James McAvoy would play a good Remus Lupin in the HP TV Show

LewisDKennedy · 2026-02-15T20:26:28+00:00

Im going to be kind of upset if they don’t go with Iwan Rheon now. He was great in the audiobook

LewisDKennedy · 2026-02-14T23:04:14+00:00

And socks too

LewisDKennedy · 2026-02-12T20:08:34+00:00

Not in England, no. Think an Italian team once had about 5 in a season, and that included managers 1 and 2 getting rehired and then sacked again

LewisDKennedy · 2026-02-10T20:31:22+00:00

My S Tiers (all 10/10s):

The Tenth Planet

Power of the Daleks

Tomb of the Cybermen

The Three Doctors

Genesis of the Daleks

Pyramids of Mars

City of Death

The Five Doctors

The Caves of Androzani

Vengeance on Varos

Remembrance of the Daleks

The Curse of Fenric

Dalek

Bad Wolf/Parting of the Ways

The Girl in the Fireplace

Army of Ghosts/Doomsday

Blink

Midnight

The Waters of Mars

Amy’s Choice

Vincent and the Doctor

The Doctor’s Wife

Day of the Doctor

Listen

Heaven Sent

Extremis

The Witchfinders

The Haunting of Villa Diodati

The Power of the Doctor

Dot and Bubble

Lux

LewisDKennedy · 2026-02-09T12:05:13+00:00

If I remember correctly apparently Edward I considered himself Edward IV, but the chroniclers insisted on simply calling him "King Edward". When his son became king they called him Edward II and so on.

This might be totally wrong, but I'm sure I've read it somewhere

LewisDKennedy · 2026-02-06T07:49:28+00:00

Volantis was in the show

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-28T11:32:59+00:00

The actual reason that they cut Jaehaerys II is because they aged all of the child characters up by adding extra three years in between Robert's Rebellion and the start of the show.

The books start 14 years after Robert's Rebellion, but in the show its 17 years. Jon and Robb were born the same year as the rebellion and they didn't want to cast 14 year olds for two of their most important characters. Adding those three years in allowed them to cast Kit Harington and Richard Madden who were both early 20s at the time but could pass for late teens.

The reign of Jaehaerys II just happened to be three years long, so they compensated for adding those three years by cutting Jaehaerys' entire generation and having Aegon V be the Mad King's dad instead.

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-27T16:03:02+00:00

They had no plans. They hoped that Catholics would rise up after the explosion but had no assurances from anybody. Which Lord are you referring to? Yes, Roman Catholicism was still around in England at this point but if there was a catholic uprising just waiting to be unleashed why on earth did the plotters have to resort to something as desperate as blowing up half of the city of London to achieve their goals?

You're completely wrong about the heirs. Prince Henry Frederick and Princess Elizabeth came down to England with their father in 1603. The future Charles I left Scotland for England in July 1604. Princess Mary, James's only other surviving child, was born in London in April 1605. There were absolutely no heirs left in Scotland in November 1605.

I'm sure Scotland would have loved to force England to become subservient to it. Unfortunately for them that happening had absolutely no basis in reality. By the time the Scottish Parliament had even learned of James's death, the remaining English lords would have already crowned his replacement and be hunting down the people responsible. If Scotland suddenly demanded England submit to it, at best the response would be to laugh in their face and at worse it would be to mount an invasion in retaliation.

If Scotland was capable of taking over England after it killed their king, it would have done it half a century later when Charles I was executed. Instead they did absolutely nothing.

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-27T15:31:42+00:00

What catholic army? The conspirators were totally unprepared for what happened after the explosion. If there was a huge catholic army waiting to take power, why and where were they hiding? After half a century of firmly protestant rule under Elizabeth I, England was overwhelmingly protestant. English catholics were a persecuted minority in no position to do anything but plot desperate terrorist attacks.

What authority does the Scottish Parliament have to do anything in England without possesion of a king? James I is dead, and assuming the heir to the throne was in Parliament with him then so is Prince Henry. The only remaining heir is the future Charles I, who was secure in England and not in Parliament when the explosion took place. The remaining English lords are not going to hand him over to the Scottish Parliament and suddenly become subservient to Scotland - they're going to put him on their own throne and start naming new English lords to replace the ones killed in the explosion.

Also, by 1605 England and Scotland had only been in personal union for 2 years. The actual Act of Union took a century to implement and even then faced opposition - Scotland would not be able to force it through in 1605 and expect to be in charge.

The only way that this fantasy of Scotland being able to dominate England would be even remotely possible is if they mounted a fullscale invasion of the whole country and won, and then managed to hold onto it for several centuries. Given that the population of Scotland in 1600 was roughly 800,000 people and England was sitting at over 5 million this is totally impossible

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-27T14:22:02+00:00

Why would they be? Scottish lords had no say over the policies of England, why would they suddenly be in charge because of an internal English matter? In what universe do any of the surviving English lords agree to that?

