a much smaller scale. Probably, the lands with which the King intends to invest that title are whichever it turns out belonged to the least loyal houses whose territory is on or near the Bay.

It could be a courtesy title. Vary and Bloodraven are called Lord though they have no lands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New question. Chapter 39 A Storm of Swords - Arya.

There is a Watty who is injured/killed in the battle with the Brave Companions and there is a Watty the Miller later in the chapter. Same person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same I'd say. The appendix only lists one Watty among the followers, Watty the Miller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question of continuity. During the scene in Chapter 49 of A Storm of Swords where Lord Walder Frey is introducing his daughters to Robb Stark there is a Walda Rivers, the daughter of Ser Aemon Rivers. In the appendix there is a Walda Rivers, daughter of Walder Rivers. Same person and just a small continuity mistake, or does Ser Aemon have a daughter named Walda. For the time being I`ve placed her info under Walda, daughter of Walder Rivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She may be not a "Walda Rivers", she just say “I’m Ser Aemon Rivers’s Walda, lord great grandfather.”

Bastards sons and daughters only take the nickname "Rivers" (or other) if they are themselves bastards of noble. For exemple, Aemon Rivers & Walda Rivers are bastards from Walder Rivers and a Charlton woman.

So if ser Aemon Rivers have himself a girl nammed Walda, it's probable she's not a "Rivers". 2 possibilities i guess :

- she's from a commun woman, so she has no name, she's just "Walda" Aemon married or not.

- Aemon is married to a (small-)noble woman, and... well I don't know how she could be nammed, but obviously not "Rivers" because she's not a bastard.

Also she call lord Walder "lord great grandfather". If she was Walder Rivers's daughter, she would have say "lord grandfather".

So I'd say just "Walda" without name, daughter of ser Aemon Rivers...

Edited by Evrach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, they can keep the last name Rivers as their surname. Rennifer Longwaters story of his family said his great (whatever) father put the `Long` in front of his name so that it would show that he was trueborn. However that implies that he could have kept the name Waters if he had chosen to. I can find no information that says Ser Aemon Rivers or Walda Rivers are bastards beyond their name. However since Ser Aemon has the arms of his father and his mother, which if he was a bastard of the Charltons would mean he would have to put the red bar over it, or a red bar over the whole arms, like his father does.

Your answer to my question though was that it is another Walda. Another Walda Rivers. Alright then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ser Aemon Rivers & Walda rivers are listed as "bastard son" & "bastard daugther" of Walder Rivers in AFFC appendix. So they seem to be bastards too... BTW, if Walder Rivers was married, his wife should have been listed in the appendix isn't it ?

I don't think a truborn child of a bastard can keep a bastard name. Everywhere in the books, when we meet a "stone", a "snow" or a "rivers", it's always obvious for everyPoV that this character is a bastard, like when Catelyn meet Mya Stone. Bastards make children like everybody, if there was a chance that a "stone/snow/rivers/etc" was not a bastard but a bastard's trueborn child, someone should have point it at some time.

Rennifer Longwaters is a good exemple. Jon Waters has a trueborn child with a noble woman. Particulary situation, because bastards don't really often marry trueborn nobles I guess, but Jon Waters was a Targaryen bastard. So the trueborn son of Jon Waters and his wife has to choose a name for his descent, and he decided to let the "waters" in it in tribute ton his father. But I don't think he could have named himself "Waters" even if he had wanted to.

So my answer is that it's another Walda, not a Rivers, just a Walda.

Damned Frey >_> they could vary first names !

Edited by Evrach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the American AFfC appendix, they are called Bastard Walder's son and daughter, not his bastard son and bastard daughter.

According to GRRM, Ser Aemon is in fact trueborn, by a mother from House Charlton. He did indeed once say that trueborn children of bastards might take their mother's family name, but this seems to be optional, and for whatever reason Aemon (and presumably Walda) have not taken the Charlton name. Perhaps because they'd rather be associated with their father, who in turn is notably associated with Lord Walder, than taken for members of a minor Riverlands house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't "Bastard Walder's Son" can mean that he's a bastard ? oO

Still have to improve my english if it's the case.

