The Worlds of Katherine Kurtz

The Deryni Series => Other Deryni Books => Codex Derynianus => Topic started by: wombat1138 on June 09, 2010, 12:05:07 am

Title: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: wombat1138 on June 09, 2010, 12:05:07 am
I've seen a website that mostly concentrates on genealogical conflicts among different books and within the Codex itself, but is anyone maintaining a master list?

A few things I've noticed during my series re-read:

1.) When Caitrin is first introduced in TBH, she's described as being 61 years old at the time. The Codex says that after she surrendered, she went into a convent and died some years later-- at age 61.

2.) The novels state several times that Torenth's support of Ariella is largely because her mother was a member of the Torenthi royal family. The Codex lists Ariella's and Imre's mother as a fairly minor-sounding noblewoman-- something like Contessa Pasqualletta di Torenti? (my cats are currently lying down on my Codex so I can't check)-- who *could* be related to the Torenthi royals but certainly doesn't sound like someone in the immediate family of the king.

(I think there were one or two other minor things, but for now they've either slipped my mind or are uncheckably under cats.)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list?
Post by: AnnieUK on June 20, 2010, 03:00:15 pm
Spotted one today.  The second child that Bran and Richenda had, a girl who died aged a year old, is listed under Bran's entry as Ysabeau Rhiannon and under Richenda's as Rhiannon Ysabeau.


 Rhiannon Ysabeau Lady Coris  (Under Richenda Codex pages 216, and the timeline pages 324 and 326)
 Ysabeau Rhiannon Coris (Under Bran Codex  page 48.)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list?
Post by: Alkari on June 20, 2010, 03:17:15 pm
This site lists a large number of Codex inconsistencies or errors -  http://www.mindspring.com/~rebldavis/codex.html. (http://www.mindspring.com/~rebldavis/codex.html.)


The genealogical tables are interesting and very useful, although I have noted that they too give rise to various queries.  For example, I was checking about Richenda's parents: the Codex doesn't have entries specifically for them, but the entry for Sofiana of Andelon refers to her "deceased sister" Michendra.  However, the genealogical table doesn't show a date of Death for Michendra.  Also, the table shows Richenda's father as being human, whereas I was always under the impression from the books that she was pureblood Deryni.

Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list?
Post by: wombat1138 on June 20, 2010, 06:27:25 pm
This site lists a large number of Codex inconsistencies or errors -  http://www.mindspring.com/~rebldavis/codex.html (http://www.mindspring.com/~rebldavis/codex.html.)

I think that list was based on the Codex 1.0 limited-edition hardback, and some of them were fixed for the Codex 2.0 paperback reprint-- the only item I've checked so far is the Oriel marriage dates, whose three entries are now completely consistent but have different page numbers.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list?
Post by: wombat1138 on June 24, 2010, 03:56:06 pm
Another glitch that I don't see on the mindspring list; I may add more eventually, though I won't try to force the "Childe Morgan" books into matching the Codex--

1.) The birthdates of the Hort of Orsal's children don't quite fit Duncan's and Morgan's short visit during Deryni Checkmate in which they see the the Orsal's most recent "lusty bairn", counted off as the seventh child. They don't seem entirely certain of counting off "little Orsals one through six", but there are some other difficulties besides that.

Their visit takes place on 25 March 1121. Princess Aynbeth (mini-Orsal #6) isn't born until 31 Oct. 1121. Her prior siblings, the twins Marcel and Marcelline (mini-Orsals 4&5), were born back in 26 Sept. 1113; at ~7 years old, they're a bit old (and plural) to be called "a lusty bairn".

2.) (will fill in later when the cat is willing to get back off my notes again)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list?
Post by: Alkari on December 20, 2010, 02:39:40 pm
We were checking up the various Corwyn officers and retainers, and there's another one for Lord Hamilton. 

In QFSC, Morgan tells Richenda that his senior men like her and that "Hamilton looks upon you almost as the daughter he never had".   However, when the entry for Hamilton in the Codex says he married in 1075 and had children - three daughters and two sons!   There's no reference to any of them dying young, so a definite inconsistency.  (Given the dates for Hamilton, Richenda was young enough to have been his grand-daughter, not his daughter.)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list?
Post by: AnnieUK on January 06, 2011, 04:01:17 pm
In Codex, it says that the capital of Orsal and Tralia is Orsalis, which is "situate on the coast of Tralia at the mouth of the River Thuria" but on the map at the front Orsalis is definitely on the Ile d'Orsal.


And just an observation, but the old maps show St Neots as about 15 miles from St Torins, close enough I guess for Duncan to consider it worth a punt at finding a TP to get a barely conscious Alaric to Rhemuth.  In the Codex map it is about 60 miles south of Dhassa, which is a heck of a ride.  Codex says that St Neots is on the Corwyn side of the Lendour Mountains, which actually works for both locations.

The maps in Codex have been used in the recent books too, so it's not just a Codex problem, per se.
Title: Codex Corrections. Was: Re: Codex inconsistency list?
Post by: Shiral on January 24, 2011, 10:40:47 pm
Hello Fans,

I've had a communication from Rob Reginald, this evening.  Since there will be a new print and electronic version of the Codex that will cover the people, places and events of the Childe Morgan books after Childe 3 is finished, Rob would appreciate help from the fans in finding inconsistencies in the current Codex editions so he can correct them for the forthcoming one.  Rob can be reached through his website: www.millefleurs.tv  He tries to reply to emails within 24 hours whenever  possible.  But please don't give up if it takes a little longer.

If you've ammassed a list of Codex inconsistencies in need of correcting, this would be a good time to contact Rob concerning them. Obviously page numbers and article topics for each item would make the corrections easier to find for him and help the work go the fastest.

Thanks everyone!

Melissa
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list?
Post by: derynifanatic64 on February 05, 2011, 05:38:39 pm
I look foward to buying both books when they are published.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Alkari on August 10, 2011, 06:03:41 pm
Some of the names for background or supplementary characters probably need 'adjusting'.    Of course it's a monumental task to find suitable names across such a wide world with so many different regions, and Rob Reginald has done a wonderful job, but perhaps we can flag some of the ones we suggest could be 'corrected' in Version 3. 

For example, Duke Ewan McEwan's grand-daughters, the daughters of Graham McEwan.   We know Ewan was a tough and bristly old highland warrior, so having a son named Graham and an eldest grandso n named Angus Fearchair is quite in keeping.  BUT - Codex #2 lists Angus's siblings as including sisters Sigarette, Tiparilla and Nectane!  (The one called Llivia is OK).

Can we please change the first three names!!   Somehow, they just don't quite fit with a tough highland family like this :D  (Not to mention that the world of Gwynedd may not have even discovered tobacco at this stage!)


Marriages and heirs.
Is Saer de Traherne (brother of Meraude) and Earl of Rhendall, married by time of KKB?   KK commented in a recent Chat that he "probably had a family back at home' - in which case the entries for him and a few others need adjusting.  Example: according to Codex, in 1129 Angus McEwan apparently marries a daughter of Sanborne de Traherne, heir presumptive to Rhendall.  If Saer himself is married with a family, then he will have direct heirs.


