Jump to content

Bernie Mac

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bernie Mac

  1. The last two books have not been published yet, it is far too early to call reading them a waste of time. I personally see Bran becoming King as unrealistic in the setting that GRRM has established in the previous five books and all the accompanying material but I don't know how it happens (or even if it does).
  2. I don't think Isaac is lying, I don' think the producers are lying. I think it may be possible that the Bran becoming King was part of the original outline of the book series, the same outline that had Jaime be king at some point. We really have no idea if that information came from the 2006 meetings between them and GRRM or a much later date or if it set in stone. I don't think its true that they disliked his storyline, they just did not know what to do with it. It is possible that Bran's storyline is much, much bigger in the TWOW, with its own large cast of characters and events separate from the show and the producers did not have the time or budget to properly film it. Unless Bran starts manipulating his way to become King I'm not sure how a random person being named in a Grand Council meeting in the (I'm guessing last or penultimate chapter) of a seven series saga is that important to the series as whole. The way the show framed it anyone at the Council meeting could have been picked and it would have made as much sense as Bran. Bran being picked or not being picked changes nothing from every minute of the show before that moment. The term Endgame is about everything that came before led to this moment, that is not the case of Bran becoming King, it was entirely inconsequential.
  3. Maybe we will be getting that 5 year gap at some point in the next two books. It would certainly explain the delay.
  4. They swore vows to Aerys, the broke those vows and swore vows to Robert. Lords and Houses break vows, that is what the Lords of the Riverlands have done. Who gave vows to Robb that they'd accept a bastard with no Tully blood as their King? In fact which Lords made Robb the King and which of those Lords are still alive and in power by the end of ADWD and which will break their new oath to the Crown? The Darry kid is dead, Edmure is out of power, the Freys are clearly no longer a fan of Robb as King, Lord Vypren and Lord Charlton aided the Freys at the Red Wedding, House Whent no longer exists, House Bracken was one of the first to jump ship and spent 6 months fighting for the Crown. Blackwood, Piper, (1) Vance and Mallister may be the only current Lords who swore Robb as their king. They did and then they renounced them when they made new vows to the Crown. Robb's been dead for a year in the books. Why has no one in the North or the Rivelands called Jon King? Jon may well be King, another Stark may well become King but it won't be because of Robb's will. There was two Houses still resisting. Blackfish at Riverrun, since captured and now flying the Baratheon sigil for Tommen and House Blackwood waiting for Jaime to get victory as they did not want the Blackwoods to claim it. No Lords in the Riverlands are under the Direwolf standard per the events of the Jaime chapters in AFFC and ADWD. Robb was their king for months. And after saving the nobles at Riverrun he abandoned them and did nothing to help them while the Northmen under Roose and the Karstark men raped and plundered from the local populace. The Riverlands were as sick of the Wolves as they were the Lions in the books. https://asearchoficeandfire.com/?q=wolves+lions Robb's reign as King is not something that is going to be remembered fondly in the Riverlands.
  5. Given many of the Lords who agreed to crown Robb as their king are no longer Lords or have since sworn new oaths of fealty it does not make sense that they'd agree to follow Jon and reignite another war in the books. Robb made sense He was half Tully He was betrothed to a Riverlander He saved some of the Lords at Riverrun They needed him to stick around while they were at war with the Lannisters His army was with him Jon does not make sense to become their king. Aegon makes more sense as does Dany but unless Jon is riding a dragon I see no reason the Riverland lords are going to want him as King in the books.
  6. The Riverlands swore fealty to the Crown after Robb's death. Robb's heirs claim on the Riverlands is gone, it died with him at the Red Wedding.
