• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About RumHam

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,934 profile views
  1. No, because Rhaegar was dead at that point. We don't even know that he totally disinherited Aegon. He could have just named Viserys his heir without disinheriting anyone. Then if Viserys died and Aegon lived Aegon would be king. I'm inclined to think everyone did know about it. It just never came up in the novels because why would it? I've tried to explain how we can't use the lack of a mention of Viserys being the heir before the worldbook as proof that it didn't happen, or that people didn't know it had happened. Martin has said that by the time the novels are done we'll know a lot more about Roberts Rebellion, to the point that a prequel novel would be redundant. There is so much we don't know about those years yet. So obviously we're going to continue learn more things that just haven't been mentioned yet. That doesn't mean they did not happen or were not widely known. That just does not make sense.
  2. This simply isn't true. You're essentially suggesting that Martin cannot introduce any new facts at this point in the story because nobody has mentioned them yet. Again nobody has any reason to think back on Aerys's plans for succession all these years later. The one time someone comes close, with Jaime remembering how Crakehall asked if he should proclaim a new king, Jaime thinks of Viserys first. Never mind the fact that if Martin wanted to ret-con establish facts, he could. We sometimes get new facts that directly contradict things that were previously established (for example "all Egg's sons married for love" in Dance but now it turns out one was gay and never married.) Nobody is arguing that Aerys disinherited Rhaegar. Rhaegar died and then Aerys named Viserys as his heir over Aegon who would have normally come next. There is a reason to believe it was more than a wish, the fact that Yandel states that Viserys was the heir. He doesn't describe him as "Aerys's preferred heir" or anything like that. He states that he was the new heir. The idea that Yandel found a letter where Aerys stated his preference for Viserys over Aegon and then interpreted that to mean that Viserys was the heir is pretty ridiculous.
  3. R+L=J v.162

    I wouldn't say no one talks about it, but it's worth noting Catelyn had never heard the story before Jaime tells her. Most of the people in the room when it happened are dead. I don't know that it's common knowledge.
  4. Oh a king surely does have that power. The Unworthy threatened Daeron with it, Aegon V forced Duncan the Small to abdicate his claim, people suggested that Aerys disinherit Rhaegar. Though it's unclear if Aerys totally disinherited Aegon or merely placed Viserys ahead of him. Again probably a moot point since they're all dead.
  5. A letter could certainly be a historical document, but I doubt a single letter is the source of Yandel's statement about Viserys being the heir. He mentions it in passing with no elaboration, as if it's a known fact. Not something surprising he discovered in some recently unearthed letter. If Aerys wanted Viserys to succeed him instead of Aegon you'd expect him to make his wishes known. Heralds proclaiming it in the streets and ravens flying to all those who remained loyal. All he said was "thank you." How can that be considered true or false? Anyway, I think it would depend. If the letter formally declared Viserys as his heir and had the king's seal on it, I don't see why it would be any different from say Robert's will. (Of course someone could still tear it up.) Also minor point of fact but Aerys wouldn't have written to Rhaella with this information. Viserys was already the "new heir" when Aerys shipped him and Rhaella off to Dragonstone. So she would have already known. Honestly I don't get the reluctance among some people to accept this new piece of information that fits pretty well with what we already knew. It doesn't even have to be a mark against any aspect of the R+L=J theory. You just have to assume that either the Kingsguard were not informed, or they were at the tower following orders rather than because they assumed Jon would be a boy and the new king. None of these things are incompatible with Jon being the legitimate son of Rhaegar and Lyanna.
  6. If there was someone before him who recruited him into the fight against the others I'd lean towards Daemon Targaryen. Assuming he really did survive and lived out the rest of his life with the Green Men. But that's a pretty big if.
  7. Actually when Jaime thinks about who should succeed Aerys he thinks of Viserys before Aegon. Aerys naming Viserys his heir makes perfect sense. He disliked the Dornish and thought had betrayed Rhaegar, why would he leave Ellia's son as his heir? Not to mention Aegon was a baby. Aerys at least knew Viserys and knew he was his son. That it hadn't been explicitly mentioned previously seems like an odd complaint. You could say the same of any fact the first time we read it. Besides not many people in the novels are reflecting back on what was ultimately a moot point fifteen years ago. Also for the record Yandel does not say that Elia killed her children. He includes it in a list of rumors about what happened. It's clear he's being careful not to offend the Lannisters by repeating the most common rumor about Gregor and Lorch having killed them. Yandel has a reason to omit that detail. As far as I can tell he has no conceivable motivation to lie about who Aerys's heir was all those years ago. Not to mention that lying about an established fact like that seems odd. Who would he convince with that one sentence if it had never happened? But mainly, to what end? If you have a theory what would be gained by making that up I'd love to hear it. Ran even said that it wasn't an error and Yandel was basing that bit on historical documents. While I allow there's a slim chance those documents had it wrong somehow (though again, I can't imagine why anyone would have forged them), it should be clear that Yandel didn't just make up the fact that Viserys was Aerys's heir.
  8. Small Questions v. 10105

    I don't see why not. They'd just be Master of the land instead of "Knight of..." Like in the north.
  9. Stranger Things (Netflix) [Spoiler Thread]

    Regarding future seasons, I hope someone at Netflix has the sense to realize "hey these kids are going to grow up soon maybe we should fast track this." Unless they're planning on skipping ahead a few years in the narrative.
  10. The Night Of (HBO)

    This is probably one of those shows that ideally would be binge watched over a weekend instead of watching it as it airs over the course of eight weeks.
  11. The Night Of (HBO)

    I could believe it. It'd just be an extension of the treatment child molesters get. Freddy even says something like killing four men over drugs is one thing but raping and murdering a girl is something else. When he's talking about the second judicial system inside Rikers that has already found Naz guilty. Though I think a lot of it is the high profile nature of the case, and the fact that Naz is who he is. Stone, maybe? Though it wouldn't suprise me if it was just dumb luck. Or the real killer could be caught for another crime and confess or be tied to the murder somehow. There probably should be DNA at the crime scene that is not Naz's or the dead girl's.
  12. I dunno exactly why they don't get along, but Pearlmutter has a reputation for being really cheap and kinda an asshole. Supposedly he recast James Rhodes because Terrance Howard wanted too much money and he thought all black people looked alike anyway. Here's an article about the conflict between them: And yeah Disney approves all the MCU TV shows. I think I read that Fox is trying to make an X-Men show of some kind? Which wouldn't be part of the MCU or have any involvement from Disney. I hope one day they bring the TV and movie stuff together. Disney just finally did it with Star Wars, by bringing a Clone Wars character into Rogue one.
  13. Ike Pearlmutter still runs Marvel, the TV guys answer to him. But Disney made a change a few years back so Feige answers directly to someone at Disney, not Pearlmutter.
  14. Again, the main complaint is that it's a one sided thing. The Netflix shows and Agents of Shield have always reacted to the movies and that's all. A few people behind the scenes have not been shy about admitting this. (for example Whedon's statements that in the films Coulson is dead.) It's also no secret that the heads of the Marvel film and TV divisions do not get along. The best example of the disconnect is probably Civil War and the most recent season of Agents of Shield.
  15. I honestly don't know much about Dr. Strange. Is he really tied to New York City in the comics? It seems to me like most of the movie takes place overseas and then the climax returns to New York to make it personal for the doctor. So far I don't see why it couldn't have been Chicago or any other city. Don't get me wrong it's not something that will detract from my enjoyment of the movies. I just find it odd. It makes the world feel a little smaller than it should. Unless they're sneaking in a Spidey post-credits sequence. Then there'd be a reason.