 
Amazing what you discover as you research people for fics, including people likely to be within certain age groups! 
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: DesertRose on November 23, 2014, 07:14:49 pm
Bumping this because KK specifically asked for help finding discrepancies and inconsistencies in the Codex in today's chat.  :)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: drakensis on November 24, 2014, 01:39:45 am
One that we came across recently in another thread is the succession to the Earldom of Kierney. The timeline indicates it passed to Tairchell McLain (son of Roger and Glorian) and then to his brother Arnall in 1060. The listing for Kierney states it went directly from Glorian to Arnall in 1033.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on November 24, 2014, 03:05:01 am
Here are a few items I found that have an error or could use some clarification.
____
Page 239 Tambert I Fitz-Arthur Quinnell
… the Lady Nerina, a twin to her brother, who intermarried with Sir Andrew McLain, father of Sir Roger McLain.


*    For the sake of clarification, should this read “and by him had a son, Sir Roger McLain.” or is Roger, a son of Sir Andrew’s from a different marriage? Although I personally hope that Roger is the son of Nerina and Andrew.
___

Page 310- timeline 1033, November 11 - Glorian MacInnis Countess of Kierney dies, age LXXIII years, and is succeeded by her son Lord Arnall McLain.

* Glorian is succeeded by her first son Lord Tairchell, not her second son Lord Arnall.

* Verify the age at death. If she was 73 in 1033 then she was born in 960. She married Roger in 990 and therefore was 30 years old. I am curious if there is a reason she did not marry until age thirty. She has two sons by Roger, Tairchell, 990 and Arnall 992, which is correctly stated in the time lines under those years.
_______

Page 175 McLain, House of.  Sir Roger McLain married Lady Glorian MacInnis Heiress of Kierney on the XIth day of March in the year 990, and their son Sir Arnall, inherited the county of Kierney on the XIth day of November in the year 1033. He married lady Adelicia Heiress of Cassan, and their son Lord Andrew, inherited the Duchy of Cassan at birth on the 1st day of December in the year 1034.

* Roger and Glorian oldest son is Lord Tairchell who was Earl of Kierney from 1033 to 1060.  Their younger son, Arnall, was Earl from 1060- 1076.

Page 148. The listing for Earls of Kierney is Incorrect.
Page 175. The listing for Lairds of Leanshire is correct.
__________

Page 309- timeline 1022, February 20- Arnall McLain Hereditary Count of Kierney marries Adelicia Fitz-Arthur Quinnell Heires of Cassan.

Page 311- Timeline 1034, December 1 - Lord Andrew is born to Arnall McLain hereditary count of Kierney and Adelicia Fitz-Arthur Quinnell Heiress of Cassan, and becomes Duke of Cassan at birth.

*This is not an error, however, it would be helpful to state Adelicia's other children who were born after her marriage in 1022 yet before Lord Andrew was born. One of those children would be her second daughter Madonna Lady McLain who was likely born between 1025-1030 and who married Kai Anthony Morgan. I am guessing Madonna was married between the years 1042-1044, due to the fact that Kenneth Morgan (her second child) was born Oct. 7, 1046.
_______
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on November 24, 2014, 03:34:18 am
Here is one most everyone has read

___
Page 22- Alaric...  He intermarried with Richenda... and by her he had children: Briony...Kelric...; the Countess Sophonisba Alyca Richenda...

Page 216 Richenda has the same listing for her children by Alaric.

Page 340 Timeline 1129, April 12: Lady Grania Marie Araxelle is born to Alaric Duke of Corwyn and Richenda Lady of Rheljan.

* Either the names need to be changed, or Grania is a third daughter that needs to be added to their list of children.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on November 27, 2014, 12:49:39 am
Page 154
The list for Earls of Lendour
 
 Festil I (son of King Festil I of Gwynedd)
 * This is confusing and should be changed to Festil II. Even though he is the first Earl of Lendour, he is also Festil Junior( the Lame) and later becomes Festil II King of Gwynedd in his own right.

Festil II (Son, Duke)
 * As stated above this should be changed to Festil III (the greybeard)

 * In the Child Morgan series we learn that Kenneth Kai Morgan is granted the title of Earl of Lendour by rights of his wife. Therefore he needs to be added into the list.

 * Kelric, son of Alaric should also be added to the list.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Alkari on December 03, 2014, 02:55:47 pm
Adding to Laurna's post about Alaric and Richenda's daughters - the timeline seems to indicate that (as at when the Codex was supposedy written in 1130), they had only had two daughters - Briony, and then Sophonisba/Grania.    Did they have twin daughters (Sophonisba and Grania) or is this just confusion about names, or an agreed name change?   (Personally, I like Grania much better than Sophonisba, even if that is a nod to Sofiana!!)

A couple of others I found and have PM'd to DR:-

1.  The name of Richenda's daughter who died.  Entry for Bran Coris (page 48) gives her name as Ysabeau Rhiannon.  However, Richenda's entry (page 216) gives her as Rhiannon Ysabeau, and the ones in the chronology - page 324 for 2 July 1119 and page 326 for 14 December 1120 both have her as 'Lady Rhiannon'.

2. In ch 15 "Quest for St Camber" (page 220 hardback), Alaric tells Richenda that Lord Hamilton looks upon her (i.e. Richenda) as "almost as the daughter he never had".   However, when you look up the entry for Lord Hamilton in the Codex (page 111) it says that he married Dulce Lady Guerche, and they have children - including three daughters, who are named as Lady Valery, Lady Iva and Lady Ermine.   Given the wording in QFSC, need to review the children listed in Hamilton's entry.

3.  Marie de Corwyn (Alyce's younger sister) dies twice in the Codex chronology.  Page 317 - she is shown as dying on 2 September 1088 aged 17 years.  But on the same page she is also shown as dying on 9 November 1089 from the pox, aged 18 years.  However, given what we now know of her death by poison from the Childe Morgan trilogy, both those entries will have to be altered.

Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on December 06, 2014, 05:59:28 pm
The timeline shows Malcolm's marriage to Roisian of Meara taking place on August 9, 1025, with a firstborn child born on March 17 of the following year. Either the child was born prematurely, or Malcolm and Roisian anticipated their wedding vows by two months. But two months earlier, Malcolm was fighting for his life at Killingford, hardly a likely trysting place, even if poor Roisian hadn't considered herself betrothed to Nikola of Torenth at the time! On the other hand, the chances of a seven-month preemie surviving the birth in a medieval culture would seem to be rather small, yet Princess Amalie lived to the age of 17, according to Malcolm's Codex entry. His entry also shows a first-born child born seven months after his marriage to his second wife Queen Cecilia, and that child--Prince Richard Haldane--was healthy and hale enough to become the Iron Duke of his day and later father Araxie. So was King Malcolm carrying on with his future queen already before Roisian died, or at least before her body had time to cool, or did Rob Reginald simply forget to consider the realities of human gestation when figuring his birth dates? This ultra-quick gestation period also seems to be reflected in Jamyl Arilan's entry. In theory, Alix might have borne him 4 children in the 5 years of marriage they had before his death, but it's unlikely. The entry might be easier to comprehend if multiple births occurred or if the youngest was born posthumously to his father's death, but although the Codex mentions such situations in other entries, it makes no such mentions in Jamyl's entry, leading me to conclude that either the dates in these entries need tweaking, or the humans and Deryni of Gwynedd have a seven month gestation period, unlike the people of our world. Now, that's magic! ;)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: revanne on December 07, 2014, 03:48:14 am
Slightly embarrassed to say I have to disagree that it is unlikely that Alix could have had 4 children in 5 years of marriage -especially if she didn't feed the babies herself.-. By the time we made our 5th wedding anniversary I'd had three children and we didn't start trying until 9 months after we were married!
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on December 07, 2014, 09:17:37 am
Yes, but a fourth child in that same span of years requires an extra 9 months of gestation time, and even if Alix had a wet nurse and was able to conceive again right away, more often than not there would usually be at least a month or two between the birth on one child and the conception of the next. I've known women who had one child nine months after the other, but only rarely, and not whole sequences of such births.  I once did the math to see what birth dates would be required if the eldest Arilan was born 9 months after the wedding and the last child was born before Jamyl's death, and I managed to make it work, but just barely. Sextus manages to enter the world in the month or two between his father's final injury and his subsequent death.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on December 07, 2014, 11:10:10 am
As I am certain all you ladies who have become mothers are aware, but for the men it might be best to reiterate, that a gestation for us humans is 40 weeks long. Two weeks to mature an egg and then 38 weeks after conception. That is ten months. Full term pregnancies should never be closer than ten months. This being the middle ages, and the fact that fetal lungs develop at 36 weeks, or nine months, I have to wonder if only a few preemies survived before 36 weeks gestational age. Not without very personal care. Records of premature healthy 7-9 month babies tend to lead me to suspect that someone was not counting their weeks correctly. Perhaps, to hide an ill-timed indiscretion?  :o