  7. I've gone over a lot why Bran being elected does not make sense but one part I did not bring up is that in the books Bran is 10. He is still going to be a teenager by the time the books are over. The previous Kings in the books will be Joffrey; on being crowned the War of the Five Kings breaks out, Tommen during his reign the Golden Company attack, the Ironborn attack, war reignites in the North He is likely to be replaced by either Aegon or Dany, which in turn means another invasion via Essos While either Tommen, Aegon or Dany are on the Throne or fighting for the Throne the Others attack either the North or even further They are all basically children in the eyes of the Lords and Ladies of Westeros, two of them with mysterious backgrounds. Electing another child after the devastation that has happened to the realm after the last 5plus years of being ruled by children seems bizarre. They'd want stability, not revolution. Obviously from a literary viewpoint Bran being made King to rebuild the Realm is poetic, the saga begins and ends with a Bran the Builder, but its a little on the nose and makes little sense from the perspective of the characters who inhabit the world.
  8. eh? He is crippled and he is impotent and he lives in a time when their society was heavily prejudiced against such disabilities. Thankfully we live in far more enlightened time, but the people in the books don't and there is zero indication that these people are going to turn around at the end of the series and suddenly be okay with being ruled by such a person. I really don't understand what you mean here? This topic is about what the show means for the book. lol I'm now a bigot for stating the a disability of a fictional character? Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.
  9. Depends who is still left alive at the end of the series. Sansa is a better choice, she's healthy, presumably fertile and if she marries another noble from a major House we have a repeat of the end of the War of the Roses were a union between Lancaster and Stark ended the war. Sansa may be the Westerosi Elizabeth of York and Edric Storm (with both a Baratheon and distant Targaryen claim) may be its Henry Tudor. Alternatively Arianne and Aegon may be Westeros' Elizabeth and Henry if they go that route. But with two books to go its impossible to say which nobles will still be alive and which Houses will have clout. By the end of the show the Reach had 'no one left in it' while the North kept on re-spawning their armies. This is not going to happen in the books, there are going to be many Houses at the end, not just the Starks and their closest allies. I have my doubts. The story is not about who wins the Throne. It might be a character who has largely been unimportant, it might be a character who only rises in prominence in the last book or two. The last two seasons of the show were less about development and more about twist. Jon and/or Dany were expected to win the throne. Bran was such an outsider that Brienne suggested it as the show was about shock and Nikolaj Coster-Waldau correctly pointed out it made zero sense. As will many nobles, many better options than Bran, the cripple, impotent Northern child.
  10. Unless GRRM is planning more books detailing the future then that is an impossible call to make. Regardless of who ends up on the Throne we the reader will have no idea how seminal it is. Some might, but GRRM's based these people on our own middle ages. Creating heirs was the single most important part of the job for a ruler, pushing out those heirs as quickly as possible is just a part of their mindset. Fertility is very important. I'm not sure how the events of this series are going to suggest that the Ironborn's elective process is a better scenario. Maybe Euron will be hugely admired by the end of the series and they will want another leader elected but I have my doubts. And if they did suddenly think of this as a feature how would this possibly work in future? Would noble Houses start castrating evert other son to have them be in with a chance to be King? How did that work out for the Ironborn? The children of elected kings still make a claim, often the Kings will be the ones who make make sure their chosen heirs have the support of the majority. Monarchies advanced from the Witenaġemot, elective monarchies are a step back, not a step forward. In the books they are no more respected than the likes of the Arryns, Martells, Hightowers, Lannisters etc. But there are Houses with distant claims to the Throne such as the Martells, Tarths and likely many others. However the idea that the North gets to go independent and the South still appoint an underage, impotent, cripple from House Stark beggars belief. The Faith has a problem with Stannis, who was brought up with the Seven because of his connection with the Red God. Why would they accept Bran? The King worshipping another God is not good for the Faith, it causes their flock to diminish or to be angry with the Faith for supporting such a man of a different Faith. There is a reason that Aegon and his heirs adopted the Faith, even with Dragons, they realized it was easier that way. He has a better education than the majority of the population, he has a lesser education than many of the nobility. The Lords of the Realm are not overly concerned with an education from a Maester, they are concerned with their educations in warfare. Being able to lead men, to inspire it. To the readers of the book a man like Robert is an oaf, but he is far, far closer to the ideal than Bran or Sam. Lords don't want this. Not after the regent wars of Aegon III. It's why Egg was appointed over his nephew and niece. Being easily controlled is bad in this society for the majority because others may use the monarch as their puppet. I can. Its a twist and the show long abandoned character development for shock. If it gets people talking they'd include it. Do you think Bronn inheriting the Reach is also down to GRRM?
