Jump to content

The ASOIAF wiki thread


Onion Knight
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Btw, I think we can narrow Borros Baratheon's age range. His father, Boremund, was still not married at the age of twenty-eight in 80 AC, which means Borros couldn't have been born before then.

I think your thought had come up before, but actually we do not know if Boremund was not a widower at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Btw, I think we can narrow Borros Baratheon's age range. His father, Boremund, was still not married at the age of twenty-eight in 80 AC, which means Borros couldn't have been born before then.

If I remember correctly, I raised this point in the past. At the time @Rhaenys_Targaryen said the text does not permit us to refute the possibility of Boremund being a widower in 80 AC, and thus Borros being born before 80 AC.


The text says:

Quote

Boremund Baratheon was the most imposing of the candidates. At eight-and-twenty, the Lord of Storm’s End was the image of his father, brawny and powerful, with a booming laugh, a great black beard, and a mane of thick black hair. As the son of Lord Rogar by Queen Alyssa, he stood half-brother to Alysanne and Jaehaerys, and Daella knew and loved his sister, Jocelyn, from her years at court, which was thought to be much in his favor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the locations of Streets of Flour/Seeds/Looms, Coppersmith's Wynd, Sowbelly Row, Shadowback Lane, Eel Alley from Harper's map considered canon? Apparently they fit the descriptions in the books neatly, esp. in the case of Eel Alley, which is wrongly put on Aegon's Hill in the map book.

@Ran Did George provide a new hand-drawn map of KL for the map book, or just marked City Watch Barracks and Eel Alley on some previous map? 

Also I've been wondering which direction is north in KL map. From most descriptions in the books, it seems George took for granted the up side as north, and completely forgot the compass direction he put in the KL map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2020 at 11:07 PM, Thomaerys Velaryon said:

If I remember correctly, I raised this point in the past. At the time @Rhaenys_Targaryen said the text does not permit us to refute the possibility of Boremund being a widower in 80 AC, and thus Borros being born before 80 AC.

Chances would be pretty good that Boremund was betrothed or married before 80 AC considering his dynastic importance for both House Baratheon and House Targaryen (as half-brother to the king) but Borros is still not likely to be born at that time considering his daughters are all still unmarried in 129 AC, meaning the girls should all be in their teens at that point (and Cassandra perhaps about/approaching twenty).

But that would then imply Borros married around 110 AC or so, perhaps a couple of years earlier ... which wouldn't make much sense if he was a child born around or before 80 AC and only push the age problem to the next generation. And Elenda Caron is young enough to pick another husband after Borros' death, indicating she cannot have been approaching fifty in the early 130s. Not that it would make much sense for Elenda and Borros to have tried to have children for years when they have four healthy daughters in 129 AC.

Thus the MUSH idea of Borros being a younger son of Boremund's makes a lot of sense ... regardless whether his mother was Boremund's first, second, third, or fourth wife. This could also help explain why the guy was allowed to grow up into an illiterate fool ... something a man like Boremund would have likely not permitted if Borros had been his eldest son and heir.

Overall, though, one would have to say that the Baratheon family tree there sucks somewhat. It would have been better if Queen Alyssa hadn't died that early and if Jocelyn had been Rogar's elder child, born around 60 AC or so.

Not to mention that Boremund should have had more than just one known child ... and thus quite a few grandchildren and great-grandchildren by 129 AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

but Borros is still not likely to be born at that time considering his daughters are all still unmarried in 129 AC, meaning the girls should all be in their teens at that point (and Cassandra perhaps about/approaching twenty).

Cassandra was the oldest and according to Borros she had not flower yet in 129 AC.

Quote

Choose any one you like. Cass is oldest, she’ll be first to flower, but Floris is prettier. And if it’s a clever wife you want, there’s Maris.
Fire and Blood, The Dying of the Dragons - A Son for a Son

Either Borros doesn't know what he is talking about, or the girls are more on the side of being early teens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

Case in point re Mush versus canon: Floris dying at 18 instead of 16 and Royce being described as "the future of House Baratheon" as if there are no other males to be found...

Oh, the son of the lord would always be the future of the house, even if there were dozens of uncles, nephews and male cousins around. But we can be reasonably sure that George will make his Baratheons offspring of Royce and not of cousins he didn't bother to mention in FaB.