(Oh, by the way, dear men, do not chew your lady's head off when the doctor tells you she is 22 weeks along when you know you had that indiscretion 20 weeks ago. That is the way modern medicine counts it down. I have to explain that to every husband or boyfriend when I tell them how many gestational weeks their baby is. It is amazing how many people just don't understand the basic facts.)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on December 07, 2014, 11:39:12 am
Another thing that I just remembered that would contribute to the spacing between children would be the traditional "churching" of the mother 40 days after the birth of a child.  That 40 days would allow for the mother's recovery from childbirth, followed by a church ceremony to give thanks for the healthy delivery of the mother through the ordeal of childbirth.  IIRC, generally speaking sexual relations did not resume until after that period between childbirth and churching, although there were probably many couples who didn't wait the full 40 days before sharing a bed again.  Still, it's a tradition that needs to be factored in when considering likely minimum intervals between the births of one child and the next. Even for those mothers who didn't choose to wait the full 40 days (or who weren't given a choice by their husbands), chances are likely that they at least waited for the post-partum flow of lochia to stop before resuming marital intimacy. So depending on the individual, that would have been anywhere from two to six weeks.  The mother would also remain restricted to bed rest or minimal activity during the early recovery period to help reduce the chances of postpartum hemorrhaging and infection. (Granted, a peasant woman might not always have had this luxury, but a noblewoman's midwife probably would have insisted on it.)  So even if the couple didn't wait a full 40 days to resume normal activities, they probably waited at least a couple of weeks for that initial blood flow to subside. And of course, for a next pregnancy to happen, the body needs to resume ovulating again first.  Women aren't vending machines.  :D
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: DesertRose on December 07, 2014, 11:42:44 am
Well, Sextus could have been born shortly AFTER Jamyl died, as long as Alix was pregnant (for the fourth time in five years, yikes!) before Jamyl's final injury and death.

Plot lines like this make me glad I live in an age where reliable contraception is an option.  I would not have wanted to have baby after baby like that, although I didn't really mean for DD to be my only child.  (Life just didn't work out that I could have another baby when I would have wanted to, and while I'm technically not too old at 38, I'm done.  DD is in college, and I am not doing diapers/nappies again at this stage of the game.)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on December 07, 2014, 12:24:54 pm
Well, Sextus could have been born shortly AFTER Jamyl died, as long as Alix was pregnant (for the fourth time in five years, yikes!) before Jamyl's final injury and death.

The reason I calculated the birth dates to ensure that Jamyl was still alive when his last child was born is that the Codex normally indicates in the entries if a child is a twin or posthumously born, yet none of the Arilan children have any such mention along with their name, so that's why I assume that Javana and Jashana were not meant to be twins, nor was Sextus born after his father's death.  (Unless, of course, KK decides to add such details to Jamyl's entry in Codex 3, which would certainly make the spacing between children a bit easier on Alix!)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: DesertRose on December 07, 2014, 12:30:20 pm
Gotcha.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: drakensis on December 07, 2014, 03:25:53 pm
Plot lines like this make me glad I live in an age where reliable contraception is an option.  I would not have wanted to have baby after baby like that, although I didn't really mean for DD to be my only child.  (Life just didn't work out that I could have another baby when I would have wanted to, and while I'm technically not too old at 38, I'm done.  DD is in college, and I am not doing diapers/nappies again at this stage of the game.)
On your list of blessings count the massively reduced child mortality.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: DesertRose on December 07, 2014, 03:57:02 pm
Plot lines like this make me glad I live in an age where reliable contraception is an option.  I would not have wanted to have baby after baby like that, although I didn't really mean for DD to be my only child.  (Life just didn't work out that I could have another baby when I would have wanted to, and while I'm technically not too old at 38, I'm done.  DD is in college, and I am not doing diapers/nappies again at this stage of the game.)
On your list of blessings count the massively reduced child mortality.

Those two blessings of our current age go hand in hand, but yes, absolutely.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: LauraS on December 21, 2014, 05:59:23 pm
I had a church friend from a few years back who gave birth to four boys - all single births - in just over five years in the 1950s-60s.  She was so happy when her first two grandchildren were girls!

Back on topic, I noticed the following errata in Codex:

In Kelson’s entry the royal children are named Princess Roxelane Louise Sivorn Cecile, Princess Rhuys Jehane Siloe Richelle, and Prince Javan Uthyr Richard Urien.  However, in Araxie’s Codex entry and on the timeline the children are named Princess Araxandra Louise Sivorn Cecile, Princess Rhuys Jehane Silve Richelle, and Prince Javan Uthyr Richard Urien.  There is a discrepancy in the girls’ names.

I also noticed that all three were born in less than one year:  the twin princesses on June 2, 1129 and Prince Javan on May 5, 1130.  Would that make them “Irish Triplets?”   ;)

LauraS - longtime lurker, but seldom poster...

Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Aerlys on December 21, 2014, 07:50:35 pm
Welcome, LauraS.  Thanks for posting and not lurking.

Slightly embarrassed to say I have to disagree that it is unlikely that Alix could have had 4 children in 5 years of marriage -especially if she didn't feed the babies herself.-. By the time we made our 5th wedding anniversary I'd had three children and we didn't start trying until 9 months after we were married!

Without checking the Arilan dates in the Codex, which may need to be fixed, here's my own $0.02 on this subject. For Thanksgiving, we hosted friends and their three children. All three about a year apart, ages two, one, and a newborn. At that rate, they could easily have another next year. I agree that it is extremely rare, but certainly not impossible.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: revanne on December 22, 2014, 08:56:56 am
Come to think of it my paternal grandmother had 4 children in 2 1/2 years  - my aunt was born February 1923, my Dad September 1924 and twins in July 1925. The twins were 2 months premature but healthy enough at birth, one died of whopping cough aged 28 months but my surviving uncle died at 79. The my grandfather went to work in Malaysia for 5 years - I wonder whose idea that was LOL?  - and the remaining three children were born between 1931 and 1936.