  11. The Dothraki are not new to Westeros, we have seen Dothraki sellswords in Westeros from the beginning of the series. You may be overestimating how of little importance a thousand or so Dothraki will have on a population of 40 million. If they remain they are going to be quickly assimilated. That is not enough for a new 'culture'. Brienne is not the first female warrior in Westeros. Queen Alysanne had her own Queensguard who protected her, that Queensguard member fought against one of Manderly's household warriors, a female Wildling. There have been female warriors before Brienne and after Brienne, it seems unlikely that their society is going to leap huge strides in terms of progression where the year 303 (or whichever is the year the series ends) that it will be socially acceptable for women to do so. An elective monarchy is also not new to Westeros. The Ironborn practice it, no one in the South is in awe of this practice, they are not going to look at Euron being elected as the king of the Ironislands and think that's the way to go.
  12. Again, another attack on someone's intelligence. Why not debate my points rather than continually attack? Then copy and paste those replies. Please share such times Well yeah, you do. Simply telling people they are wrong is not going to end many conversations. Sufficiently explaining why I'm wrong will likely do. You did. Read what you just said. "Nothing annoys me more than the guy who's like "well, actually, that's historically inaccurate" I was clearly being flippant, I kind of understood that you were being a little hysterical when you claimed nothing annoys you more than x Can you quote these times because I'm pretty sure I have not. You might be a little sensitive to people disagreeing with you. To be clear, I do not think you are stupid, I think we have a different opinion on a fictional universe and given its not yet finished either of us can be right. But I disagree with your premise and rather converse with me about why I'm wrong you have continually belittled my position and now education.
  13. Yeah, in the same reply you called me ignorant and disingenuous. That is not courtesy, its the internet equivalent of pouting because someone is refusing to accept you are right about something. Here we go again, you are right, everyone else is wrong. There is no logic to it. He can't have children He's no blood claim to the throne He's a child himself and the realm vetoed the last child king because of the realm's history with regents He worships a minority faith, when we know that a King has to been anointed by the High Septon He's been presumed dead for quite a few years He's lived on the run and in a cave for a number of years, forfitting the traditional noble education He's a cripple in a realm where strength is seen as key to leadership. His own Karstark cousins pitied him in the first book and thought him better off dead He has no connections to the vast majority of the Houses in Westeros Him becoming King is illogical. But it is an anathema to the medieval world GRRM is writing about. How so.I've said multiple times we disagree on this. Its not a big deal, different opinions are allowed. You seem to not like the idea. Except its not and you've not bothered to even try to explain why its wrong. That annoys you more than racism? Than sexism? Than genoicide? Wow, that's a pretty brave thing to admit. lol sure. Based on a few posts on a fictional universe you are able to figure out that I have a vapid understanding of history and politics. Pretty good detective work. What star sign am I? What did I have for breakfast today? I don't think mine are superior to yours, I think we have a difference of opinion. Not once have I said or suggested you lack an understanding of certain things because of a few posts on an internet forum. you are clearly taking this conversation too seriously. Yes, I'm the rude person in the back and forth.