The wiki calculation of Alicent Hightower's birth seems to be erroneous due to conflicting sources. If Alicent is fifteen years old in 101 AC when her father takes her to court then she cannot be eighteen years old at her wedding in 106 AC ... meaning she cannot have been born in 88 AC but would rather have been born in 86 AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

The wiki calculation of Alicent Hightower's birth seems to be erroneous due to conflicting sources. If Alicent is fifteen years old in 101 AC when her father takes her to court then she cannot be eighteen years old at her wedding in 106 AC ... meaning she cannot have been born in 88 AC but would rather have been born in 86 AC.

I discussed this with Elio once and 88 AC seems to be the correct date. He suggested that Alicent only started to take care of Jaehaerys in 103 AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silver Denys claimed to be Maegor I's grandson, not his son.

Also, if Maegor I died in 48 AC its impossible for the red-haired guy claiming to be his son by rape to be a "strapping man-at-arms" since the latest date would make him 53 years old.

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

On 11/1/2020 at 10:13 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

I discussed this with Elio once and 88 AC seems to be the correct date. He suggested that Alicent only started to take care of Jaehaerys in 103 AC.

That may be the case, but is not what's implied in the actual book. There the context of the fifteen-year-old daughter is the arrival of the new Hand and his family which took place in 101 AC. If the text is supposed to imply that Alicent only started to take care of Jaehaerys I in 103 AC then this should have been in the text ... or we should at least have the text only to give Alicent's age when her role as nurse is first mentioned.

I'm fine with the idea that the king - who was still lucid and active at the Great Council - only started to really decline in 103 AC ... but the text doesn't specify when this happens - meaning it could have started in 101 or 102 AC. And it should to prevent inconsistencies like this one.

However, my issue was with the wiki's claim about Alicent's year of birth. With the text being inconsistent there any calculation of Alicent's birth should mention those inconsistencies and mention the possibility that the eighteen years in 106 AC are wrong and/or mention that the calculation is based on Ran's speculation there.

On 11/1/2020 at 5:01 PM, The Grey Wolf said:

Silver Denys claimed to be Maegor I's grandson, not his son.

That is a FaB change which should be mentioned in the wiki as a retcon.

Quote

Also, if Maegor I died in 48 AC its impossible for the red-haired guy claiming to be his son by rape to be a "strapping man-at-arms" since the latest date would make him 53 years old.

That is possible - if said strapping man-at-arms was a fake, as the people believed he was, then one reason why they dismissed his claim might be the fact that he wasn't looking the 53+ years he would have to be Maegor's son.

But then - the whole episodes about Saera's three sons also stretches credibility. She only fled to Lys in 85 AC, and spent a couple of years there before she moved on to Volantis - meaning the triarch's son who came to Harrenhal cannot have been older than, say, ten years or so (unless we assume this child was fathered in Lys while the triarch was visiting). He would definitely not have been a man grown, and neither would the other sons. Which makes this entire thing stupid. Who brought those children to Westeros? Who accompanied them? Who spoke on their behalf? Who tried to push their claims if their mother refused to accompany them?

Would have worked much better if Saera had pulled her stunt in 80 AC at the age of thirteen to run away to Lys in 81 AC.

Edited by Lord Varys
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the wiki linked the Saera affair to the Tour de Nesle affair - which one can do, I guess, although I think it shares more similarities with the fall of Augustus' daughter Julia (just as Viserra's attempt to seduce Baelon also brings to mind the machinations of Livilla from I, Claudius) - but the real striking parallel with the Tour de Nesle thing is the scandal involving Margaery Tyrell and her cousins. The only thing George changed there is the number of noblewomen accused of adultery - we have three daughters-in-law of Philip the Fair and four Tyrell women in Westeros.

If one wants to lists the Tour de Nesle thing as a striking real world parallel/inspiration it definitely should be mentioned in Margaery's, Alla's, Megga's, and Elinor's wiki articles. But one can, of course, also keep the thing mentioned in the Saera entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

That may be the case, but is not what's implied in the actual book. There the context of the fifteen-year-old daughter is the arrival of the new Hand and his family which took place in 101 AC. If the text is supposed to imply that Alicent only started to take care of Jaehaerys I in 103 AC then this should have been in the text ... or we should at least have the text only to give Alicent's age when her role as nurse is first mentioned.

