They need someone NEUTRAL, as Jon would cause too much of a rift and he had to be punished for being a Queenslayer. And since Bran is literally all-seeing in space and time, then he can be a WISE ruler with a vast amount of knowledge, too.
Or are people against the idea because he's disabled in the conventional sense?
He’s barely human at this point. The king should be human.
shareYeah, this was my issue. He's ruling over people he doesn't understand. He's an emotionless weirdo at this point after "dying in that cave" who doesn't want (and will have to deal with subjects and enemies who do want) and mostly lives in the past while as a king he'll need to be mindful of the present and future as well. While we're at it, Dr. Manhattan for President!
Not to hate on the show. It just felt odd to me.
Yeah. When I first watched the episode I didn't have a problem with Bran, but the more I think about it the more wrong it seems. It's just not consistent with his character, who's emotionless and according to him lives more in the past than the present. His whole reason for existing then was to be carry the history of everything.
He's so detached from everything.
I liked what they did with the other characters, Jon living with the wyldings, Sansa becoming queen of the north, etc., but they really made a mistake with the big one, who gets the throne.
He doesn't have an army. Maybe the other Kingdom's send men when King's Landing is in trouble, or maybe they sit back and watch to see if they can get more out of a deal with the new ruler. Dorne has a fresh army that did not take any hits from the final seasons. They have NO reason to care about Bran or trust him. They will most likely invade King's Landing kill Bran and at the very least declare their independence. The other Kingdoms will likely follow suit.
Having Bran on the throne breaks with the entire point of Game of Thrones. Its not enough to be intelligent, its not enough to be powerful, and its not enough to be loved. You need some degree of all 3 to keep the throne. The truth is Cersei shouldn't have been as successful as she was, because it also flew in the face of what we knew about the game.
Bran might have redefined the rules. He's not in the mold of the warrior nobleman yet he has skills and advantages:
- He's powerful because he apparently perceives everything - a distinct advantage.
- He's shown good judgement and insight in picking a contrite and careful Tyrion who is very intelligent, not to mention in the selection of sensible people to sit on the King's Council, ie. Davos, Bronn, Brienne and Gendry.
- I think the people will trust Bran once they see the government bringing peace to the country, so "love" of the ruler is also achievable in this case.
I disagree that Bronn was a good choice. Even if they gave him Highgarden, which I never would have done, he shouldn't be anywhere near the council.
shareYeah, it would seem inconceivable to allow him any power given past interactions. I think he was forgiven his transgressions when they accepted he had been treated shabbily, and he in turn accepted them as friends again. He can work with others and he's worked with them in the past and obviously he has a finely tuned BS meter - they need someone like that in charge of the Coin.
Personally I'd be very inclined to keep my distance from Bronn but I understand his point of view nonetheless.
I would have taken his head. He straight up threatened to murder Tyrion and Jaime.
If Tyrion wanted to honor his word (not necessary, in my view, because it was given with a crossbow aimed at him) he should have given him Highgarden and only Highgarden, not the title of Lord Paramount of the Reach and certainly not Master of Coin.
Sam should have been Lord of Horn Hill and Lord Paramount of the Reach, since those were his father's titles.
I guess Sam preferred to be a maester. And probably, a maester with certain privileges because I doubt they forced him to abondon Gilly & li’ll Sam.
shareUnless there is something there I don't see, Bran doesn't get to redefine the rules. He is all of the things you say he is, but there will be challenges to his authority, because nothing has changed with the people of Westeros.
"Loved ruler" should always be taken with a grain of salt. He will make enemies of the regions at some point. He will have to make difficult decisions between what is right and what is politically prudent. Its easy to say that we should always select what is right, but this approach can spark a rebellion as easily as being a rigid tyrant. Since he doesn't have a standing army, when he is perceived as weak by one of the kingdoms and they march on him, he will rely on all of the other kingdoms to come to his aide. Unless he can actually break with history, we know that some of the kingdoms just won't send help. Others will feel like they are already helping too much, and some will stand with him only while convenient for their own kingdom.
The peace they want is just not attainable this way. The North Army needs to be Bran's army or the capital will fall. It may be a few decades before it happens ( I would actually expect it much sooner this that), but it will happen.
I get the vibe he's very willing to be strategic and consider the practical challenges of the Kingdom. I think metaphorically he's manipulating a Rubic's Cube, lining up the colours that must go together from situations/colours that are confused and adhoc.
For those who lock horns, in many cases maybe it's a matter of clarifying what everyone wants and whether they really want it or can come to a compromise that partially satisfies them. A lot of issues can be built on illusions and obsessions that don't need to be fed in the first place. The encouragement of realistic objectives among the aristocracy and cooperative ventures between them to build trust may be the Bran strategy. One-upmanship and greed have only proven to be destructive as demonstrated by the recent struggles under the Lannister regime. Most aristocrats would see the problem of returning to those conflicts.
As has been said (paraphrasing) - Bran is the memory of their history. A clear recollection of the mistakes of the past informs the behaviour and actions of the present and future.
Good points. He was selected because he was thought to have the best qualities. He's not a warmonger so that is best for the era of peace they want.
share“Why do you think I came all this way?”
Wait... WHAT?!
So Bran/ThreeEyedDork actively wanted to be King of the Universe all this time...
— meaning that his silence for 3 seasons or so regarding all the upcoming events, and the slaughter that could have been avoided, was a cold, heartless, soulless calculation to let all the dumb humans kill themselves off so that he can be the last man standing... er, sitting.
He truly was a worthless character.
Bran might be the king, but he's basically a mystic figurehead. Tyrion's the one actually running things. I thought that was an awesome ending.
shareThe thing is bran was there because he knew what was happening meaning he knew about Dany going mad and said nothing.
This begs the question can bran change anything or does he just have to do what he sees himself do?