The dangers of looking into family trees were highlighted when it also came to light that my grandparents were actually married in September 1923 and not September 1922 as previously assumed! ::)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on December 22, 2014, 11:25:24 am
The little idiosyncrasies that no one wants to tell forward.  ;D
But perhaps some one said it wrong on the census data. Unless you have a marriage license with a date on it, I would go by the first date which they claim, and not what a census record states.
I do so love looking back at my ancestry. We found a few things of interest.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Shiral on December 22, 2014, 06:46:58 pm
I had a church friend from a few years back who gave birth to four boys - all single births - in just over five years in the 1950s-60s.  She was so happy when her first two grandchildren were girls!

Back on topic, I noticed the following errata in Codex:

In Kelson’s entry the royal children are named Princess Roxelane Louise Sivorn Cecile, Princess Rhuys Jehane Siloe Richelle, and Prince Javan Uthyr Richard Urien.  However, in Araxie’s Codex entry and on the timeline the children are named Princess Araxandra Louise Sivorn Cecile, Princess Rhuys Jehane Silve Richelle, and Prince Javan Uthyr Richard Urien.  There is a discrepancy in the girls’ names.

I also noticed that all three were born in less than one year:  the twin princesses on June 2, 1129 and Prince Javan on May 5, 1130.  Would that make them “Irish Triplets?”   ;)

LauraS - longtime lurker, but seldom poster...

Well, Mama and Papa certainly didn't let the grass grow under their feet when it came to their dynastic duties in this case. =o) "The Privy Council isn't satisfied, dear, so back to bed we go..." 

     I assume the twin Princesses would have had wet nurses to allow Araxie to conceive again, so fast.  As to the names, I think there were some instances in Rob Reginald thought up some personal names KK simply didn't care for and she asked for something else. The corrections was made in the timeline, but not in the official entries. So that's why she's Princess Roxelane in one spot, and Princess Araxandra (which I like better, myself) in the timeline. Pretty much the same reason why Alaric and Richenda's second daughter is Sophonisba (good grief, poor baby!) in the official entries for her parents, but is Grania Marie Araxelle according to the timeline.

Melissa
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Elkhound on December 23, 2014, 07:49:13 am
Pretty much the same reason why Alaric and Richenda's second daughter is Sophonisba (good grief, poor baby!) in the official entries for her parents, but is Grania Marie Araxelle according to the timeline.

Melissa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophonisba

Here are two other interesting ladies by that name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofonisba_Anguissola
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophonisba_Breckinridge
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Shiral on December 23, 2014, 02:43:56 pm
Pretty much the same reason why Alaric and Richenda's second daughter is Sophonisba (good grief, poor baby!) in the official entries for her parents, but is Grania Marie Araxelle according to the timeline.

Melissa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophonisba

She's an interesting character.....but I STILL don't like that name!

MH
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on February 06, 2015, 11:01:17 pm
I found an interesting tidbit that needs a story. I do not know if the story already exists in some minute place in the Codex; if it does, please point it out to me. Otherwise, this is something that could be clarified in the Road to Killingford or similar story told in that time frame.

Lady Tiphanelle Haldane is the second living child of King Cluim Haldane and Swynbeth Fitz- Arthur Quinnell. Tiphanelle's oldest brother, Prince Urien is born in 974 and her next brother, Prince Jashan is born in 978. Therefore, I will go on the assumption that Tiphanelle is born between 975 and 977.
When she comes of age, say age 15, she is married to Gosbert MacFaolan the King of Howicce. Gosbert is an older man by this time and he appears to have no children, or at least none have survived. Gosbert became King in 971, before Tiphanelle was born. If he married the Haldane Princess in 990 and their first son, Carlus II was born in, let us say, 991, then when Gosbert dies in 998, Carlus becomes King at age 7. Then Carlus dies in 1016, just after reaching his majority, and his brother Bresal II becomes King of Howicce. If Bresal is one year behind Carlus then he just turned 14 when he became king. Then Bresal dies in 1028 age 26 or so.(Oh my, he survived the onslaught of Killingford! Did Howicce get involved with Meara? or back the Queen mother's family of Haldanes?). In 1028, Bresal's son Furgus can not be older than 11 years of age when he becomes King.

I am not pointing out anything wrong. I am just saying there is story here to be told. Maybe, we should learn more about the Kingdom of Howicce. Does Bresal or his son Furgus have a King's Champion that helps either of them retain their throne in their young years? ( I know, I know, Morgan is a one of a kind. As it should be, but perhaps...)
 
 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on February 07, 2015, 12:11:34 am
I think Howicce might be in a more stable position in that it doesn't have a line of pretenders in a neighboring kingdom constantly trying to find a weakness in every reign change that it can exploit the way that Gwynedd and its Haldane Kings do with the Festils constantly seeking to regain their former foothold. Nor is their dynastic line necessarily Deryni or even human carriers of whatever trait allows them to assume Deryni-like powers as the Haldane Kings do. Without Deryni enemies like the Festils to threaten their ruling dynasty's existence, they wouldn't need arcane protections in order to survive the ordinary hazards that regular human monarchs face.  Howicce and Llannedd are both too far from Torenth for any of the ambitious Deryni there to bother with--they'd either have to go through mortal enemy Gwynedd to get to either kingdom or else do an end run by sea (and given that medieval sailors rarely ventured out of sight of the coastline, they could hardly take a sea route without being spotted by coastal watchers in Gwynedd and intercepted by Gwynedd's navy long before they made it beyond the mouth of the Eirian)--and Howicce seems to be on better terms with Gwynedd and Llannedd, so the most likely source of conflict for them (if there is one) would probably come from the Connait, but even that is sheer speculation.  So not that any kingdom is exactly safe for a boy king, but Howicce's location would put a boy king there in a more secure position from external threats than most, even without the benefit of a Deryni protector.

If Howicce didn't get involved in Killingford at all (after all, as a separate kingdom entirely from Gwynedd, Meara, and Torenth, it really didn't have a dog in that fight), that could easily explain why Bresal survived Killingford unscathed. Hard to die in a battle if you never have a reason to go within hundreds of miles of it....  ;)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on February 07, 2015, 01:14:53 am

Quote
Hard to die in a battle if you never have a reason to go within hundreds of miles of it....  ;)
LOL!

Good points made.
Howicce is in a more protected place on the map from Torenth and the MacFaolans are human so the Deryni conflict is minimal there. I am wondering if Howicce is like the Welsh, or more like Spain. The names have a more Spanish influence. This came to my attention in my study of Camber and his descendants. Carlus and Bresal are generation 7 (...Tiphanelle, Swynbeth, Tiphane, Rhysel, Evaine, Camber.) Most sources seem to state that Swynbeth,Queen of Gwynedd was Deryni but that her children by Cluim Haldane were not. Part Deryni are either Deryni or they are not Deryni. It is an "On" gene, not a gene by degree of ability. The degree of ability is a different factor that varies among the Deryni families with the "On" gene. If Tiphanelle Haldane is not Deryni, than none of her descendants will ever be Deryni, unless the "On" gene is introduced by someone else.  I think we all can agree on this theory as fact. Yes?  The Haldane Potential has been claimed to pass only to the direct male descendants. I am good with that too. That is until there were whisperings of a "Double Haldane Potential" when Kelson married Araxie. Are we certain that the Haldane female heirs do not carry some Potential too?  What if some horrible Deryni villain wanted to test his theory and tried  the "Empowering Ritual" on Young King Carlus right after he was crowned, and he botched it and killed the young king instead. The theory goes unanswered. Was the ritual wrong or does the male descendants of female Haldanes not carry the Haldane Potential?