As his new Hand, he called upon Ser Otto Hightower, younger brother to Lord Hightower of Oldtown. Ser Otto brought his wife and children to court with him, and served King Jaehaerys faithfully for the years remaining to him. As the Old King's strength and wits began to fail, he was oft confined to his bed. Ser Otto's precocious fifteen-year-old daughter, Alicent, became his constant companion, fetching His Grace his meals, reading to him, helping him to bathe and dress himself. The Old King sometimes mistook her for one of his daughters, calling her by their names; near the end, he grew certain she was his daughter Saera, returned to him from beyond the narrow sea.

Actually, the text only specifies that Alicent, at the age of fifteen, became Jaehaerys's companion as his strength and wits began to fail him. The text does not specify that this happened in 101 AC, when Otto arrived in KL with his family.

 

On 11/1/2020 at 10:13 AM, The Wondering Wolf said:

I discussed this with Elio once and 88 AC seems to be the correct date. He suggested that Alicent only started to take care of Jaehaerys in 103 AC.

Do you have the link for where this was said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

As his new Hand, he called upon Ser Otto Hightower, younger brother to Lord Hightower of Oldtown. Ser Otto brought his wife and children to court with him, and served King Jaehaerys faithfully for the years remaining to him. As the Old King's strength and wits began to fail, he was oft confined to his bed. Ser Otto's precocious fifteen-year-old daughter, Alicent, became his constant companion, fetching His Grace his meals, reading to him, helping him to bathe and dress himself. The Old King sometimes mistook her for one of his daughters, calling her by their names; near the end, he grew certain she was his daughter Saera, returned to him from beyond the narrow sea.

Actually, the text only specifies that Alicent, at the age of fifteen, became Jaehaerys's companion as his strength and wits began to fail him. The text does not specify that this happened in 101 AC, when Otto arrived in KL with his family.

Yes, I realized that, too, after rereading the passage. But it also doesn't specify when exactly Alicent became the nurse of the king. We only get a year for Jaehaerys' death - 103 AC - not a date for his mental and physical decline. It could have been a long senility from 101-103 AC, or a shorter senility which only took place in 103 AC. Without a precise phrasing/dating in the text this whole thing simply isn't conclusive.

Especially so in light of the fact that TWoIaF has Alicent as a fifteen-year-old girl when she comes to court. There, too, are no details given when she starts to take care of Jaehaerys I:

Quote

In his last years, King Jaehaerys named Ser Otto Hightower as his Hand, and Ser Otto brought his family to King’s Landing with him. Among them was young Alicent—a clever girl of fifteen years, who became Jaehaerys’s companion in his age. She read to him, fetched his meals, and even helped to bathe and dress him. It is said that, at times, the king thought her to be one of his own daughters. Unkinder rumors claimed that she was his lover.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could be late 102 as well I guess -- we don't know when she turned 15 (though George's family tree notes listed her birth year as 88 AC). But yes, as @Rhaenys_Targaryen notes, the text moves from the Hand's arrival in 101 AC to the years (plural) left to him and then we learn about him failing and her becoming his companion.

TWoIaF was based on the exact same passage above, but with compression we obviously made a bad construction. I'll suggest a rewrite along the lines 'young Alicent—a clever girl, who at fifteen became Jaehaerys’s companion in his final year'.

 

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ran said:

Could be late 102 as well I guess -- we don't know when she turned 15 (though George's family tree notes listed her birth year as 88 AC). But yes, as @Rhaenys_Targaryen notes, the text moves from the Hand's arrival in 101 AC to the years (plural) left to him and then we learn about him failing and her becoming his companion.

TWoIaF was based on the exact same passage above, but with compression we obviously made a bad construction. I'll suggest a rewrite along the lines 'young Alicent—a clever girl, who at fifteen became Jaehaerys’s companion in his final year'.

The latter sounds pretty good. And if you have a family tree with birth years that's even better.

I also seem to recall to have read somewhere - no longer sure where or if I remember it correctly - that Rhaenyra was ten years younger than Alicent which - if precisely accurate - would make 87 AC her year of birth. But 88 AC works just as fine.