  14. Politics is the subtext, political revolution is not. In interviews GRRM has gone to lengths pointing out the flaws in other fantasy writers of not understanding what these societies were like. Change takes decades, maybe longer. The series so far has taken place over three years, there is not likely to be more than 5 years in the last two books. The nobles of Westeros are not going to change their stance on their society in that time. GRRM has already shown just this in Essos with Astapor reverting back to a slave city shortly after Dany has left. Obviously GRRM does not think slavery is acceptable, but he's also not whitewashing the problem by having it solved so quickly. Westeros is not changing its culture and values in the space of the series. No one is forcing you to reply. A cripple who can't have children, a cripple who is still likely to be under 15 by the end of the series, thus in need of a regent and a cripple from a different religion to the vast majority of Westeros is not going to happen. Dude, don't be that guy, making ad hominem attacks because others don't agree with you. We are allowed to disagree, no need to call people ignorant or disingenuous over it.
  15. There are only two books left, if there were more or if GRRM was capable of doing time jumps I'd agree with this premise. The first 5 books timeline is over the course of just under 3 years, its difficult to imagine that the next two will be significantly more than that. I can't see an entire continent changing religion that quickly, not unless the Old Gods manifest themselves and speak directly to the people. The Faith, like the Red God, will be claiming their gods are behind this, the average peasant will listen to their Septon. I really don't get this train of thought. The story is the story, its not about breaking the wheel, its about an apocalyptic once in a millennia invasion. In the books there are plenty of Arryns. I'd imagine there are also other branches of Tully's and Baratheons, those two Houses have had their Houses forfeit. Yes. Bran in the final book being able to conjure up the best form of government via magic is unearned. The realm being fixed because a magical guy is in charge is much sillier than Tolkien not talking about Aragon's tax policies. And the realm has already had a magical guy in a positon of power, the realm was in chaos under Bloodraven with him ignoring the civil wars in the West and the North between the Ionrborn and those regions. All three are better options than a cripple who can sire children. It does matter, it offers a mindset to the society GRRM has been writing about. He's continually pointed out that his world is based on the middle ages and criticized other authors for not representing how the people thought in these times, how simplistic many authors are in fantasy. GRRM; "I was also reading a lot of historical fiction. And the contrast between that and a lot of the fantasy at the time was dramatic because a lot of the fantasy of Tolkien imitators has a quasi-medieval setting, but it’s like the Disneyland Middle Ages. You know, they’ve got tassels and they’ve got lords and stuff like that, but they don’t really seem to grasp what it was like in the Middle Ages. And then you’d read the historical fiction which was much grittier and more realistic and really give you a sense of what it was like to live in castles or to be in a battle with swords and things like that. And I said what I want to do is combine some of the realism of historical fiction with some of the appeal of fantasy, the magic and the wonder that the best fantasy has." The Starks ending up ruling both the South and the North is a Disney ending, the cripple boy becoming King and everyone accepting that is the Disney ending. If Bran's a success then why would it only be Kings who were elected? Why not Overlords, Lords and landed knights?
  16. So GRRM's complaints about Aragon's tax policy looks pretty hypocritical as GRRM is just making his version of Gandalf king. Not that we've seen in either the books or the show. He's happy to have Bronn manage the taxes of the kingdom. But, again, if it is its another case of none government, the magical tax fairy solves the problems of running the realm. No work, no government just magic. One can't have children, one is believed to be able to create heirs. Monarchies are preoccupied with heirs. Medieval realms are deeply concerned with Kings having an heir. It seems very unlikely that GRRM would have his nobility have a collective brainfart and ignore this, especially as his Targaryen history is full of Kings marrying early to secure heirs. The true War of the Roses was not really resolved while Henry VII was king, it was not until his death and the ascension of Henry VIII, the true union of the Lancasters and Yorks, was the realm at peace. I actually have zero idea why Tyrion nominated him. They barely interacted all season, there was little in the show to indicate that Tyrion thought him worthy of ruling the realm. But Tyrion is a fan of broken things, the misfits of the world everyone else despises. Bran certainly qualifies under that umbrella in the backwards world of the middle ages. Tyrion nominating Bran is one thing, the rest of the realm (which is much larger than in the show) following suit is quite another. The only reason the Lords have power is because they have not tried something else. What you are suggesting is Turkey's voting fro Christmas. The idea that their families will not keep power and someone can be elected to it is not a change that is going to happen for decades, maybe centuries in Westeros' society. I know, but I thought I'd share my opinion on it. Tyrion becoming King at the end seems unlikely to me, even with Sansa as a bride but I still see a Tyrion-Sansa Monarchy as a more likely scenario than Bran ending up king based on the 5 books and other accompanying canon material in this series.