Just talking here to stir the pot a little. :o

P.S. Anyone can use that little thought if they can make a good story out of it, including absolutely, KK. There could be an opening to a longer story.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: DesertRose on March 12, 2015, 09:50:38 pm
Found a goof while researching the fic-in-progress about the canonization of Jorian de Courcy (which, if KK doesn't approve may not see the light of day so don't get too excited).

According to both Denis Arilan's personal entry and the entry on Dhassa, Denis did not become Bishop of Dhassa until January 1122.

However, under John Nivard's entry, it states that John was having a crisis of faith in 1121 when he was found by "Denis Arilan Bishop of Dhassa."

I'm guessing this is a typo under John Nivard's entry, since the rest of canon says that Denis wasn't Bishop of Dhassa until 1122.

Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on March 16, 2015, 12:55:30 am
Please help me with this matter concerning Jorian de Courcy.
I have been doing detailed research on the Descendants of Camber and because Jorian is in consideration for higher status, I thought I would look into his parentage. This is what I found.

The Codex Derynianus states on Page 139, in summary:
       Jorian de Courcy Lord, Father, Deryni
       Born December 26, 1083  Died November 11, 1104
       Younger son of Alcime Baron de Courcy and Guinimande Lady Dembrun
       Ordained priest at Arx Fidei seminary on August 1, 1104
       Uncovered as Deryni through merasha tainted wine
       Burned at the stake at Arx Fidei on November 11, 1104

The key to Jorian’s ancestry is in the wording that Jorian’s father was the Baron de Courcy in the year 1104.

Facts we know about the Baron de Courcy. First- Lord Michon Etienne Estephe de Courcy was Titular Baron de Courcy and Stanzar when he succeeded his father, Guiscard de Courcy on November 20,1056. Michon died on October 30, 1097 (Codex page 180).  He passed his title to his first son Lord Aurelien, Hereditary Baron de Courcy. From In the King’s Service we know Michon’s oldest son has been married to the oldest daughter of Lord Sief MacAthan and Jessamy ap Lewys. She is Lady Sieffani MacAthan. We know Sieffani was married very young because of the fear of the ap Lewys family traits, and we know Sieffani and Aurelien had many children by the year 1081 when the novel In the King’s Service begins.

Let me show you.

 Sief MacAthan     x     Jessamy Ap Lewys              Michon Etienne    x    Sylphe MacAthan
 Born c.1023                Born: c1041                      Baron de Courcy      (2nd or 3rd cousin
       married: 3/?/1052      at age 11                    5/6/1030 -10/301097         to Sief)
                        |           bedded at 14                                married: 5/1/1055
     ---------------------------------------------                                      |
            |                       |                                      -------------------------------------------------
    Sieffina           3 younger daughters                        |                                    |
    MacAthan               and a son                           Lord Aurelien              two more sons:
    Born: c.1055                                                   Baron de Courcy      Jehoram  and Fenelon,
   married at a young age                                     and Stanzar(1097-)   and three daughters.   
   has many children                                              Born: c1057
                          Sieffina and Aurelien are married: c1069         
                                                   |                                                                                                                                                           
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(My best guess but the dates don’t work well.) 
For Alcime to inherit the title of Baron de Courcy by 1104 he should be Seiffina and Aureline’s son,and Baron Aureline would have had to die before 1104. Alcime would have had to be born around 1069 and then he would need to be married by 1082 at age 13. This works but not too well. 
                           |                                       
             Alcime Baron de Courcy by the year 1104         
             Born : unknown                                     
             Married to Guinimande Lady Dembrun
                             |
    -----------------------------------------------
     |                                                     |
older son Hereditary                Jorian de Courcy, Lord, Father
 Baron de Courcy                      12/26/1083- 11/11/1104
                                                       

Does anyone have an answer or a fix to make this work?
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on March 16, 2015, 07:01:11 am
Well, that's a right mess, isn't it? Does Alcime happen to have his own entry, or is there any mention of him elsewhere other than Jorian's entry?  Or anything else mentioning his intermarriage to Jorian's mother?  My first thought, given the wording, was that maybe Jorian was an illegitimate son of the De Courcy line, but even if so, the dates would need to line up enough to make his parentage work. (And  was illegitimacy a bar to the priesthood? I know in real history it became a bar to knighthood at some point, though I think there were ways around that.) Does the list of De Courcy nations list which one was baron by 1104? Also, check TKD. Someone on the Council (or was it the Queen and her ladies? Or both?) was discussing Jorian's heritage after his death, though I don't recall to what extent.  KK reserves the right to override the non- established portions of Codex if it doesn't work with a story idea, so consider anything in TKD to be more canonical than the Codex.

Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: DesertRose on March 16, 2015, 09:01:50 am
I'm guessing that's a goof in Codex, regarding Alcime de Courcy's dates.  The Deryniverse is complex, canon covers something around a hundred years in two timelines two hundred years apart, and there are a lot of details, and it is possible to screw up canonical details, even when you're the one who dreamed the whole thing up, or you're working closely with the one who dreamed the whole thing up.  :)

Evie, I think illegitimacy was a bar to the priesthood (but not minor clerical orders) as well (don't quote me on that, but I think it was) in real-world history. Of course, there are ways in which KK takes liberties with the respective real-world history (such as, she told me in chat [when I was working on details for the 1366 story] that serfdom was never an institution in Gwynedd, which it most certainly was in the real medieval Europe), so it may not have been a bar to the priesthood in Gwynedd.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Aerlys on March 16, 2015, 12:04:39 pm
I would think that illegitimacy would still be a bar to the priesthood in Gwynedd, because of the moral stigma attached to it. However, it think it may be argued that once the parents married (even if it wasn't the same mother/father), that legitimacy might be granted to child. I am pretty sure there were Church laws regarding this, but I'd have to dig a little deeper.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: DesertRose on March 16, 2015, 12:40:06 pm
There are historical examples of children born on the wrong side of the blanket being legitimized when their parents married, the most famous example I can think of being that of the Beaufort children born to John of Gaunt (son of King Edward III) and his mistress (later third wife) Katherine (de Roet) Swynford.  The four Beauforts that survived to adulthood were declared legitimate when John and Katherine married.  The kids were all young adults by that point, but John had been married to Constanza of Castile when they were born, and then he scandalized all of Europe by marrying Katherine (who had been his mistress and was well below him socially speaking to begin with, being born of minor gentry while he was a son of a king) after a suitable amount of time had passed after Constanza's death.  One of the Beauforts (Henry) became a priest, then a cardinal, and narrowly missed being elected Pope, so I'd say that his origins didn't hold him back in his church career, once the marriage and subsequent legitimization occurred.  :)

Sorry.  Tangent.  :)  Point being that legitimization could occur, even if one was initially born on the wrong side of the blanket.