I imagine Otto and his family weren't all that long at court in 101 AC, considering Baelon had time to die, Corlys and Daemon time to muster troops, Vaegon time to travel to KL, the king time to realize that it wouldn't do for him just to name another heir, and the Realm time to organize the Great Council in that same year.

It also seems as if Jaehaerys I lived through a good part of 103 AC, too, considering the Maidenpool tourney celebrating the ascension of Viserys I to the throne did only take place in 104 AC, one assumes as part of a (small) progress the king made after he took the throne. But Daemon's first stint on the council started in 103 AC, so they would have spent some time in the capital in that year.

But all that doesn't really help with the question when the senility started because we are not given any hints in that direction, unfortunately. I'd assume it wasn't 101 AC with the king being lucid and healthy enough to attend most of the Great Council and being able to denounce fake bastard sons, but as you say it could have started in 102 AC.

Not to mention that with Otto Hightower's ambitious character his daughter may have been placed in the king's immediate household even while Jaehaerys was still comparatively healthy. Having direct access to a lucid king via your daughter - and using her to limit/delay your rivals from gaining quick access to said king - is much more important than caring for a senile/ailing king who has less and less of an impact on his own court and government. When Jaehaerys was confined to his bed or apartments Realm and government were effectively in Otto's hands - as they were when Viserys I was dying.

But, of course, history would remember Alicent's role during the king's last months when she would have become more and more visible as the king's nurse.

Also, now that I'm thinking of that, what Gyldayn tells us about Alicent's last days - her reminiscing about her time with the Old King and this being a more important time in her life than her entire marriage to Viserys I - seems to imply that she spend a lot of quality time with him (months, perhaps years, I'd say) as she still thinks fondly of those days at the end of her life. It also seems to imply that she wasn't only brought in to care for an old demented man who didn't even recognize her most of the time, but for an old man who was lucid for most of the time and her, perhaps, more physical problems as he got closer to death than mental problems.

By the way:

Did you ever ask George about the backstory of the crown of Jaehaerys I? We know that he made the one with the seven different gemstones, but he didn't include the reason why a new crown was made in FaB. We only know that Jaehaerys I was crowned with King Aenys' crown but not why he refused to go with that crown for his reign.

This is a interesting question considering Aenys' crown was a gift of the High Septon and a very conciliatory crown in the sense that it could very effectively be used to symbolize the reconcilation/union between Iron Throne and Faith of the Seven as well as symbolize the Doctrine of Exceptionalism (the figurines of Seven in the crown sort of embodying the special favor the gods showered on the blood of the dragon they created differently from lesser men).

I guess the new crown could have been made to commemorate the unification of the laws if we assume the seven gemstones represent the Seven Kingdoms as one under the new law, or something like that.

And do you know what happened with Alysanne's crown which was similar to Jaehaerys' crown? One imagines that it passed to Aemma and then Alicent since Viserys I also went with the Old King's crown. If that were so, then Helaena would have also been crowned with that crown since we know that Alicent put her own crown on her daughter's head during the coronation of Aegon II. That would mean that Aegon II and his sister-wife went with poignantly different crowns ... which could make sense in light of their personalities.

But I guess I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

I also seem to recall to have read somewhere - no longer sure where or if I remember it correctly - that Rhaenyra was ten years younger than Alicent which - if precisely accurate - would make 87 AC her year of birth. But 88 AC works just as fine.

Alicent was 'half again' Rhaenyra's age, in 117 AC. Perhaps that it what you are thinking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rhaenys_Targaryen said:

Alicent was 'half again' Rhaenyra's age, in 117 AC. Perhaps that it what you are thinking about?

Yes, it was the one about Alicent looking much better than Rhaenyra after her many pregnancies despite the age gap.

And half again sort of works there if Alicent is about ten years older than Rhaenyra, with the former being twenty in 117 AC and Alicent 29-30.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, The Grey Wolf said:

I think we can narrow down when Rhaella (daughter of Aegon) died. When Gyldayn is discussing Rhaena's last years he mentions that she would visit her daughter in Oldtown once a year. Since Rhaena died in 73 AC Rhaella therefore could not have died prior to that point.

If so, I wonder if Rhaella survived all the way to the Great Council of 101 AC (she would have been 59), because Fire & Blood tells us the assembled lords discussed 14 claims but only cites 13 claimants. Maybe Rhaella was the 14th claimant.

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...