  17. Fair enough, no point beating a dead horse over that difference of opinion. I actually do, that is why making Bran seems an illogical choice for the world GRRM has built. Its long been established that the average Westerosi Lord is closer to the Robert/Randyll viewpoint on what is needed for a leader than the Sam/Tyrion viewpoint. The idea that a (not so) Great Council would nominate him kind of goes against much of what he's written. Simply making an impotent cripple King because he's magic makes a mockery of GRRM's thoughts on Aragon's tax policies. That is all Bran has got going for him, his connection to magic. He's being drugged by Littlefinger and badly brought up. Should Littleinfinger be removed in the next book and Royce become guardian he'll grow up fine, not Jaime Lannister fine but a more likely choice than Bran. How many people in the South are going to believe that he's the last hero? How many people in the North? I watched the show, I'm not even sure how he was thought of the last hero there either. His siblings believed him, did anyone else? Not sure your point here. In GRRM's world few care about happy marriages, they are all political and its the basis that the politics of the land is built on. It seems a stretch that the nobles of the land are going to abandon this in the final book. No, but I'd say its more likely than Bran ending up as king.
  18. Arianne has a far better chance than Bran. Healthy, distant royal blood, worships the right religion and a marriage to another prominent noble can secure heirs to truly unite the realm. Davos quite obviously is not, one of the few characters in a worse position than Bran. Edric squirrelled away in Essos mirrors young Henry VII out of the picture in Europe. Why would it matter if its a major character? The series would be over. Dany seems likely to become Queen before the end of the series, it does not matter who is monarch on the last page because the books would be finished. This need for a happy ever after with a goodie as King is hugely popular in fantasy, so I can see why many expect it, but, to me at least, it does not seem the direction GRRM is heading in. And Edric, Robin or anyone who ends up on the Throne can be in the last book of ASOIF. Its not written yet, so you ruling characters out on that basis seems odd. I think he likely will, if its only briefly. Yes. If its a choice between Bran and Edric its obviously going to be Edric. He's healthy, he can have children, he's an Andal and worships the most popular religion, thus support of the Faith and given he's not talking about magic the Citadel as well. Not only does Edric make more sense than Bran but in the show even Gendry made more sense than Bran, Gendry's 'story' of pauper to prince is far more popular and powerful than cripple in a cave. Not really true given in the books the North is far, far more spent than the Vale. Bran not being able to have kids should be the end of the conversation. The most important act of a king is creating heirs, Bran's inability to do this should automatically make him the bottom of the list for potential monarchs. All are superior to the impotent cripple who spent the last few years living in a cave. Glad you've researched the subject. As long as they are 18 I guess you are free to imagine what you want.
  19. Then there is not going to be a Throne. Population loss on that scale will mean there will likely not even by seven kingdoms, but a bunch of much smaller competing kingdoms with hundreds of warlords. No. Not to be rude but I gave quite few options, Jon being the last. But yes, Jon is a better option than Bran. Why does that matter? The current king, Tommen, is an ancillary character, Aegon IV is pretty much an ancillary character to the series. You may be a little hung up on the idea of whoever becomes King has to be a primary character. They don't. Edric not being a POV does not rule him out, that is just a weak argument. If the War of the Roses was a novel Henry VII, the eventual victor, would be an secondary/tertiary character, someone who only comes in the running after many, many others are dealt with. It may well seem like that, does not mean its not going to happen. GRRM seems more likely to do something that makes sense in the world he's created and be anti climatic than go for the unrealistic but satisfying. No offense, but did you not read what I wrote. I was very clear, if he survives childhood he would be a better option than Bran. Ugh, do we really need to talk about minors having sex? Is this really the board for that type of conversation?