There actually isn't a Codex entry for the barony held by the de Courcy family, so that's no help, and I think the only mention of Alcime is in Jorian's entry.    Alcime is not mentioned in Michon's entry, only Aurelien and his siblings, nor does Aurelien have an independent entry; he is only mentioned in his father's entry.  I wonder if the name Alcime is a mistake and Jorian is actually a younger son of Aurelien.  That would make the timeline make more sense, I should think.  I don't as yet actually own a copy of TKD, so I can't check the scenes of Jorian's execution and its aftermath right now.  (I'll get a paperback copy when it's published that way.)  Maybe Jorian was a younger son of Sieffani and Aurelien, and Alcime never existed at all.  It would make more sense than a son being married off as young as Alcime would have had to have been in order for Jorian to be a younger son of Alcime.  With Sieffani's birth being around 1055, she would have been only in her late 20s at the time of Jorian's birth in 1083, not anywhere near menopausal (in the usual course of things, anyway) and on the young side to be a grandmother even by medieval standards.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on March 16, 2015, 01:44:43 pm
What had me make the connection was that Jorian's father, Alcime, is the Baron de Courcy in 1104.

Lord Aurelien becames the Baron de Courcy  and the Baron of Stanzor after Michon's death in 1097. I had presumed Aurelien's eldest son would take the title which is what causes Alcime (Aurelien's oldest son) to be married at age 13-14 to make the dates as they stand work. Now this is not unheard of, especially if it was similar to a "shotgun wedding". If Alcime had gotten a noble lady pregnant and that lady's parents found out early on which man fathered her pregnancy, than Guinimande Lady Dembrun  and Alcime could have been married at that age.  Also Guinimande could be older than Alcime. Their first child (not Jorian) would NOT be illegitimate if the marriage was performed fast enough.

The other fix is that Lord Aurelien passed the title of Baron de Courcy to a brother instead of a son and kept the title of Baron of Stanzar separately for him self and his sons.  Alcime could really have been Jehoram or Fenelon, one of Michon's younger sons. This just requires a name change under Michon's listing in the Codex. The dates would then fit fine. However, one of Auriliens's brothers would need to inherit the title Baron de Courcy by 1104. Aurelien has many children in 1081, so I do not see that happening, at least not with out a war killing all Aurliein's sons. There were skirmishes in Meara.

The last fix is that there really are two Barons named de Courcy in 1104,  I don't know if that could happen.

By the way, DR, Michon De Courcy was said to have Grey eyes.  ;D
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: DesertRose on March 16, 2015, 01:58:23 pm
I suppose it's possible for Alcime to have had a shotgun (or sword's-point, LOL) wedding at a young age, and Jorian to have been the second son and Aurelien and Sieffani's grandson, therefore Michon's great-grandson, but I personally think it's more likely that Alcime and Guinimande are Codex errata and Jorian is a younger son of Aurelien (therefore Michon's grandson), especially since Alcime and Guinimande are mentioned only in Jorian's entry.  Given that Aurelian and Sieffani by their dates of birth would have been only in their late 20s at the time of Jorian's birth in 1083, it seems more likely that he is one of their many children.

I'll ask KK next time I'm in chat.  (I probably won't be there next week, family supper, but the following week, I should be.)
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on March 16, 2015, 02:48:03 pm
The last fix is that there really are two Barons named de Courcy in 1104,  I don't know if that could happen.


Having a busy day, but just to briefly weigh in on this, I can easily see this being possible if somewhere up the line a deCourcy had two sons, one of whom earned the family lands (Barony 1) and the younger of whom either ended up with land passed down via his mother or ended up being granted land by the king (or a duke who is his overlord) due to his own merit. In my fanfictional universe, you can see something happening with the Arilan brothers.  Seisyll's eldest son Jamyl will inherit Tre-Arilan someday, but Seisyll's brother Sextus was granted land of his own by King Kelson shortly before Sextus's marriage to Avisa. So Sextus's eldest son will someday inherit that land, but both Sextus's descendants and Seisyll's will share the same surname due to having a common paternal ancestor.

Now, granted, in this case they would become known as the Arilans of Tre-Arilan or the Arilans of...um...someplace starting with "B" that has temporarily slipped my mind.  :D  So perhaps Jorian descends from a separate branch of the De Courcy family, but like many families, both branches have certain "family names" that have gotten passed down both sides.

That all said, it probably is just a Codex error. ;D
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on March 16, 2015, 02:58:50 pm
Quote from The King's Deryni page 438:
"De Courcy, de Courcy," Alaric heard Queen Richeldis murmur to the new queen over supper one night, while he was serving at the royal table. "I know that name. My late husband had a de Courcy on his great council for many years."
"Was he Deryni?" Queen Jehana asked, with an uneasy glance at Alaric.
"Oh, I don't think so," Richeldis replied. "But I believe there were de Courcys who served the Crown a century ago. I supposed there might have been Deryni blood there, though I've never heard about it. There was certainly never anything overt. And those de Courcys were always loyal  to the Haldanes. Still I doubt there is any connection with this unfortunate young man."


This reminds me very clearly that who ever is stated as Jorian's parents on his papers to enter the Seminary would automatically be condemned for being Deryni. Since there is no mention of further family being excommunicated or even executed, then I am left to wonder if the names Alcime and Guinimande are either middle names(to hide who they are without lying) or fictitious names to hide behind.  Any ideas?
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on March 16, 2015, 03:40:12 pm
It was not illegal to simply be born Deryni, even at the harshest periods, but being a known Deryni made one very vulnerable to being accused falsely of things that could get you executed.  (Or just burned at the stake for being Deryni in a country village, perhaps, but the Church tried to at least apply some veneer of legality, and the Haldane Kings--being more Deryni sympathetic, didn't execute for simply being Deryni.)  The reason Jorian was excommunicated and executed was because he had committed the "sin" of daring to be ordained as a priest, which was considered both a crime against the Statutes of Ramos (i.e. treason) and considered a major sin (defiling a sacrament) deserving of those fates by the Church powers-that-be at the time.

Sure, since it was dangerous to be a known Deryni, most people tried to keep that secret.  But unless it was widely known that the Church was in the habit of screening Deryni ordinands via merasha in their wine (and I suspect that was a closely kept secret; even Loris doesn't seem to have known what merasha was in DC and needed this explained to him by Fr. Gorony), Jorian's parents wouldn't have necessarily known that it would be safer to hide their identities just because their son wanted to enter seminary.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on March 16, 2015, 03:57:01 pm
Quote from The King's Deryni page 438:
"Was he Deryni?" Queen Jehana asked, with an uneasy glance at Alaric.
"Oh, I don't think so," Richeldis replied. "But I believe there were de Courcys who served the Crown a century ago. [/i]

What strikes me as odd about this conversation (and might be a Codex inconsistency of its own) is that didn't Michon de Courcy serve the Crown as recently as Richeldis' husband's reign?  And that certainly wasn't 'a century ago'!
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on March 16, 2015, 04:18:42 pm
Quote
Quote from The King's Deryni page 438:
"De Courcy, de Courcy," Alaric heard Queen Richeldis murmur to the new queen over supper one night, while he was serving at the royal table. "I know that name. My late husband had a de Courcy on his great council for many years."

Richeldis mentions this first referring to Michon.

Quote
"Oh, I don't think so," Richeldis replied. "But I believe there were de Courcys who served the Crown a century ago. I supposed there might have been Deryni blood there, though I've never heard about it. Three was certainly never anything overt. And those de Courcys were always loyal  to the Haldanes. Still I doubt there is any Connection with this unfortunate young man."