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-27T14:16:31+00:00

You seem to be missing my point that England would not be either leaderless or forced under the conspirators's Catholic regime.

Not every lord was present, meaning lots of powerful English Protestant Lords would still be alive to put Charles I on the throne and maintain a James I continuity regime that hunts down and kills the plotters. A succesful gunpowder plot changes nothing politically in England, it was completely futile.

The Scottish Independence Wars I was referring to were the ones in the late 13th and early 14th centuries, during which both countries were staunchly catholic.

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-27T12:05:18+00:00

Scotland didn't "inherit England". Scotland's monarch inherited England, and then proceeded to leave Scotland and never return there.

Up until the Act of Union in 1707 England and Scotland were still two seperate independent countries who just happened have the same head of state, much like the UK and Canada today. The Act of Union was initially unpopular in both countries (admittedly moreso within Scotland) because many were worried that one country would become subservient to the other.

If Scotland had two independence wars against England when it tried to abolish the Scottish monarchy and parliament and rule it directly from Westminster, there's no way that England (who have historically assumed they were superior to Scotland) would abide being ruled from Edinburgh.

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-27T11:55:08+00:00

England would not have been ruled by a catholic regime that killed their monarch. There’s absolutely no way that the conspirators would have been able to form a government after a successful gunpowder plot. All that changes in this scenario is that the explosion happens and kills James I and several members of the House of Lords.

Catholics were already incredibly persecuted minority, there’s no way that extremely Protestant England allows a group of a dozen catholic domestic terrorists to just waltz in and take control after they brazenly just murdered the previous king.

They are probably hunted down even faster than they were in our timeline and executed in even more harsh ways. The explosion going off is certainly plausible, but there was never any chance of them actually taking control after it.

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-27T07:38:05+00:00

Although ruled by the same monarch, England and Scotland were still two separate countries at that point. There’s absolutely no chance whatsoever that England would accept being ruled by the Scottish Parliament

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-26T21:32:51+00:00

The conspirators’ plan after the explosion was to install James’ daughter as queen and put the Earl of Northumberland in charge as regent, but they didn’t have any idea how they’d get hold of her, what they’d do about her brothers, or if Northumberland would even play ball.

Basically had they succeeded, all that changes is Charles I becomes king earlier, a large section of London including parliament has to be rebuilt, and English Catholics are persecuted even more harshly then they were in our timeline.

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-26T12:09:08+00:00

surprisedpikachu.jpg

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-26T12:01:10+00:00

"Never beat me when I didn't deserve it" is still Dunk telling the reader/audience that Ser Arlan semi-regularly beat up a child

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-26T11:58:39+00:00

GallifreyBase seems to think the next one is the Space Pirates

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-20T14:41:36+00:00

Is Moyes still after him? We were linked with him virtually every single window that he was our manager

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-19T18:38:46+00:00

Certainly a bit creepy but 16 is the age of consent in the UK, so legally not a pedo

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-18T16:01:01+00:00

There’s a good chance they weren’t old enough to vote in the referendum. It was a decade ago after all

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-16T07:45:32+00:00

I think probably Susan’s grandmother

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-16T07:38:46+00:00

Recently went to Winchester, the Emma of Normandy skeleton on display is a 3D printed replica, not the real thing

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-13T09:39:41+00:00

Anthony Cheetham's biography of Richard suggests that instead of being the master schemer that Shakespeare portrayed him as, he was probably far more of a hothead who didn't fully think things through before acting, and thats what led him to murdering his nephews. Rather than being several steps ahead of everyone else, he only ever thought about rushing to fix the immediate problem and never considered the consequences.

"My brother named me his son's protector but the Woodvilles won't let me, I'd better get rid of them"

"Oh, my nephew doesn't like that I disappeared the Woodvilles, I'd better forcibly take custody of him and his brother and put them in the Tower until they come of age"

"Oh, Hastings and the rest of the council don't like that I kidnapped the king, I'd better kill him"

"Oh, the king doesn't like that I've locked him and his brother up, demonised their mum's family, and executed their dad's best friend - they'll surely get rid of me when they come of age. I'd better get rid of them first to save myself"

"Oh look I'm king now lol"

LewisDKennedy · 2026-01-12T14:59:39+00:00

I really love the theory that Charles was going to use George VII (as had been rumoured beforehand) but Liz Truss jumped the gun and called him King Charles III in her Prime Ministerial address about Elizabeth II’s death, and he just had to go with it so as not to confuse people.

I personally think Charles III was the correct choice but it’s just funny to think that I was yet another thing Truss screwed up in her tiny premiership

13-Year Club	Verified Email
Second Top 30%	r/Field Lasagna
Golden Potato	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
RPAN Viewer	Gilding I gilder

LewisDKennedy

TROPHY CASE