  20. Who is more likely than a crippled, impotent child with no blood claim and worships the Old Gods (a minority religion even before the North was given away), believed dead and missing from the world of Westeros politics for the last few years? Pretty much everyone, off the top of my head His own sister. Sansa, if her marriage to Tyrion is annulled, is a young presumable fertile, healthy person. Marrying her to another powerful noble offers an alliance to unite the realm. With her as Queen we presumably don't get the North seceding Edric Storm, an acknowledged bastard of Robert's, he's both an heir of Robert's crown and Dany's Crown via his great, great grandmother. Unlike his show counterpart Gendry, he's a noble on both sides, was raised a noble, follows in Robert and Renly's charisma footsteps and is supported by the Florents of the Reach and the Estermonts of the Stormlands Should Robin Arryn survive childhood he rules the one kingdom relatively unscathed in the last 5 books. Strong army, single, Andal and from one of the most ancient and respected families in Westeros Jon if his birth becomes known, which him riding a Dragon should confirm Except they don't. Sansa is healthy, can presumably marry with another House and create heirs to rule the realm. Sansa, presumably by the time of the last book, will have influence in amongst the Vale nobility and Northern nobility. Bran's been in a cave and outside of the Reeds has no real influence among the nobility of Westeros.
  21. While that is true to a point, it should be noted that the series is almost 2/3rds through and he's introduced a pretty detailed history of the first 150 years of Royal rule in Westeros. He's established a rich history which he can't really ignore. The reason why the last three books have taken him far longer to complete than the first three is precisely because he is trying to perfect it and make it seem logical. I genuinely can't see him abandoning that in the final book. Jaehaerys I was not in a position to appoint a commoner as his Hand or a foreigner as his Master of Coin until he was firmly established as King a decade later. He had to obey certain conventions, appointing men who were trusted by the realm. Both Jahaerys and Daeron II had women in mind for the position of Master of Coin but both had to obey the conventions of the day and hire their husbands to be officially on the Small Council. Westeros in the books is not going to become woke over night. The end of the series is still going to resemble our own middle ages society. See I don't really think what the show did was incomprehensible. The show and the book are two interpretations of the same story, but the show is far less burdened with history, rules and customs as the books are. It just about works for the show as there has always been a looseness with what is and is not possible in their world. its not weighed down with greater nuance of the books.
  22. Don't get me wrong, I liked the last three episodes and have no real problem with the ending (the first two of the season bored me and the third was too dark but the last three were very entertaining). But the show and the books are quite different. The show is not as fleshed out as the books, and what they can get away with in the show will, in my opinion, not translate to the books due to the huge amount of source material and GRRM's pains to establish it as more akin to our own middle aged than a fairytale. Cersei and Bran becoming rulers of Westeros should not be viable options in the book, neither have claims and at the time neither had heirs. Every Lord would be looking over their shoulders now that a precedent had been set that blood no longer mattered. The only way someone like Bronn could get the Reach is through marriage. And Gendry becoming ruler of the Stormlands is also a nonstarter. As a Lannister fanboy I was OK with it, the House was intact, a Lannister basically rules the realm and Cersei and Jaime's ending was quite poetic and given Dany's actions the Lannisters becoming the villains of history seems unlikely. It was actually a great ending for the Lannisters, or as good as they could have expected given that they were the main protagonists of a fantasy series. But in the books I'd be disappointed with the realm being carved up between Starks, Lannisters and their allies. The North and Riverlands are currently in no position to be calling the shots, things obviously will get worse in the next two books. Possibly. However my counter is unless the great battle happens in the South I have my doubts that any of the Lords will believe it. They'll take it as more grumpkins and snarks and convince themselves that the Others were just another Wildling tribe and the people in the North are exaggerating their claims. Not so much win, but