Question: Wyrd Sisters - Where's the queen?

[Jon Lemerond]

It’s been a while since I last read it, so this may well have come up before and I simply missed it… Forgive me if I’m raising something that’s already been discussed to death. But where was the queen in Wyrd Sisters?

Wyrd Sisters begins with the assassination of King Verence I and the smuggling away of his infant son. But that raises an obvious question: where is the baby’s mother? If the queen was already dead, it must have been quite recently—after all, the prince (whom the witches accidentally name Tomjon) is still an infant. Yet I can’t recall the queen being mentioned at all until the very end, when Nanny casually reveals that Tomjon is the result of the queen having an affair with the castle fool.

That also leads to another oddity: the prince’s actual name never seems to be given. The witches simply settle on “Tomjon” by accident. Why wouldn’t they know the name of the Prince of Lancre? I can forgive Granny for not knowing—she doesn’t even know who the king is when it comes up— but Magrat knows who the king is, and Nanny Ogg delivered the baby. As the midwife, she ought to know something and perhaps be a bit more forthcoming with the details.

Altogether, it feels like there’s a significant piece of backstory and an important character is missing from this narrative.

 

[Tonyblack]

It's a great question . . . but offhand I don't have an answer. It has also been a long time since I read WS. I'm sure someone here will know.

 

[=Tamar]

That is an excellent question. Wyrd Sisters is an early book, and much as I love Discworld, there are some glitches. I suspect that in-universe the queen died in childbirth and was cared for by a nursemaid. Regarding the name, the witches were planning to hide the baby, so they wouldn't use his real name anyway. It's pretty much a given that he would have been named Verence II.

 

[Jon Lemerond]

Okay... so it's not just me forgetting details, then.
The queen dying in childbirth is kind of the natural direction the brain takes, but when you later learn that Nanny Ogg was the midwife... that surmise sits very badly. It's like Nanny went through that whole story with a rather deep connection to some major exposition, and says nothing. And that would not be a secret; it would be a well-known, recent event that the whole kingdom would likely still be recovering from.

 

[RathDarkblade]

True, but then this is the first novel where both Nanny and Magrat appear. Perhaps Pterry hadn't yet settled on what role Nanny would play, other than being the Mother (i.e. the Healer, the one who mediates in disputes between Granny and Magrat).

With the kingdom in disarray and ruled by enemies of Verence I (who even imprison and threaten to torture Nanny for seemingly not-very-much-other-than-being-a-witch), perhaps Nanny thinks that it's better to keep silent about her role in the queen's pregnancy. When Lord and Lady Felmet are out of the way, it probably seems safe to reveal what she did.

Does that seem reasonable?

 

[Jon Lemerond]

Oh, I'm quite sure that this is a result of it being an early book, and the witches not quite being the characters we know later on.
Thank you... That's some good stuff there. That's the kind of thing I'm looking for... a little light fan-theory, retconning / No-Prize work.

 

[Jon Lemerond]

Another element of Wyrd Sisters that doesn’t quite land for me is the “time warp” spell Granny casts. It’s an enormous, reality-bending piece of magic, yet it carries surprisingly little weight in the story.

First, there are no real magical consequences. In Discworld, magic usually comes with a cost; it’s not something you get to use freely without paying for it in some form. But here, a spell of staggering scale seems to happen without any meaningful price.

Second, it barely affects the plot. The entire kingdom of Lancre is effectively pushed fifteen years into the future so Tomjon can come of age and take the throne… and then he doesn’t become king anyway. That makes the spell feel narratively redundant, despite its magnitude.

Finally, there’s no social fallout. Granny makes a decision that alters the lives of everyone in Lancre, yet no one seriously objects. What about people with loved ones outside the kingdom? They would suddenly find those relatives fifteen years older. Nanny Ogg’s son, Shane, is a sailor - almost certainly away at sea when the spell was cast. From Nanny’s perspective, she’s just lost fifteen years of her son’s life. That’s a massive emotional consequence, but it’s never really addressed.

It almost feels like the spell could be removed entirely, and very little would change. If anything, the story might benefit from it. Granny would come across as less reckless and less thoughtless in hindsight.

It could instead lean more into what Nanny already knows. She was there as the midwife when Tomjon was born, so she’s aware he isn’t truly the king’s son. If the story emphasized that knowledge a bit more, it could naturally lead to a different resolution: Nanny realizing that the Fool (Verence II) is the brother of the hidden prince.

From there, the witches’ choice becomes more deliberate and grounded. Rather than bending time to force Tomjon into kingship (and failing), they consciously decide that Verence II is the ruler Lancre actually needs. That shift would keep the focus on character and judgment instead of relying on a massive, consequence-free spell, and it would make the ending feel more intentional and thematically consistent.

Your thoughts, please?

 

[RathDarkblade]

Sorry, my reply is more than 6,000 characters (which the board doesn't allow for some reason?!) so I have to split it in two.

...the “time warp”

It's just a jump to the left.

First, there are no real magical consequences. In Discworld, magic usually comes with a cost; it’s not something you get to use freely without paying for it in some form. But here, a spell of staggering scale seems to happen without any meaningful price.