I think here she is talking about other de Courcys that have been known to serve the Haldanes of Gwynedd for all their 200 year rein. Obviously without much attention given to the de Courcy loyalty.   I am supposing that this may refer to Jorian being from those de Courcy's of long ago and not from Michon.   I just don't have proof either way.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on March 16, 2015, 04:52:45 pm
Yes.  Complicating the question is the fact that Richeldis married into the Haldane line, so she could be correct in thinking the de Courcys from a century before were from a different line, but she might be mistaken (because she doesn't know Michon's family is Deryni) and assuming that they are two different families. Being from Llannedd originally, she might not be as knowledgeable about Gwyneddan bloodlines as a noblewoman born and raised there would be.  Then again, she has lived in Gwynedd since she was around 15, so who knows?
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: drakensis on March 16, 2015, 05:11:01 pm
Of course, there are ways in which KK takes liberties with the respective real-world history (such as, she told me in chat [when I was working on details for the 1366 story] that serfdom was never an institution in Gwynedd, which it most certainly was in the real medieval Europe), so it may not have been a bar to the priesthood in Gwynedd.
That's actually quite consistent with the stated history. Serfdom in medieval Europe could be traced back to the 3rd century Roman Empire, an era with no close equivalent in the history of the Eleven Kingdoms (the Byzantiun Empire wasn't Roman).

Sorry, inner history nerd getting out.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on March 16, 2015, 05:14:08 pm
The Codex talks about ancient Rum (with a circumflex over the 'u') and Ruman roads, so that would seem to have been the Roman Empire analogue in the Eleven Kingdoms universe.  At least one of the roads leading into Rhemuth was supposed to be of Ruman origin.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: drakensis on March 18, 2015, 03:59:49 am
Rum appears to have remained a republic and never made the transition to an empire. The city's capital of Etruskia and appears on the map on the very last page of my copy of the Codex,
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on June 11, 2015, 03:35:56 am
I found a small inconsistency in my reading of Childe Morgan
page 77 the year would be summer of 1094 Duncan is two years old- Vera shrugged "There is always hope... Did I tell you that Jared is having the most beautiful little chapel built in the garden at Culdi, as a memorial to our dear Alicia?"
"What a wonderful thing to do," Alyce murmured, sorrowing anew over the child Vera had lost earlier in the year.


The Codex needs the names of Vera's daughters either changed or reversed. Page 256 under Vera Laurela McLain, her second child is listed as  the Lady Isabet Anna, born sitll, and her third child is the Lady Alicia Jesma Isaet, dead at age III of the Rosecola.
Therefore, Alicia should be listed as her second child. Does anyone recall if the Kings Deryni tells us about Vera's third child and if so, does anyone know the correct name for the daughter who died at age 3?


Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Elkhound on June 11, 2015, 09:51:53 am
When Christopher Tolkein was editing his father's unpublished writings and couldn't decide which of two (or more) versions of some story was the old man's final take, would say something like, "Of this matter two [or however many] things are said, and which is true was known only to the wise who are now gone. " Then present the various versions.

Perhaps some of the Codex inconsistencies may be put down this way?  The result of contradictory sources which the editor could neither reconcile nor determine which was true.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list. (Dates)
Post by: Maven on June 29, 2015, 02:34:27 am
There's a factor that isn't being considered. When did the year begin? We are so used to January 1 being the start of a new year that we have forgotten it hasn't always been so.

At various times and places, the year officially began on March 25 (no, Tolkien did not pull that out of his hat). Southern Europe started this earlier (c. 9th century) and changed it earlier (1582, calendar reforms of Gregory XIII). England adopted the March 25 beginning c. the 12th century, and they and the Colonies kept it up until 1752. (Russia waited until 1918, and the Old Believers still haven't made the transition.)

So, what system is the Codex using, or is it an inconsistent compilation by "divers hands", some of whom used one system and some of whom used another?

This could possibly explain some of those "seven-month" babies, if they were born between, say, January and late March.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list. (Dates)
Post by: Evie on June 29, 2015, 11:04:28 am
There's a factor that isn't being considered. When did the year begin? We are so used to January 1 being the start of a new year that we have forgotten it hasn't always been so.

At various times and places, the year officially began on March 25 (no, Tolkien did not pull that out of his hat). Southern Europe started this earlier (c. 9th century) and changed it earlier (1582, calendar reforms of Gregory XIII). England adopted the March 25 beginning c. the 12th century, and they and the Colonies kept it up until 1752. (Russia waited until 1918, and the Old Believers still haven't made the transition.)

So, what system is the Codex using, or is it an inconsistent compilation by "divers hands", some of whom used one system and some of whom used another?

This could possibly explain some of those "seven-month" babies, if they were born between, say, January and late March.

New Year reckonings were complicated by March 25 being the start of the new year for agricultural purposes and on Michaelmas (Sept. 27, I think?) for tax purposes (like businesses often have a new fiscal year that begins on a date other than 1 January), and IIRC our first of January date was also observed in certain situations, although you're right, if you asked the average medieval person when the new year began, they'd have said on Lady's Day. Of course, since the world of the Deryni isn't our own world (the land masses don't align with ours no matter how much you cross your eyes while looking at those maps!), but at the closest an alternate universe version of it (enough of the names and historical events there are similar enough that one could think of it as the sort of alternate dimension Earth that one might find in Sliders, if you remember that old TV show), they could have had a January 1 new year date all along. The Deryniverse is primarily fantasy that is heavily colored with historical elements, not primarily historical but heavily colored with fantastical elements, so KK isn't bound to perfectly replicate our own history in it.

I'm not sure that the "seven-months" babies problem would be solved by any calendar reckoning, though, since the problem isn't with a year to year count, but with a large number of babies in Codex being born within seven months of the listed wedding date. If a wedding happens on January 1, forty weeks of human gestation from that date would not fall in August no matter when the new year officially begins. It could perhaps be explained by some couples having conceived children during their betrothal period and only having the formal wedding once the bride had proved fertile, but even that would mean Malcolm sired Prince Richard on his future Queen Sile before his first wife Roisian was even dead, so either Malcolm was a thoroughgoing cad or else Rob Reginald didn't think the gestation times through properly.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list. (Dates)
Post by: Laurna on June 29, 2015, 12:08:11 pm

I'm not sure that the "seven-months" babies problem would be solved by any calendar reckoning, though, since the problem isn't with a year to year count, but with a large number of babies in Codex being born within seven months of the listed wedding date. If a wedding happens on January 1, forty weeks of human gestation from that date would not fall in August no matter when the new year officially begins. It could perhaps be explained by some couples having conceived children during their betrothal period and only having the formal wedding once the bride had proved fertile, but even that would mean Malcolm sired Prince Richard on his future Queen Sile before his first wife Roisian was even dead, so either Malcolm was a thoroughgoing cad or else Rob Reginald didn't think the gestation times through properly.

LOL! Evie, yes I am sure "Malcolm was a Thoroghgoing cad". But to be fair, at least is first wife Roisian was lain to rest before he set more than his eyes upon Sile.
Roisian passed on January 3, 1055.  Malcolm wed Sile on May 13, 1055.  And a strong lad, Prince Richard was born on December 31, 1055. I would say there was a little premarital playing going on there, but at least he was a widower. Remember Roisian had removed herself from court some years earlier.  At least he did not marry his long time Mistress Glovina, whom I assume he had children with after Roisian left the capital, but was still very much alive.  So yes Malcolm was a "Thoroghgoing Cad". I am just glad prince Donal loved his younger half-brother Prince Richard.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Elkhound on June 29, 2015, 12:21:12 pm
"Malcomb the Cad"---sounds like an interesting addition to the list, along with Imre the Butcher, Cinhil the Restorer, Javan the Lame, etc.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list. (Dates)
Post by: Evie on June 29, 2015, 12:34:33 pm

LOL! Evie, yes I am sure "Malcolm was a Thoroghgoing cad". But to be fair, at least is first wife Roisian was lain to rest before he set more than his eyes upon Sile.
Roisian passed on January 3, 1055.  Malcolm wed Sile on May 13, 1055. 