they are in no ones shadows, the most important people in their corner of the world and expect lives of importance. Arya Columbus setting out to find the New World is both exciting and sets her up as a potential major player in that world's history. Jon is likely to become the Lord Commander again, ruling his own section of the world. All four Starks are the most important people in their section of the world. Much happier than the alternative. She has regained her humanity, her sense of adventure and stopped being a killing machine. Which is a happy ending and one I think will happen in the books. But they felt the need to sugar coat it with the further adventures on the high seas. The writers wanted all the remaining Starks to be great, so having them all remain at Winterfell means three will be in the shadow of one. So they split them up and made them 'rulers/captains' of their own world. Many shows do this, its setting up potential spin offs. That was before the kingslaying and kinslaying. GRRM has stressed what these mean in Westeros and he's admitted to both. Kinslaying is worse than breaking Guest Rights in the South, should Walder be named as Hand there would be outrage and he denies his crimes. Remember when Davos lands on the Three Sisters and news of Tyrion's deeds has Lord Sunderland(?) talking about how dwarves are a curse and talks of how they should be killed at sea like they were in the good old days. Tyrion was hated and despised before killing his father and nephew, he's never going to be trusted again. A dwarf Hand and a Cripple King is simply not going to work in a world where most Lords are more Randyll/Robert than they are Sam. Who has she taught? Jaime is the only real one we know that has changed his mind on her and she had to save his life and best him in battle to do just that. Most nobles still see her as a joke come AFFC. If she does somehow kill Stannis maybe this might change, if its in battle and there are witnesses, but I don't think Brienne is about to be accepted in the sexist medieval world of Westeros. The Suffragette movement took decades to get incremental change, GRRM is enough of a history buff to know that having Westeros suddenly accept Brienne would be odd. So should she be made a Kingsguard for a normal King it could be tolerated, but the trifecta of Bran, Tyrion and Brienne is a recipe for rebellion. Especially once Bran gives away a third of the realm. Two of the least popular British monarchs, John and Mary, were hated during their own reigns for giving away parts of France. They were born common, one a smuggler the other a sellsword. Littlefinger is a noble and still looked down upon because of his birth. Having one or even two commoners on the Council is not the problem if was in isolation. Just as having a cripple with no claim to the throne as King would be fine if it was in isolation or having a hated kingslaying/kingslaying dwarf as Hand or the very first ever female knight as Lord Commander. All are fine in isolation, maybe even two are passable. But for a new dynasty this is a recipe for disaster.
  23. They accepted Joffrey and Tommen due to them being the acknowledged heirs of Robert Baratheon. Both being healthy, both marrying early, neither thought of as being impotent and both having the backing of much of the kingdom. Both were also anointed by the High Septon, something that seems unlikely to happen with Bran. In the first few books we witness what other characters think of Bran, his father's closest friend and his distant Karstark cousins all pity him and think he would be better off dead. This is the mentality of the world they live in. They are not going to nominate him as King. The Same is true for Bronn and the Reach, unless he is married to Margaery and her father and brothers are all dead there is zero chance the Reach lords accept him as their Lord. I'm not ruling out the books following the show, but that ending was pure pandering, its the type of ending that is wished for on these kind of forums. The Starks ruling both the North and the South can be pulled from any fan fantasy ending to the series. Arya and Jon can't be in their shadow so they both leave and do their own thing. Not only that the realm accepting Tyrion, the kingslayer, kinslayer hated dwarf as the de facto ruler is also not going to wash. Brienne is a worthy knight but the realm would see her appointment as a joke. Having two commoners on the Small Council just exacerbates the problem. Its hard to see GRRM going with the majority of these choices as King and Council.
  24. The Master of Coin has a staff, he'll have other people do it, he'll simply oversee it. I doubt he'll be the first Small Council member who could not read or delegated most of his responsibilities to his underlings.
  • Create New...