Talk:Patrician Question - Revision history

Necropants at 01:32, 12 September 2017

2017-09-12T01:32:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:32, 12 September 2017
Line 15:		Line 15:
	I seem to recall Vetinary was resonsable for legalising the guild's only. this does not appear to create too much of a continuity issue.		I seem to recall Vetinary was resonsable for legalising the guild's only. this does not appear to create too much of a continuity issue.
	--[[User:BOZZ\|BOZZ]] 15:27, 19 November 2010 (CET)		--[[User:BOZZ\|BOZZ]] 15:27, 19 November 2010 (CET)

			The legalized Thieves' Guild is first mentioned in {{ER}}: "A very respectable body which in fact represented the major law enforcement
			agency in the city. The reason for this is as follows: the Guild was given an annual quota which represented a socially acceptable level of thefts, muggings and assassinations, and in return saw to it in very definite and final ways that unofficial crime was not only rapidly stamped out but knifed, garrotted, dismembered and left around the city in an assortment of paper bags as well." So in that regard, Vetinari would seem to have been the Patrician at that point. However, doing the maths based on the ten-year anniversary in {{M}} plus Susan's age (born after {{M}}, clearly an adult by {{TOT}}, which occurs simultaneously with {{NW}}), Vetinari would have had to be in office for about 30 years as of {{NW}} if he were the Patrician in {{M}}. Which is odd, especially since the Revolution took place, and Snapcase took office, thirty years ago, so he seems like a plausible candidate for having been the Patrician whose ten-year anniversary it was. Plus, since Vetinari seems to have been maybe 16-18ish circa the Revolution, it'd be a bit odd for him to have become the Patrician so young. So it was probably Snapcase. But the Thieves' Guild thing is still odd. History Monks? It had always been legal except when it hadn't?--[[User:Necropants\|Necropants]] ([[User talk:Necropants\|talk]]) 01:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Osiris: 1 revision: Talk Namespace

2012-12-26T03:16:43Z

1 revision: Talk Namespace

New page

=== ===
In 1967 a Patrician celebrated his 10th anniversary. Had this been Lord Winder, the Revolution would have been 1968 (his term was eleven years.) That means Samuel Vimes b. 1952, aged 33 in 1985 for the Great Dragon Scare: too young. If Lord Snapcase had the anniversary, the barricades rose in 1957. Now S. Vimes b. 1941, aged 44 in 1985. This fits the description and calls for a jump of 32 years from Sir Sam in 1989 to Sam the recruit in 1957.

In ''Thud!'', in 1990, Fred says it's been "more than thirty years" since the GR. Also from ''Thud!'', Sam is at least 51 in 1990, pushing his birth back to 1939. Perhaps he was older than 16 when he joined the Watch, but this argues against the GR being much later than 1957.

Vetinari and Vimes are about the same age, turning 30 in 1969/70. Orin Thomas places {{S}} in 1973, although this might be argued, at which time Vetinari was the Patrician (although mostly a toad). Vetinari was back in A-M by 1968 and Patrician only a few years later.

This also means that Vetinari as the fat Patrician in {{COM}} would have been 25 years old!

Link to Michael Stocker's [http://www.lspace.org/books/timeline/michael-stocker-timeline.pdf alternative timeline] (in .pdf format) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --[[User:Old Dickens|Old Dickens]] 01:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In COM reference is made to the Thieves Guild. In several books in the Discworld series, it's mentioned that Patrician Vetinari was responsible for establishing (or something) a Thieves Guild to "organize crime." This would make Vetinari Patritian during and before COM. Perhaps the History Monks had something to do with this?

I seem to recall Vetinary was resonsable for legalising the guild's only. this does not appear to create too much of a continuity issue.
--[[User:BOZZ|BOZZ]] 15:27, 19 November 2010 (CET)