OK, that's a bit more reasonable. For some reason I remembered Malcolm remarrying immediately after hearing of Roisian's death (which actually made me wonder if she had a natural death or if he simply got tired of waiting and decided to replace her). I wonder if there is a date discrepancy somewhere else in the Codex or if I just remembered those dates wrong?  Do the dates in their entries line up with the dates in the timeline near the back of the book, because sometimes that's where that sort of thing creeps in.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on June 29, 2015, 01:56:45 pm
ah-ha! Another dependency is found.

The time line states Roisian Queen of Gywenedd dieing on March 30, 1055 (page 312).
The entry under Malcolm Haldane (page 168), also says she died on March 30, 1055.
Whereas, the entry under Roisain Quinnell Haldane (Page 219), states she died on the  IIIrd day of January in the year 1055.

When I did the charts, I was going directly to each person's entry when ever possible to get my facts. I hope this gets corrected to the January date for all three entries, otherwise it does look suspicious that Prince Richard was conceived the week after Queen Roisian passed away. (I checked the weeks). When the news of the Queen passing was announced, how many fathers then suddenly paraded their eligible daughters before the Widower King?  And how did the Earl of Sheele's pretty daughter catch the kings eye? Malcolm married Sile about the week she would have known for certain that she was with child. Not a mere coincidence, I am sure.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on July 10, 2015, 03:33:30 am
Under Donal Blaine Haldane, Codex page 82- Donal's youngest son is given the name Prince Joachim Roy Walter Cinhil Haldane.
In the Childe Morgan trilogy the prince's name is Jathan and he died a the end of October in the year 1095. His death should be added to the time line as well, since it leads to King Donal's illness and death on Nov 14, 1095.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: lenni on August 11, 2015, 11:47:40 pm
I've got a couple of differences in the Vastouni line. Here's the first one.

Prince Atun/Antun Vastouni (grandfather of Sofiana) has two different names - Atun vs. Antun:
ITKS - Prince Atun (sources - 2nd page of chapter 5; Appendix I/Index of Characters ATUN, PRINCE)
Codex2 - Prince Antun (sources - Andelon, list of Counts and Princes; Mikhail Maks Vastouni, Sovereign Prince of Andelon.)

Lenni
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: lenni on August 11, 2015, 11:55:55 pm
Here is the second problem in the Vastouni line. Both of these deal with Prince Mikhail Vastouni (father of Sofiana).

When did his father (Atun/Antun) die?
ITKS - fall 1081: "...Fate had dealt the redoubtable Mikhail of Andelon a double blow in the past twelvemonth, making him Sovereign Prince the previous autumn, through the death of his father and Khoren's brother, Prince Atun, ..." - from 2nd page or so of Chapter 5

Codex2 - May 1081: "The Prince Mikhail succeeded his father on the Vth day of May in the year 1081." - from entry, Mikhail Maks Vastouni, Sovereign Prince of Andelon


-------


When did Prince Mikhail marry Alinor Cardiel:
ITKS - Sief MacAthan dies then Prince Mikhail marries Alinor Cardiel then (immediately!) Prince Khoren is asked to join the Camberian Councial then Prince Khoren joins the Camberian Council:
Summer-ish 1082/Day or so after (I think) Sief MacAthan died (Chapter 5)- "... and that morning had seen his young nephew, his brother's heir [Lenni - although his brother Atun/Antun had been dead from 6 to 12 months!], happily remarried."
(Chapter 6) - "In fact, several weeks passed before that task [Lenni - swearing Prince Khoren into the Camberian Council] could be accomplished, though this changed nothing regarding access to Jessamy's infant son. Prince Khoren Vastouni was duly pledged to the Camberian Council at midsummer: ..."

Codex2 - ", ... he intermarried secondly with Alinor Lady Cardiel sister of Father Thomas Lord Cardiel later Archbishop of Rhemuth on the 1st day of October in the year 1082, ..."

Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: lenni on August 12, 2015, 12:03:40 am
A third problem with the Vastouni line. This deals with Prince Khoren.

Is Prince Khoren Vastouni the brother of Prince Mikhail or the uncle of Prince Mikhail or both (two different men)?
ITKS - *ATUN, PRINCE - late Prince of Andelon, father of Mikhail and Khoren
ITKS - MIKHAIL VASTOUNI, PRINCE - sovereign Prince of Andelon and nephew of Prince Khoren.

To the best of my knowledge, Prince Khoren is not mentioned in either Codex.

Lenni
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Elkhound on August 12, 2015, 05:28:56 pm
"Of this matter two things are said, the truth of which was known only to the Wise who are gone."--appears with variants in HOME.   In dealing with such a wide range of years and subjects, one can expect some contradictions based on conflicting sources (on the one hand) and (on the others, especially from the days before printing) scribal errors.  The exact spelling of someone's name or if someone died at the beginning or the end of a month is precisely the sort of contradiction one might expect to find; in short, 'it isn't a bug, it's a feature."
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on June 22, 2017, 01:45:50 pm
I do not know if this is mentioned yet.

Ratharkin- A new heading needs to be made for the newly granted Duchy of Ratharkin and its first duke, Rory Haldane in the year 1128
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on October 15, 2017, 10:13:32 pm
Found a new inconsistency. It might just be a date Typo, hard to tell.

Codex page 128- James "Jamie" Drummond (III) was born on 8 May 876. He was named after his elder brother who had passed away at the age of Eight on 21 August 875. This is OK.
Codex timeline page 275 May 8 875 - "Lord James born to Henry Lord Drummond". The Date has to be wrong because Jamie is born after his elder brother dies not before. This needs to be fixed.

Now, I can see why they changed James's birth year from 875 to 876. However, this causes a problem with the birth of Jamie's sister, Ardis II Drummond who was born 7 August 876. Codex page 34. It is just Not possible for the siblings to be born 3 months apart.  ;) They are either twins born together or are born a year apart.  I think the best fix would be to have Ardis born the year before in 875 in that way she will be 17 years old instead of 16 when she marries, other wise, just make the siblings twins.  And do not forget to correct the timelines on page 275.
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Evie on October 16, 2017, 05:20:13 pm
Good catch!
Title: Re: Codex inconsistency list? Codex #3 "fix" list.
Post by: Laurna on July 09, 2019, 03:23:33 am
Codex page 183 House of Morgan "The arms of the house are: sable, a double tressure or, argent flory.”
This will be Kenneth Morgan's arms and that of his ancestors. The question is if the "argent flory" is correct or if it should be "flory-counter-flory or" which is the Morgan portion of Alaric Morgan's combined shield of his mother and father.
Alaric’s is  “sable, a gryphon segreant vert within a double tressure flory-counter-flory or

I asked KK in chat and she said she suspected that the listing under House of Morgan was a miss- typing, but she would review it.