Why the woman of house Charlton not listed in appendix so ?

So if a non bastard can be name "Rivers", why when people encounter a "Rivers" they always see a bastard in him ?

Edited by Evrach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. The son of a bastard can be trueborn, i.e. born within wedlock. Bastard Walder must have a wife. Why isn't she listed? I don't know, but GRRM gave us Aemon's arms, and they're quarted with his father's arms and his mother's normal arms.

It seems that people do assume that a person with a bastard name is themselves a bastard, hence the first Longwaters adding the "Long" to distinguish himself as being trueborn. Much like Oldflowers in the reach, one supposes. But it seems that this a choice that a person makes, the same choice, presumably, that led Aegor Rivers and Brynden Rivers to remain Rivers despite being legitimized and having the right to the Targaryen name. For whatever reason, Aemon Rivers and Walda Rivers have stuck to Rivers.

Alternatively, I suppose it's possible that since GRRM sent us Ser Aemon's arms, he's changed his mind and they're bastards as well. But I don't really see why he would do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not what I meant. I know thht a bastard can have a trueborn child if he is married.

But grammaticaly, if it is written "Beautiful Walder's son", didn't that mean that the son is beautiful ? if it's written "Trueborn Walder's son", didn't that mean that the son is a truborn ? if it's written "Bastard Walder's son"... well you know what I mean. Sometimes my english still sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that Walder Rivers has the byname of Bastard Walder. "Bastard Walder's son" means Walder Rivers's presumably-trueborn son. "Bastard Walder's bastard son" would be a bastard son of Bastard Walder Rivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh right !! I had forgot that.

Ok well. I'm not 100% convinced but i trust you.

Have you a ref about GRRM saying that trueborn children of bastards might take their mother's family name to put as ref on the wiki ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am misremembering about the mother's name bit, I think. Not quite sure where I got that from, unless it's something in my mail archives. Will have to hunt around.

Here is a relevant entry, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes ! very good entry, thank you Ran. please MP me if you find back the ref about bastards that take their mother's name later, it's not an urgent thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House Tully is no longer Lord Paramount of the trident...in the present tense. However another member keeps editing and telling me that they must remain lord paramounts of the trident. Do I leave them as Lord Paramounts of the Trident, and put Baelish as Lord Paramount of the Trident?

Does this apply to the Baratheons who split into three houses during the books? How about Hollard, are they allowed to be placed in the extinct?

Character wise, do I put people as dead in their intro, or leave them alive, even though as events fall out, they are dead.

If everything is in the present tense, then according to the Dunk and Egg short stories the entire Bloodraven article would be written in the present tense, along with Aerys I and all the other historical Targs. Parren and Targaryen would resume positions of existing house and ruling family....all this leads to confusion. The point of the wiki is to be as up to date as possible, spoilers included. That means if House Tully is no longer the head honchos of the Riverlands, then that should be stated from the outset. If in the article we refer to House Targaryen as the former kings of Westeros, we should refer to the Tullys as the former rulers of the Riverlands. It makes things coherent. This also affects the Whents, the Carons and other houses that have gone under in the books.

This severely affects my continued participation in this project.

Edited by The Pale Griffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PG,

Your opinion about how the article should be written is quit clear.

But what if somebody else feels that it should be written differently? What then?

Should the other person or you leave the wiki because of a different opinion? Or should we start an edit war?

I think the solution should be to post to the forum how you feel that the article should be written. If there is already a policy about this feel free to state why you think it should be different.

But if you keep changing the article after someone pointed out there was already an opinion about this you are bound to step on someone's toes.

Edited by Scafloc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PG,

Thanks for your contributions. I hope you'll reconsider your participation.

The fact is that a community project has to be governed by some sort of consistency rules, and Scafloc started a thread to try and discuss it and settle the question. That said, personally, the most important thing for the wiki is getting content in, first. Consistent style is important, but it doesn't matter if there is no content to be consistent about. If you find it impossible to write content to the exact letter of consistency rules, well, that can be something others who want to contribute can help with.

But that's just my opinion on the matter.

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

×