True. Once again, this is an early book and the rules have not yet been set. Recall that in the earlier Equal Rites, both Cutangle and Granny cast transformation spells that are equally as impressive without any effort ... or that in the even earlier The Light Fantastic, Trymon (I think?) tries to cast a spell at Galder Weatherwax, which Galder repels with ease and with no cost.

Also, in Mort, Mort challenges DEATH to a fight ... and nearly wins ... and is (almost) unaffected. (Sorry for all the spoilers, but I'm sure everyone here has read these books!)

I think Pterry was finding his feet in the early books, so I'm prepared to cut him some slack, because the early books were fun.

Second, it barely affects the plot. The entire kingdom of Lancre is effectively pushed fifteen years into the future so Tomjon can come of age and take the throne… and then he doesn’t become king anyway. That makes the spell feel narratively redundant, despite its magnitude.

True, but we have to remember that the point of the spell isn't to be narratively useful. It's what Granny wants that matters. Duke Felmet isn't showing her any respect, neither is anyone else, and to top it all off, she's almost been run down by a cart. She's in danger of becoming irrelevant in her own book, and she's not having any of that. ;-P

She couldn't have foreseen that Tomjon would reject the throne. None of the witches could foresee that.

Finally, there’s no social fallout. Granny makes a decision that alters the lives of everyone in Lancre, yet no one seriously objects. What about people with loved ones outside the kingdom? They would suddenly find those relatives fifteen years older. Nanny Ogg’s son, Shane, is a sailor - almost certainly away at sea when the spell was cast. From Nanny’s perspective, she’s just lost fifteen years of her son’s life. That’s a massive emotional consequence, but it’s never really addressed.

Firstly: no-one apart from Granny, Nanny and Magrat know what Granny intends to do -- and Nanny and Magrat don't even know that until it's time to start the spell.

Granny feels that the people of the kingdom have betrayed her. They have always turned to her in times of crisis. Now they've turned on her. From her POV, it's the kingdom that counts, not the people. The longer Felmet stays in charge, the harder it would be to dislodge him. How impregnable would he be if she waited those 15 years? How rotten would Lancre become?

Finally, if she did wait those 15 years, the book would become fat to the point of unreadability. Imagine 15 years being described in print. "And the day after, nothing happened. And the day after that, nothing happened. And the day after that..." etc.

Secondly: Nanny is a follower, not a leader. She follows Granny's lead. She's not as powerful in terms of "big magic" like Granny. She doesn't have the power or will to challenge Felmet. So it falls to Granny to do so.

One last point: it's true that Shane (and Shaun - guard, mailman, and all-round dogsbody) suddenly age 15 years. But IIRC, we didn't even know about Shane, Shaun, and the extensive Ogg clan until after this book. So it's not fair of us to retrospectively ask "What about so-and-so".

If we start that, then what about Granny herself? Or Nanny? Or Magrat? Or The Fool? This impacts them as much as it impacts everyone else.

 

[RathDarkblade]

It almost feels like the spell could be removed entirely, and very little would change. If anything, the story might benefit from it. Granny would come across as less reckless and less thoughtless in hindsight.

I don't think Granny is reckless or thoughtless here. Lancre itself -- the land, the flora, the fauna, and the people -- are in her care. Lancre expects to be cared for. If we think of Lancre as a living, breathing organism, we can understand that it is sick.

As Granny says: "The land needs a ruler that cares for it." But Felmet and his wife care for nothing but their own power. They don't care about the people.

It's all very well to say that Granny's spell harms the people of Lancre. But how much more harm would come from another 15 years of Felmet's rule?

Besides, a lot can happen in 15 years. Felmet and his wife could have their own child by then, raise him/her to be as selfish and malicious as them, and bequeath the kingdom to him/her. What then?

It could instead lean more into what Nanny already knows. She was there as the midwife when Tomjon was born, so she’s aware he isn’t truly the king’s son. If the story emphasized that knowledge a bit more, it could naturally lead to a different resolution: Nanny realizing that the Fool (Verence II) is the brother of the hidden prince.

I think Nanny already realises that, but for reasons of story, she keeps it to herself.

From there, the witches’ choice becomes more deliberate and grounded. Rather than bending time to force Tomjon into kingship (and failing), they consciously decide that Verence II is the ruler Lancre actually needs. That shift would keep the focus on character and judgment instead of relying on a massive, consequence-free spell, and it would make the ending feel more intentional and thematically consistent.

Again, they don't force Tomjon to become king. The witches don't force anyone into anything: they manipulate time to allow Tomjon to grow up quickly, and then offer him the kingdom. Granny never says "Become king, or else we kill you" or similar.

To summarise: yes, the time-manipulation spell is potentially harmful to a lot of people. But how much more harmful would it be to allow Felmet to remain Duke? The people of Lancre would stay oppressed, and worse - the witches themselves would become irrelevant. They would become the cackling, malignant caricatures that Shakespeare creates in Macbeth.

Would that be better for the kingdom? I think not. But YMMV.